Try this, Jonathan: 'I can judge other belief systems using the patterns, morals and truths of my Christian frame. You are asking me to step out of my Christian frame and judge the belief system of Christianity from the outside, but for that to be possible I need a new frame. According to what frame are the precepts and patterns of Christianity incorrect? What ground am I standing on? What lens am I looking through? There's no view from nowhere."
There is no view from nowhere! I like that. Stephen would, and has, argued here that the "where" from which he is judging / viewing is from the lens of evolution. So, based on the point to which we are NOW evolved as well as the mechanisms of evolution, based on those things - which aspects of various religions are "good / bad", "useful / not"... that's his process of evaluation. But at the end, Jonathan then argued that even THAT - the process of evolution - is something that is a product of pre-existing patterns. I am very interested in them having another conversation starting from THIS POINT. Would Stephen agree that evolution itself is a PRODUCT of a higher "pattern"? I really hope they do another discussion.
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." ~ Albert Einstein
@@WickedHole globally speaking it's probably less than 2%. That brand of Christianity is a very small minority. Most Christians in the world are Catholic or Orthodox. Evangelical fundamentalists are an extreme minority and a historical anomaly..
@@noahjohnson2611 Evangelical, yes, but "fundamentalist," not so much. I'm actually from the American South and I'll tell you that there's a difference between being a fundamentalist Christian, and simply being a Christian who doesn't think very deeply or critically about their Christianity. The difference matters; and I'm sure that a far larger percentage of such Christians permeate the Catholic and Orthodox orders as well.
@@noahjohnson2611 Pretty sure, yes. It's why most Christians are not apologists (or even know what Christian apologetics is). The higher-thinking logistics and "metaphorical truths" don't concern most Christians as much as the more basic tenets, punishments and rewards of their faith.
Pageau: "How can you tell that a mercedes and an audi are part of the same category?" Rationality Man: "They're both comprised of atoms." Pretty much says it all.
Most reductionist materialists like this don't actually go as far as their theories go. They believe imprecise and vague versions of their theories, or often, they don't understand completely the deep truths (and paradoxes) of the theories. Hard to make an argument against a physicalist when you might have to define physicalism for them.
What about sexuality more generally? It surely is at the very heart of personal identity in our collective narratives, both in Christian and Jungian sense.
I think Jonathan was trying to get across that sexuality is a behaviour not an issue of identity. For example - I like to eat pasta but I that wouldn’t define me as a person. I have much more depth than that.
@@rebeccabowen8397 I agree that this is how Jonathan portrayed the question. He didn't really want to engage with the fact that homosexuality is a natural product of evolution and yet many religious, Christianity included, punish sexual behavior that is associated with this natural sexual orientation.
But, as Jonathan said, to kill is a natural evolutionary product but Christianity condemns that too. The real question is to ask if their is wisdom in the Christian notion of abstinence? Does keeping the sexual act in marriage protect the human psychae in some way?
@@ocrancienthistory3326 I think there's common ground they could reach once they establish a common metaphysics, they should do a whole talk on Jonathan's pyramid video (or RR should just watch it) and focus more on the materially reductive view of patterns.
Human beings have an intrinsic value ,created as image bearers of God . Their behaviors mostly reflect their rebellion against this fact. Common grace ( common sense ),as an expression of Gods love , long suffering and patience militates against this existential tragedy as long as we remain in the land of the living
You are aware that brain hemispheres are closely interconnected? It's very abnormal for them not to be in constant interaction. That's why we marvel at the abnormal behavior of people who have had their corpus callosum damaged or removed.
Finally finished. I would say this was not fruitful. It could be, but only if Stephen is willing to acknowledge that he doesn't understand Jonathan rather than assume that he actually does. Jonathan seemed quite willing to admit to his failure to understand because when Stephen said something that Jonathan understood to be contradictory or "bad" from his view, his response was to clarify and communicate that he misunderstood something. Stephen however when he heard something contradictory or "bad" assumed that was what Jonathan meant. For example. Jonathan listed several words some of which have negative connotations in Stephen's mind and then included "feminine" in that list. Instead of clarifying to make sure that he misunderstood, he started attacking the position that Jonathan did not hold. Unless he gets past that (or puts in far more effort to avoid it) any further conversations are likely a waste of time.
While I agree that Stephen did let his own presuppositions get in the way of what Jonathan was trying to say, I do believe there is value in seeing such misunderstandings take place and be addressed. For me the conversation was fruitful, although not, perhaps, for all involved parties!
Woodford was indeed getting stuck on the connotations he perceives with dark, chaos, etc. I think he could easily get on the same page with that jargon. But one of many challenges with this type of bubble jumping is that they were talking past each other. Whether or not this or that is good or bad is a tangent to the point I feel that Woodford is driving towards. That said, I think both of them are operating in good faith and trying to understand each other.
christian is supposed to be humble and to assume the best about his interlocutor.. u are taught to bow down and learn from him, take care of ur own sins before presuming to challenge another's..
This is why I can’t stand Stephen. Came across his channel some months ago & just couldn’t bear it since he came across very arrogant & presumptuous, quite possibly blinded by science.
I love seeing all these people breaking out of the rationalistic atheistic prison of the modern world. I was myself a rationalist until I was around 19, and though I called myself a Christian, a rationalist Christian is essentially an atheist. Now I experience true freedom in Christ, at least when I wake up early enough to do my morning prayers.
@@torinmccabe I think you're missing a step here. How do you construct the hypothesis? On what basis do you judge the goodness or badness of the outcome, in reference to what? What is the goal and where do you get it from?
exactly --- if you bring up the problem of linking facts and value, most of the science guy types will be like, "oh yeah, Hume" but they never seem to realize what that actually means
@@torinmccabe You completely miss the point. The very definitions of "good" and "bad" are not ones rooted in science, and so the hypothesis step is already a misstep. Now we could go an entirely different route where we define good as "useful", and that would be a fair direction to take this. But the very ontology of what " good" and "bad" entails are not themselves scientific.
@@torinmccabe If your/our ideas about good and bad are imperfect on what basis would you judge the goodness and badness of the ideas in scripture to only take the ones that are 'good' or 'better'? Wouldn't those judgements be equally imperfect, rendering the whole endeavor futile? How do you get away from that? Also presupposing what's good and bad to judge the goodness or badness of something is not the same as 'scientifically' determining what's good and bad.
@@torinmccabeThis is a joke right? Because YOU literally just straw manned him, and then accused him of straw manning you. He did not say, human knowledge of science is imperfect, he quoted EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID, when you started in an earlier comment. "...ad those animals have an imperfect knowledge on what good and bad is". NOTHING in there about science, you're the one who put it there. Are you even checking with your own previous comments?
I didn't really hear Jonathan answering to RR's clear and pointed questions, he just went around the bushes. That might be because my epistemology is based on science and not something closer to mysticism.
@@huuppone Jonathan’s point is your epistemology is much more likely based on phenomenology and pattern recognition than “science”. Most people aren’t walking around doing science. And if you were it wouldn’t actually tell you much at all about where you are and what you ought to be doing here.
@@confectionarysound exactly. Science doesn't determine "shoulds and oughts". It CAN'T. It informs, it can help to understand what IS, but it can't "drive".
Stephen's attempted gotchas (like, "You wanna get back to the good old days" when JP began critiquing modern Christianity) ran a serious risk of delegitimizing this conversation. Good on Pageau for holding it together.
Why is asking tough questions so threatening? Much of what JP Jr. says is incoherent. The upness and the downness the hierarchy bla bla bla. Did Thomas stick his hand into the resurrected body of Jesus? Yes or no? Did Jesus float off into heaven? Yes or no? Very simple answers for 1700 years of Christian creeds. This guy as well as JP are totally opaque in what they are saying.
you can tell that Jonathan understands exactly what RR is saying and his thought process on things but that RR does not really understand what Jonathan is saying or his thought process. telling.
this is a pretty consistent problem anytime RR talks with people past a basic Christian perspective... like a smart high-school level. Once you actually get into an understanding of a contextually deeper perspective it just *woosh* every time. He needs to take notes from Cosmic Skeptic. He gets stuck on these flat aspects too but at least he talks it out in a more vulnerable and self aware level and really tries to work it out.
Despite being only 4 minutes in you seemingly have an immediate confirmation of negative bias which you've prepared... not good preparation for entertaining ideas imho
@@Thomas...191 I mean, he started getting things fundamentally wrong 4 minutes in, it's just how it is. His whole theme seemed to be trying to coax Johnathan into saying feminine traits were "bad", attempting to ridicule him for believing God truly knows what is true about every person and calling religion "cancer". Typical smooth brained behavior, wouldn't have expected otherwise.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Well it seems that you haven't watched the rest of the video. Woodford is surprised that Jonathan believes in a ''living God'' as he defined it. And they talk about the problem of Gnosticism where something is considered intrinsically bad.
If you intentionally divorce sexual union from fruitfulness, you risk divorcing pleasure from purpose in general. There's a world of difference between, on the one hand, a couple ready to sacrifice themselves to one another and their offspring if their sexual union proves fruitful, and, on the other hand, that same couple enjoying each other with a contraceptive protecting them from commitment. There's a direct line from contraception/masturbation/homosexuality to nihilism.
"Divorcing pleasure from purpose" that's the problem... why isn't pleasure also considered as one of the purposes? Imo, biblically speaking, sex has 2 purposes(in marriage): to deepen the connection between the husband and wife and to have children. Why is the first one always ignored or considered "fruitless"?
"rationality rules" says - "we need to be able to look scientifically at what is good and what is bad" oy vey, i think that perfectly sums up the disconnect.
To find out what is 'good' and 'bad' via pure science has been tested since about 1800 and more so 1920. It has largely failed, and Sam Harris' attempt at this is very shallow and extremely Christian and value-leaden. Of course, Richard Dawkins thinks the same thing and he also supports abortion and killing unborn babies that are 'unfit'. The Nazis and Communists did the same things in the 20th century, all in the name of 'science'. It doesn't really work.
What a great conversation. The part about seeing oneself as a Christian as to RR saying he was an evolved primate was really the core of the dialectic. Hope they can delve into that more next time
I am surprised by all the negative feedback. I really enjoyed this one. I thought it was had in good faith and that there were lots of good questions and answers. I really hope you will do this again.
yup.. he is turning out to be a better christian than them.. a christian must be prepared to deconstruct his own presuppositions whilst always being humble before, and assuming the best of, his fellows..
Yes he clearly has to resort to condescension, arrogance and insults to keep his ‘rationale’ ruling in the debate. Kudos to Jonathan for his humility and dignity towards the man
@@bethlanglois9361... come on let's not attribute every virtue to people who confirm our bias and vice to those who don't. That sort of thing has a direct negative effect our ability to think well: it cuts cognitive abilities significantly. I for one can't afford such losses.
Kudos to Rationality Rules talking with someone who believes something very different to him. He clearly struggles with some of Jonathan's points but so did I before I grew accustomed to his spiritual, meaning-driven worldview
Totally agree. He seems to be trying his best. I don't like the unnecessary and constant criticism of such attempts in foreign comment sections to their own. It's like a foreigner comes to town and people whoop, holler, and deride them, instead of offering hospitality: distasteful.
@@Thomas...191 Yeah, especially frustrated with people calling him a neckbeard. The man is openly considering ideas that challenge everything he knows. How many of us do the same?
I guess he didn't understand the pattern and the framework. The framework within the patterned pattern in the position between extremes patternnsksbdjngbf
@@parapapapa69 yeah Jonathan is quite esoteric and bizarre if you're not used to the way he thinks. He's trying his best to communicate the spiritual worldview but he ends up sounding repetetive
@@MrGustavier Christianity's belief in the intelligibility of nature + its desacralization of nature -> science That's why science emerged in Christendom. Several people make that point, including Tom Holland, A.N Whitehead, and C.S. Lewis for example.
"Patience?" 🤣 If you were to take a shot of whiskey every time he interrupted RR in mid-sentence, you would die of alcohol poisoning over several lifetimes.
@@chanting_germ. Sorry, but that still doesn't constitute "an exercise of great patience" in any way. Assuming that Rat doesn't, in fact, completely understand where Pageau is coming from, and is merely trying to show Pageau the circular reasoning and special pleading that swamps his entire belief system, then, at the very best, this constitutes a failure of communication on Pageau's part to effectively distinguish his supposed "arguments" from the sort of woo-woo that is pumped out by, say, Deepak Chopra or Stephen Molyneux. I'm sure Rat was, no doubt, annoyed by what he felt was Pageau's inability to grasp some of arguments as well, and yet, Rat still refrains from interrupting more than once or twice -- an *actual* exercise in great patience.
@@WickedHole You think it would be better to let him talk for 10 minutes in a direction that doesn't even engage with Pageau's argument? Watch his conversation with people like Bret Weinstein or Tarl Warwick, they had very little in common, but at least they were able to understand where the other was coming from. RR see the world like Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc., and he (at least in this conversation) wasn't able to grasp the other side to even start contrasting points. As a viewer it was very frustrating and fruitless, but I get it, I can't blame him, 5 years ago I would react the same way if someone presented me that worldview.
@@issaavedra I personally disagree that RR's talking steered in "a direction that doesn't even engage with Pageau's arguments." Pageau's arguments are not so complicated or esoteric that they are somehow beyond a materialist-minded person like RR to comprehend and engage with; but even if they were, interrupting is not the thing to do. If Pageau had confidence in the validity of his own ideas, he should've simply waited until RR had finished his criticism, and then calmly steered the conversation back to his perspective afterwards. Instead, Pageau jumps in desperately at impatient, almost desperate intervals in RR"s responses, as if he feels the need to stop RR from talking because he's afraid RR is concisely pointing out holes in his theory of 'metaphorical truth' that he, himself, hasn't even thought of yet. Having "very little in common" (which is definitely not true, but whatever) is no excuse for interrupting. It best, it's rude. At worse, it stresses a lack of confidence in the interrupting person's power of articulating their own ideas -- and by extension, the power of the ideas themselves: sort of similar to the way it's harder to keep a long, complicated, internally contradictory lie afloat than it is to keep a straightforward, simple truth afloat.
@@WickedHole I watched the episode twice as a Christian that was a "rational atheist" not long ago , and the way RR was responding was frustrating, not because he was being dishonest, but he didn't understand Pageau. I agree that Pageau's points weren't complicated, but his view is almost as "esoteric" as you can get, is a proposition that reality itself is symbolic and narrative.
@@mudhut4491 Exactly. Most people think watching a few Peterson lectures suffices for actually reading Jung himself, when this is not the case at all. At most, Peterson is a primer for Jung, but not nearly a substitute.
This video comes off the heels of me, someone who’s left atheism, trying to talk to my atheist best friend about what he thinks people are talking about when they speak of “God” specifically in the Christian sense (the one he’s most opposed to). He couldn’t see that there could be any definition or category that wasn’t inside of the ones he possessed- his frame was so narrow that anything that lay outside it either didn’t register or had to be a ‘square peg that needed to be shaved down so as to fit the round hole of his presuppositions.’ There was a lot of that going on here too.
If rationality is not submitted to the most high (God) as in the Scholastic period of the Church, then is just that (rationality) "the capability to use the rational mind for good or bad, for correct or wrong" it's pure potential, but is not necessarily correct neither it "rules", potentiality can never be the rule giver, but rather a servant of order. Rationality doesn't rule, it simply obeys the will of the one who is reasoning.
I don't understand. When RR starts with consciousness, and acknowledges the existence of severall contradicting non-arbitrary frameworks... he places himself as the rule giver doesn't he ?
@@MrGustavier Exactly, I believe he doesn't realize it but his way of seeing this is actually closer to a arrogant demonic view of the world rather than one that seeks goodness. He pretty much believes he is in the position of being the Judge and the Ruler of ALL REALITY in every single possibility of this (and like every diabolical ideology) he refutes his own argument by saying that this can not be done, and we must just live in this constant change until we figure out the best way to live the ever changing present, which means to not have a PRINCIPLE that rules the MANY but rather a divided many that are always fighting to rule the TRUE PRINCIPLE of Life (God). In other words, he wants to be God.
@@MrGustavier As a Catholic I can't be a conservative, such a weird understanding of what I said. Christianity allows constant change (that's why Christian cultures are different in every culture that it has manifested and why it changes through time (not in principle, but in manifestation), having a principle does not set boundaries around you, but rather gives you the main characteristics of your being, the boundaries happen to exist in the manifested world, which are the union of the principles that make you and the chaos of possibilities of your being.
Rationality Rules has a strange sort of faith in evolutionary psychology being able to explain things that even evolutionary psychologists say they can't explain. If he really knew the literature he would know that evolutionary psychology doesn't claim to be able to explain half of the things he says it can
@@BibleIllustrated Oh, really? I guess I just ended up not seeing you in the flood of comments. Anyway, nice seeing you! Really appreciate your vids XD
I really enjoyed this energetic, phenomenal conversation. It's so necessary to hear two points of view explored in amenable ways in which neither person is disrespecting the other, well done the two of you. I think that much fruitfulness would come from further discussions between the two of you and can't wait to hear more!
What is the conflict? When he says _wanna go back to the good old days??_ he is imitating an American conservatory that often throws that line. They _" wanna go back to the good old day"_ where Black people couldn't enter the same bathroom when women were treated as property, and killing homosexual view as positive. The point is that the _the good old days_ for some people are when they could oppress other people.
There is no mystery in woodfords world, even metaphor has to be reduced to a strictly analytical scientific reality. The imagery can't be allowed to escape from itself into the metaphysical he has to pull everything down from the heavens, because his mind cannot dwell there.
Could it be a fear of darkness, chaos, the unknown? Those fears are certainly rational, but I think you've gotta stumble around a bit, find your footing until those dark places get a bit brighter.
@András Belina That reminds me of Dr. Phil lol. Often on his show he would ask people "what did/do you say to yourself to make this behaviour okay?" It's like we set out axioms, our objectives first, then determine what's good or bad, rational or irrational based on those.
The most amazing thing is that Jonathan went through this a second time, after not properly recording it the first time. This may have been the first conversation of Jonathan's that I did not watch through to the end. Ever.
Rationality Rule's mind is just racing to find a contradiction. He's too much of a debate head. I think it's an interesting point where he says "being an evolved primate" is his second experience in the morning. For most people on earth it's the millionth thing they experience in a day. It's actually a conclusion of long though process and I am not sure you can experience it, as much as you can "experience" thinking it.
Yeah I generally start my morning at the point of sleep deprivation and quickly move to my second perspective - that of coffee deprivation! it is a spiritual ritual of sorts -- I definitely see a pattern that is scalable at multiple levels of understanding. ;p
I’ve been watching Stephen’s content on and off for the past year or so, and I was pleased to see this discussion. It was frustrating though - several times Stephen comes extremely close to realizing the central flaw in his thinking but then at the last minute he seems to completely veer off and miss the blindingly obvious point that Jonathan is leading him into. The very fact he expresses a belief in a need to critique Christian ‘patterns’ shows that he is working on an underlying (even if it is not acknowledged by him) belief that there is an objective and higher pattern that we should be conforming ourselves to in order to be truly good. I was also a little bit surprised (but also not at all shocked) that he didn’t seem to understand the traditional theistic view of God as a ‘consciousness’.
I think he does understand both these points you make, it is just that he rejects them, as he clearly says : "do not start as christian, because this is not who you are, you are an evolved primate."
There is only metaphorical truth: "The words of the Consecration "This is my body" therefore, far from being problematic in their meaning, _are the only words which certainly have meaning, and lend this meaning to all other words._ -Catherine Pickstock_After Writing_
@@julianw6604 Well I would say that the Canons of the Council of Trent would define it a bit differently. But I will take the word of some 21st Century "Theologian" than some stuffy old Church Council. She is another "science hater" I presume who wants to go back to the magic of the dark ages.
The problem is when asked what influences him Rationality Rules simply says "I am evolved primate" as if no philosophies or psychologies or propaganda have ever influenced him. That 'being evolved" is a natural fact and that somehow that means his intuitions come directly from that fact of his being evolved. But as Jonathan points out this is indeed not something that comes to us naturally. People have gotten along for millennia without ever having such an idea. Saying I am an evolved being is purely a result of an education process filled with materialistic biases not standard observation.
Stephen's primary interests in this conversation is to find common ground on how to deal with practical contemporary societal problems. He tries to build a foundational agreement by stating that both he himself and Jonathan are evolved primates - he suspects this could be a foundational agreement, since even most theists believe in evolution. This is wholly independent of the question of religious and cultural symbols, since Stephen and Jonathan do not agree on what is the significance of these symbols.
@@Shaewaros I understand what you are saying. But claiming that we are all just evolved primates doesn't not supply much common ground. More and more I am finding the notion that we can be explained as essentially being primates to be completely inadequate. You might as well say that we are mammals. Or that we a biological beings. Or that we are made largely of water. All of which are true and do help us to understand facets of ourselves. These are what Michael Polyani described as boundary conditions. But one principle that always holds true in science is that the lower order cannot explain the higher. Knowing that I mostly consist water, for instance, doesn't explain why I am typing these words on a computer right now. Water rarely affects us unless there is either a shortage of it, a problem with it, or a pathological issue with how we use it within the body. Normally we carry on without thinking about it. Except in its more symbolic aspects. Likewise it's true that knowing I have a 'reptile brain' doesn't mean that even in the harshest conditions, a concentration camp or a plague, do I suddenly revert to reptile behavior. And knowing primate behavior, while fascinating, might tells us how (but not why) we flash our teeth , or that we are also territorial, and yet the distance between ourselves and a chimpanzee is much greater than the distance between a chimp and a rat. The fact that chimps might use rocks or sticks as tools or weapons has nothing in common with building the pyramids, erecting cathedrals, constructing the Golden Gate Bridge or making, let alone using (!), a smartphone. And while apes can be vicious and territorial this tells nothing about trench warfare in World War One or why people molest their children. The lower can never explain the higher. So 'evolved primate' is simply modern mythology as far as I can tell. Dostoevsky was far closer to the point when he described man as the ungrateful biped.
@@TheAnadromist Thanks for your reply and the interesting ideas. I actually agree with you to an extent here - we can't reduce all of human existence to simple materialistic causality. This is precisely why the symbolic truth that religion can offer is genuinely valuable to individuals and societies alike. I believe there's still something here. If we can start with the notion that we're evolved natural living beings, it gives us a set of facts that we can work with. Again, it can't help us solve all of humanity's problems, but might help us with some of them. We know many physiological facts about primates and all other living beings. We for instance know, without a shadow of a doubt, that a flower needs light, water and nutrients in order to flourish. Similarly, we know many physiological facts about human beings. Humans also need material sustenance in order to flourish, but this is not the only thing we can directly observe. We can also see that often wealthy people, who have access to an abundance of sustenance, still end up ending their lives for some reason. So there must be something more human beings need than simple material sustenance. Trying to explain human well-beings we can then arrive to something like Maslow's hierarchy of needs that already gives us a pretty good framework on human well-beings. These simple physiological points of agreement don't give us answers to complex questions of ethics. It doesn't in any way suggest that we ought to care about human well-being. It can however help us understand why most people actually do care about human well-being - as evolved primates we're social creatures capable of empathy. Generally we don't like to see people suffer needlessly. So we should probably work towards building a society where people don't suffer needlessly, because living is such a society is more likely to make us flourish as living beings. Again, it can be argued that there's no objective reason for us to care about human well-being, and I agree, but it's simply an observable fact that we generally do care about human well-being.
@Nick Miller It is certainly based on a mythology. Or as C.S. Lewis wrote of the myth of perpetual scientific progress. " For my own part, though I believe it no longer, I shall always enjoy it as I enjoy other myths. I shall keep my Cave-Man where I keep Balder and Helen and the Argonauts; and there often revisit him."
I feel a bit nostolgic seeing Woodford. I used to watch him when I was an atheist some years ago. However after a few Philosophy classes in college and reading books I got to see that while Woodford is indeed smart he is not good at philosophy let alone "Debunking" as he likes to put in his videos. Still I am thankful he was willing to come on the show. Most atheist youtubers nowadays are quite spiteful so in some sense it is refreshing even though I disagree with him massively.
As a non-believer, I see RR as typical of the religious atheists who want to re-create religion in secular western culture. Anything can be used as a hammer of traditional religion their older and wiser competition. 'Philosophy' and 'science' are the 1st weapons of choice. One of the hallmarks of totalitarianism is the politicization of all things. So-called atheist's want to politicize all things, for their new religion. If you read and understand Wittgenstein's take on scientism and its related mumbo-jumbo, you get a better picture of how to view our God-shaped hole. As ever, there are no answers - but a better view is possible.
@@damianbylightning6823 I think that RR follows the beat of Sam Harris in his genuine pursuit of trying to work out the gaps of secularism and religion in a manner that grounds them in reason based on scientific observations that can unify all cultures in a singular language, like mathematics, on the question of morality and modes if being. They, unlike more militant atheists seem to find that a purely secular approach has left out the baby of spirituality with the bath water and wants to find a universal way of reimagining the spiritual and utilitarian Pearl's of traditional faith. I personally empathize with their aims but I see their folly as well in their presupposition of a purely secular world view. That's another thread tho
@@MrTimberwolfsden I don't doubt his sincerity. I do doubt his ability to use philosophy to aid his common sesne. He seems to be on a journey and his views will not be so infantile in a decade or so. His channel is full of the type of people who would approve of that forehead-slappingly smug and stupid cliché: "Science is real."
I've heard Jonathan emphasize numerous times in other videos the concept/ importance/ necessity of "embodiment". And, although it made sense before, this discussion REALLY clarified that necessity. He points out that Stephen wants to be able to be outside of ANY frame / religion and be able to judge each religion and choose the best parts of each and throw away the worst parts. But i think pageau really does a good job of explaining why this is not even possible. A person, the very nature of BEING a human, is to EMBODY the merging of "the above / below", "chaos / order". It's NOT POSSIBLE to do what Stephen wants to believe he can do. It's not possible to be outside of all frames. One can only embody / judge / act WITHIN A SPECIFIC frame. This also helps me to understand my own beliefs, and the teachings of Christ. It's not my role to "judge", my role is to EMBODY. And within the frame of Christianity / faith in God / submission to the authority of God - to discern how "correctly" I'm "embodying". NOT to survey the world and believe i can choose what's good or bad, NOT to follow "rules" thinking that gets me something, but to EMBODY and allow the frame and my submission to God to correct me and TEACH me along the way. We can't and DON'T live outside of a frame. We ALL EMBODY; THAT'S "what" a human IS. That's what it means to BE human. (I'm kind of thinking out loud here)
Around the 31 minute mark, John was just trying to explain to Stephen platonic forms and their participants but somehow Steven just wasn’t grasping it. How can he be this philosophically bankrupt?
Very simple. Consciousness evolved from simpler processes that produced attract and avoid behaviours. Good and evil is basically an "attract an avoid" at much greater scale of complexity.
@András Belina yes, because absolute morality cannot exist. That's just a fact. Everytime when someone claims his morality is the morality - he just imposes his own ideas on others. This is why people who want peace need to talk to others and try to figure out acceptable agreements. And if it's not possible - then defend oneself. The closest idea to universal morality that we have is Non Aggression Principle. And when applied, it works very well.
Just a reminder that the whole spartans fostered gay relationships because it makes the men fight harder is a misappropriation of an instance of the sacred band of Thebes, also in Rome, homosexuality was a-ok if you're on top, not so much much if you're on a bottom.
Despite my criticism of RR, I am grateful to see him on this channel having a cordial and lively discussion with Jonathan. Thank you RR, it is good to hear your perspective and how you view the world. Thank you.
I love you both bros :)! The way you handled this conversation is admirable! Stephen, I salute your bravery to explore this path! This is exactly where the discourse needs to be in our times. I love it! And I love the love and humor note you ended on. Looking forward to the continuation!
Jonathon’s framework is capable of encompassing RR’s but the opposite isn’t true, and so Jonathan can understand RR’s view point and arguments but the other way around doesn’t seem to be true. Or so it seems to me 🤷♂️.
interesting, I was thinking the opposite. Jonathan, for some strange reason, stop his backward search for wisdom 2000 years ago... RR stops millions of years ago with the appearance of homo sapiens...
We pass breath that moves the air and it vibes in our fellows ears and they come into communion with the meaning beneath the noise!! It's nothing short of a miracle.
Ugh. He is just looking for ways to prove that he is right. "Metaphorical truth" has nothing to do with whether or not the belief is true or false, only the outcome. Pointing out that it must be false is something that comes from someone who isn't engaging honestly. (Even if he thinks he is). I think the mistake is differentiating truth and metaphorical truth. They are the same thing, the problem is that rarely is truth ever actually observed or recorded truthfully. For example, a child tells his parents that his stomach hurts and they take him to the doctor. It turns out that his appendix was about to burst. Factually, it is untrue that his stomach hurt. If his parents had debated with him and asked him to prove that his stomach hurt, they would (probably) be terrible parents. Likewise, the idea that when you are talking to someone they must respond at the level you would speak at if you shared their experience or knowledge is the height of folly. Rather, it is up to the listener to attempt to understand the speaker, even more so than it is up to the speaker to be understood. After all, the speaker can't read the mind of the listener in order to understand the perfect way to communicate a concept. Alas, we have completely flipped that concept on its head and now society is built upon the assumption that if the speaker can't communicate at whatever the desired level of the listeners is, the speaker brings nothing of value and can be discarded out of hand. Truly, the mark of a fool is the unwillingness to understand. Oh great. "I think when you use the word femininity that you have bad intentions because you are using it alongside other things I interpret as bad therefore you are a bad person." Uggh. Typical.
Yes, it has more to do with levels of resolution, angle of attention or levels of emphasis, and so it is dishonest to say that the the sun doesn't turn around the earth because it obviously does at the proper level of resolution and attention. This does not make all truth "subjective" or relative. Truth statements are always pointing towards a purpose which frames the type of language it necessitates.
@@JonathanPageau And it seems to be a universal failing of atheists to not acknowledge the frame of the speaker and instead they substitute their own frame. The reality I have found is that the most important part of any understanding is to understand the frame that is being used. Once that first step is done, most of the rest of the conversation and understanding comes fluidly. Sadly, I have yet to meet an atheist who focuses first on understanding the frame of the person they are speaking to. (I have met agnostics who make that effort.) It seems to me that this mistake ultimately comes from from their worship of rationality/reason. Rationality/reason is almost universally understood to explicitly ignore frames or reference. Which is ironic given the state of physics being all about frames of reference. Perhaps that is the way to get through to them? Explain things as though it was a physics problem?
@@SirSpence99 A funny thing is that they think they're evolutionary thinkers, while striving for top-down solutions. Jonathan's point about the system organically updating itself would be much more in line with actual Darwinism.
@@SirSpence99 your example of the boy with appendicitis is literally exactly the same example given regarding the plague whereas avoiding the "bad air" achieves the desired outcome just as the "stomach" pain does. That said, Bret Weinstein, as with all "academics", is a metaphoric truth. His belief in his own intellectual and moral supremacy is in fact a metaphor for doing as you're told and then repeating the model as if you possess superior knowledge, experience and understanding as a result of paying for a piece of paper from an elite institution. On the other hand, MeHoKek the lawgiver and HoKek the Messiah are truly ancient Hebrew words and king Pepi lives forever in the Tree of Life with the Morning Star. It is also TRUE that Africanus said when the Sixth Dynasty fell 70 Kings ruled for 70.days in the 7th dynasty The hegoat ruled in the Land of Keki called Land of Khmun and Khanan too - from Elephantine to Khemenu Petition to Bagoas
Great job guys! Jonathan, your explanation of the symbolic structure and patterns of reality were really clearly explained for me in this video and I have been listening to you since the Metaphysics of Pepe. Thank you both.
Heard a lot about RR’s fearsome reputation through the grapevine. Was expecting a buff rooster. I got a scrawny lil chicken. I don’t mean that in a mean way. I’m just kinda disappointed. Mad respect to him for trying to get out of his echo chamber. That takes guts. Now let’s see what he learns!
Rationality Rules has always struck me as having a particularly bad case of the atheist blind spot that prevents them from even understanding religious questions, let alone addressing them. As much as I love Jonathan, I don't think he has the atheist day walker skills required to get through to this particular mindset. Going in with low expectations ... EDIT: when RR brought up the archetype of feminine darkness as a "gotcha" I knew this was a lost cause. Stuck it through to the end, but no chance. He's thinking ideologically where he needs to be thinking with perception and intuition. A strongly ideological mindset cuts off any sensitivity to perspective that is not one's own. Like Dawkins, RR's god is The Darwinian Process. The Darwinian Process is the arbiter of truth and morality. This has many problems, not the least of which is that of linking fact and value (which JBP posed to Sam Harris and received no proper response, because there isn't one). But beyond that, why does the Darwinian process always seem to decree that the politics and opinions of he who evokes it are just and truthful? As demonstrated quite clearly here by RR, it becomes relativism. We should be like the bonobo, demonstrating how natural homosexuality is. But not like the chimp, demonstrating how natural it is to eat one's enemies alive. RR keeps pressing the point that some elements of Christianity are no longer relevant. What Jonathan asked once, but he should've stressed more, is --- by what measure? Clearly RR is opposed to Christianity where it conflicts with his politics, politics that so far as I can tell he has unthinkingly imbibed from mainstream opinion and propaganda. But what about beneath that? Is it The Darwinian Process that dictates some elements of Christianity are no longer relevant? How so? (Mind you I'm not knocking the value of evolutionary psychology as a science despite its propensity for abuse. It simply has nothing to say about value. You could say everything is The Darwinian Process down to our very concept of value. In that case you've found God --- just swap the terms.)
It's not even the Darwinian process what he's worshipping. Evolution is organic. He thinks he's somehow in a position to judge these things top-down. Jonathan's points are more Darwinian than his.
@@OffbeatRefrigerator agreed, it's not a scientific take. "The Darwinian Process" in all caps becomes a stand in for god. Lex Friedman's discussion with Dawkins is an astonishing example of this.
When Jonathan says “pattern of being” and Stephen says “pattern of being they’re not talking about the same thing. Stephen seems to think the patterns are chosen and enforced by Christianity. Where Johnathan is saying that pattern enforces itself and Christianity pays attention to it
RR is a realist, and Jonathan is an idealist, so RR interprets patterns as the regularities of reality in a realist sense, meaning the "laws" of physics, the consequence of evolution by natural selection etc. Jonathan interprets patterns as the regularities of reality in an idealist sense, meaning the transcendance of the structure of heaven and earth, order and chaos through and by human consciousness.
psychological evolution, primate evolution, or us standing from the point of evolved beings that come with a certain baggage is not "A POINT" of observation from which we can judge at all, since every one of us have very different backgrounds, we are at the edge between our ancestry and our past and the possibilities of being something else in the future, and such point is always moving and bifurcating or uniting with other points because that is the middle in which life happens. You can either accept the path which leads to life or the path that leads to death, and in this is only Christianity that holds the path to life, is the religión (re-ligare) that re-unites all the different aspects of existence in God himself. To think that you can be outside of the pattern of life to Judge life would literally turn you into God, which is impossible unless you are the messiah and you would be a false messiah actually since the true messiah gets embeded IN reality is INcarnated and does not look at his creation from the outside as Stephen is trying to do. I love it Jonathan, Stephen didn't notice maybe but he was trying to make you apostatize in such a weird way and now I understand why you call people that try to make you do that (stand above all patterns to judge the patterns of reality) your enemies. Much love and may God keep blessing you!!!
@@theshirecrier-310 Every culture has had a culture of death, either human sacrifice, abortion, contraception, or things that are openly accepted and that are in principle against the very nature of life, and everytime Christianity (for me is just the catholic and the orthodox to some extent) arrived to any culture that worshiped death in a sense has been gained with death through love by Christian Martyrs beginning with Christ himself. I mean Rome was conquered by the deaths of Christian Martyrs, by proclaiming truth were condemned and by wilfully accepting death because of love of the enmies a new culture was born.
@@theshirecrier-310 Plus, the very concept of God for Christians is unity and multiplicity (Holy Trinity / triune / three and one) at he same time (concepts of life and reproduction, creativity) while evil in principle is the one that divides the one that separates and cuts, and everything that is false and falseness himself all that in the end causes death.
@@theshirecrier-310 There is no such thing as a Christian that don't believe in the Trinity, if they don't believe in the Trinity then they are Christians simply by name but not by definition. Christ himself told his disciples to baptize using the trinitarian formula of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Jonathan you were a class act. You made some great points I haven’t put together yet. The only problem was the anxiety from the guest. Very limited view of Christianity. You were patient. Better then I would have been.
Yeees! This conversation was amazing! Please record more! Maybe, for next time, pick a specific topic - a book or a video or whatever, and try to stay within that topic, so you have sort of a common ground to stand on from which you can argue.
Stephen talks about evolving to live in a society today, as if we don't actually produce the society. He speaks in a very complicated way somewhat naively and makes little sense whereas Jonathan talks in a very complicated way that seems accessible and logical to an ordinary person.
He's like an awful pastiche of the new atheists (Dawkins et al). We knew their arguments were bad back then, but this guys arguments are just laughable.
Loved this conversation, Jonathan, thank you. The sooner we are honest that secularity and the evolutionary paradigm are not neutral positions above all others, the better. Evolution offers no participation, community, or love. Hope to see you both speak again soon!
Having watched Stephen’s material evolve from total dismissal of Peterson and others as peddlers of nonsense to coming to a good understanding of his evolutionary thinking, I am blown away. Kudos to you, good sir. What fascinates me is that it took me almost no time at all to go from hard core atheist, dismissing all religious people as delusional fools, to a whole new world of understanding of religious stories via Peterson’s Maps of Meaning lectures. At the time, I was so excited by this new understanding and I was convinced that it would prompt a rapid transformation/maturation of the atheist movement. But to my horror, the atheist movement put its back up to Peterson. As I was learning from Peterson, I was also a long term listener of Thomas Smith of the “Serious Inquiries Only” podcast, and Sam Harris, and I was absolutely shocked that neither of them could hear what he was saying. Listening to just a few hours of his U of Toronto lectures renders him perfectly intelligible, so it was super frustrating to see him treated like he’s a William Lane Craig type. If the only difference between out-of-hand dismissal and serious consideration was a small amount of exposure, then boy was that a tragic loss for the atheist movement.
Matthieu’s book “The Language of Creation” has added several more layers of understanding as well. I’m trying to read the entire bible this year with my wife, so I’m finishing Matthieu’s book just in time! Would you ever consider writing a book, Jonathan?
I see your point. I consider myself in the cate_orie of "atheist that turn their back on JPeterson" And I can tell you exactly why : JPeterson is an idealist. He is not a materialist. He uses the scientific lan_ua_e to lure in scientifically minded people, and to smu__le in _od. This was made very blatant durin_ his final talk with sam harris in london with dou_las murray. JPeterson is a "jesus smu__ler". It seems evident to me why he has such a hu_e number of atheists amon_ his followers. because, as he puts it, for some people, "life is sufferin_", and his reformulation in symbolic lan_ua_e of pra_matism and Jun_ian philosophy offers a workin_ solution for many of them. but life is not sufferin_ to me... so I don't need him...
Lots of ego coming off of Woodward, he seems to want to speak and think in sharply focused categories and hold concepts as though they are objectively real instead of mere tools. A lack of appreciation for blurriness, complexity, and nuance. Lots of binary judgements. The way that patterns shift and interact with the instantiations of reality is not so simple to be this applies or this doesn't. Important questions are how does this pattern apply, how do we understand and implement this pattern, how do we better understand and refine our understanding of patterns and how they interact? And are there other ways of describing the patterns of reality that are more accessible, provide better insight, or more functional within our current context? Then of course how do we bridge between these understandings in order to deepen understanding and support communication between frameworks and world views?
He seems to repeatedly get confused about the difference between the patterns themselves and their instantiations and interpretations. And even more than that he seems to not even recognize the fact that the conceptual tools that we use to describe patterns are themselves merely maps that are attempting to describe the territory. The issues that we have in religion have less to do with patterns being wrong then patterns being described in limited and flawed ways as well of barriers in communicability having a lot to do with the individuals ability to manifest an accurate and appropriately detailed image of the pattern within themselves or recognize the external representation of such an image.
He is typical of left thinking now. He wants Platonic forms - in some form. A kind of idiot Socrates - with a hangover. He seems to sense age-old problems. This acknowledgement, on the left, seems to lead lefties to postmodern mumbo-jumbo. Let's hope he becomes a bit more adult than most people who walk away from leftist mumbo-jumbo and tin its gods. He seems to be on a journey - he'll probably end up in the people's republic of postmodistan. But there's always hope.
most people", "most Christians", "colloquial use"....I feel like all RR does it caricature the majority and then criticizes them instead of talking to Jonathan. Just because most people don't understand calculus, doesn't mean "true" calculus doesn't exist. I also find it interesting that RR appeals so much to science and reason yet doesn't provide any justification for why we should believe in those mechanisms in the first place. God bless you Jonathan, that was a challenging discussion.
I love these conversations with atheists because they force Jonathan to think of new ways of describing his own ideas. They may feel a bit more jarring but they are very productive. Keep up the good work ..
From a simple voyeur from the fringe of Jonathans crowd responding to the outro: Firstly, I hope the two of you gentlemen will continue having conversations. Secondly, it would be interesting for me to follow said conversations, unless the pressure of having third-person eyes on your exchange makes it unreasonably difficult. God bless both of you :D
It is truly remarkable to watch how the quality of discourse around Christianity has evolved in recent years. I remember growing up listening to Richard Dawkins and Bill O'Reilly debate in 2007 feeling self-satisfied and smug in my secular agnosticism. How absurd Christianity seemed to me then. Jordan Peterson's output and in particular his discussions with Sam Harris in 2018 changed things. And now this... The hard-line atheist position has evidently lost a serious amount of ground and intellectual credibility and continues to recede. Thank you both for engaging in this most fascinating conversation. Jonathan's question "where do you stand?" was particularly illuminating.
@@christianlacroix5430 No - I consider myself Christian now. Although the way I think about it is that I have always been Christian in some sense. Though back then I was an ignorant Christian or a Christian in denial or something like that. I think it can be kind of misleading to look purely at the superficial level of propositional and explicit belief to locate our religion. What I would say is that Christian ontology (Christian notions of time and space for example) and culture has inevitably forged my very identity from the day I was born. I was born and grew within a Christian frame. When I say I was "agnostic" that is how I would have identified at the time. But in retrospect I simply see myself as a Christian in denial or a Christian ignorant of their Christianity or something like that. Or a Christian undergoing a crisis of faith. Even though I wouldn't have consciously seen it that way. Unconsciously that is an accurate description of what was happening.
@@samuelglenn123 I think in the future, those mysteries might be solved, probably by science, like science solved other mysteries (tide goes in tide goes out :p).
I'm revisiting some of these older videos and I find it so interesting how he speaks of evolution as having a will and being causal and being able to choose
32 minutes in and clearly Woodford is having a hard time understanding the symbolic connotations of reality because his agenda/bias against religion won't allow him to. Let's see what the rest of the video has to offer..
yes I also have a hard time understanding the symbolic connotations. I wasn't brought up in a religious environment so I don't understand why people use such poor and dated symbolism when we have such profound work that has been done to describe reality in the past 2000 years...
After watching the video, can you name a single instance where Jonathan was willing to engage with any of Stephens ideas? As far as I can tell, there was not a single instance where Jonathan was willing to even entertain the idea that we ought to evaluate religious concepts based on their applicability to our contemporary societal norms and values. Stephen on the other hand was willing extent an olive branch by acknowledging the fact that some religious symbols can be enormously useful. As far as I can tell, Stephen genuinely tried his best to engage with Jonathan's ideas and find common ground that both parties could find satisfying and beneficial. If there were indeed some symbolic connotations that Stephen missed or failed to understand, I'd like to hear what they were. The only criticism I'd aim at Stephen would be him rather unnecessarily pointing out the negative connotations associated with femininity in Christian symbolism - not that he was wrong about the issues, but because Jonathan clearly didn't hold a simplistic notion about the feminine as a purely negative force.
@@Shaewaros he specifically explained WHY what you suggest CAN'T be done. He SPECIFICALLY addressed this, you just didn't like his explanation. You HAVE to stand WITHIN a frame - it's NOT POSSIBLE to do as you and Stephen suggest and stand on the outside of all and judge each fairly based on the goodness / badness of each. Watch the video again. This is the second comment I've seen you make where he SPECIFICALLY addresses something you erroneously claim he didn't address. But the fact is you just chose to ignore his response. Watch the video again please
@@demetriusmiddleton1246 What Stephen is doing during this conversation is trying to build a bridge between Jungism and a more conventional Empiricist points of view. He is trying to find a compelling middle ground, since these views are are fundamentally at odds with each other. What Jonathan did in the course of this conversation was to stick to his Jungian framework and refused to engage with any ideas outside of this theoretical framework. When Jonathan is talking about the Christian frame, he is basically saying "I will not agree to evaluate any epistemologies that do not meet my strict Jungian point of view". This is basically synonymous to saying "I know what is right, so I don't need to consider your point of view". Do you think this is a productive way to have a meaningful conversation? Jungism does not present any scientific proof of it's claim, so it's not possible to use it as compelling evidence in a conversation dealing with real societal issues. By scientific proof I mean Jungism doesn't have any way of testing whether the claims it makes about the nature of reality are actually true (meaning they're the actual state of affairs). This is why it absolutely cannot be used as the foundation of any practical evaluation of societal norms or laws, otherwise the rules of our society would be based on a seemingly arbitrary and baseless set of norms. This is why Stephen - who understands Jonathan's point of view perfectly well - cannot agree to Jonathan's claims about a Christian frame working as the grounding for Western societal norms. We have to build our societies based on values that we know actually have a measurably positive impact on the society.
Try this, Jonathan: 'I can judge other belief systems using the patterns, morals and truths of my Christian frame. You are asking me to step out of my Christian frame and judge the belief system of Christianity from the outside, but for that to be possible I need a new frame. According to what frame are the precepts and patterns of Christianity incorrect? What ground am I standing on? What lens am I looking through? There's no view from nowhere."
There is no view from nowhere! I like that.
Stephen would, and has, argued here that the "where" from which he is judging / viewing is from the lens of evolution. So, based on the point to which we are NOW evolved as well as the mechanisms of evolution, based on those things - which aspects of various religions are "good / bad", "useful / not"... that's his process of evaluation.
But at the end, Jonathan then argued that even THAT - the process of evolution - is something that is a product of pre-existing patterns. I am very interested in them having another conversation starting from THIS POINT. Would Stephen agree that evolution itself is a PRODUCT of a higher "pattern"? I really hope they do another discussion.
@@demetriusmiddleton1246 Check out epigenetics.
@@chrisppraefecti373 i have
Satanic irrationality rules on this guy!
"and do everything in love"-- The Holy Bible
It's not supposed to make sense my friend. That's why it is called DEEEEEEEEP! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." ~ Albert Einstein
also Iain McGillchrist
"Most Christians" ...goes on to talk about the Bible belt in the USA. Very limited view of Christianity
"Most Christians" don't live in the Bible belt, true, but an extremely large amount of them do. It's not, at all, a negligible amount of Christians.
@@WickedHole globally speaking it's probably less than 2%. That brand of Christianity is a very small minority. Most Christians in the world are Catholic or Orthodox. Evangelical fundamentalists are an extreme minority and a historical anomaly..
@@noahjohnson2611 Evangelical, yes, but "fundamentalist," not so much. I'm actually from the American South and I'll tell you that there's a difference between being a fundamentalist Christian, and simply being a Christian who doesn't think very deeply or critically about their Christianity. The difference matters; and I'm sure that a far larger percentage of such Christians permeate the Catholic and Orthodox orders as well.
@@WickedHole well, if you're sure...
@@noahjohnson2611 Pretty sure, yes. It's why most Christians are not apologists (or even know what Christian apologetics is). The higher-thinking logistics and "metaphorical truths" don't concern most Christians as much as the more basic tenets, punishments and rewards of their faith.
Pageau: "How can you tell that a mercedes and an audi are part of the same category?"
Rationality Man: "They're both comprised of atoms."
Pretty much says it all.
I noticed that too I don't know if JP heard it or was just like ಠಿ_ಠ.
Yea I honestly lol, like, yup, this will not go anywhere
I missed this one but yeah, this response is mindblowing 🤦♂️
yea that was by far his biggest blunder
Most reductionist materialists like this don't actually go as far as their theories go. They believe imprecise and vague versions of their theories, or often, they don't understand completely the deep truths (and paradoxes) of the theories. Hard to make an argument against a physicalist when you might have to define physicalism for them.
Stephen: 'we're getting to the essence of things'
Jonathan, laughing: 'I don't believe homosexuality is the essence of things!'
What about sexuality more generally? It surely is at the very heart of personal identity in our collective narratives, both in Christian and Jungian sense.
I think Jonathan was trying to get across that sexuality is a behaviour not an issue of identity. For example - I like to eat pasta but I that wouldn’t define me as a person. I have much more depth than that.
@@rebeccabowen8397 I agree that this is how Jonathan portrayed the question. He didn't really want to engage with the fact that homosexuality is a natural product of evolution and yet many religious, Christianity included, punish sexual behavior that is associated with this natural sexual orientation.
A product of evolution that produces no offspring
But, as Jonathan said, to kill is a natural evolutionary product but Christianity condemns that too. The real question is to ask if their is wisdom in the Christian notion of abstinence?
Does keeping the sexual act in marriage protect the human psychae in some way?
A crossover no one expected
Don't think it worked tbh; they're just too different.
A surprise to be sure but a welcome one.
@@ocrancienthistory3326 I think there's common ground they could reach once they establish a common metaphysics, they should do a whole talk on Jonathan's pyramid video (or RR should just watch it) and focus more on the materially reductive view of patterns.
@@GITAHxgCoo He's an idiotic new atheist, they reject metaphysics in general, never mind a common one
All you need is a white coat. Once you have this you can stand outside something and judge what's true and false, good and bad
Scientist in the lockdown, I see.
Human beings have an intrinsic value ,created as image bearers of God . Their behaviors mostly reflect their rebellion against this fact. Common grace ( common sense ),as an expression of Gods love , long suffering and patience militates against this existential tragedy as long as we remain in the land of the living
How do you stand outside of yourself?
It is like watching the hemispheres of the brain have a discussion.
Right?! :P
Great analogy!
@@robertoromanovich4128 Is that us viewers :D?
You are aware that brain hemispheres are closely interconnected? It's very abnormal for them not to be in constant interaction. That's why we marvel at the abnormal behavior of people who have had their corpus callosum damaged or removed.
100%
Cool of Stephen to come on the channel. I hope you guys talk again!
It’s only on good days that I wake up as an ‘evolved’ primate
This made me laugh out loud
Most days I'm just a half-crazy chimpanzee full of snakes!🤣
Mate this is an incredible comment.
found this both incredibly stressful and incredibly fun to watch.. good stuff
Finally finished.
I would say this was not fruitful.
It could be, but only if Stephen is willing to acknowledge that he doesn't understand Jonathan rather than assume that he actually does.
Jonathan seemed quite willing to admit to his failure to understand because when Stephen said something that Jonathan understood to be contradictory or "bad" from his view, his response was to clarify and communicate that he misunderstood something.
Stephen however when he heard something contradictory or "bad" assumed that was what Jonathan meant.
For example. Jonathan listed several words some of which have negative connotations in Stephen's mind and then included "feminine" in that list. Instead of clarifying to make sure that he misunderstood, he started attacking the position that Jonathan did not hold.
Unless he gets past that (or puts in far more effort to avoid it) any further conversations are likely a waste of time.
While I agree that Stephen did let his own presuppositions get in the way of what Jonathan was trying to say, I do believe there is value in seeing such misunderstandings take place and be addressed. For me the conversation was fruitful, although not, perhaps, for all involved parties!
pretty damn classy analysis mate, good stuff
Woodford was indeed getting stuck on the connotations he perceives with dark, chaos, etc. I think he could easily get on the same page with that jargon. But one of many challenges with this type of bubble jumping is that they were talking past each other. Whether or not this or that is good or bad is a tangent to the point I feel that Woodford is driving towards. That said, I think both of them are operating in good faith and trying to understand each other.
christian is supposed to be humble and to assume the best about his interlocutor.. u are taught to bow down and learn from him, take care of ur own sins before presuming to challenge another's..
This is why I can’t stand Stephen.
Came across his channel some months ago & just couldn’t bear it since he came across very arrogant & presumptuous, quite possibly blinded by science.
This is like a conversation between my 14 year old self and 30 year old self.
Was your 14 year old self a Christian?
At 14 sexuality is everything. At 30 sacrifice is everything,
I love seeing all these people breaking out of the rationalistic atheistic prison of the modern world. I was myself a rationalist until I was around 19, and though I called myself a Christian, a rationalist Christian is essentially an atheist. Now I experience true freedom in Christ, at least when I wake up early enough to do my morning prayers.
@@cuthbertsboots5733 OK why
Oners82 Your comment demonstrates a lack of understand of both Orthodoxy and dogma… and freedom, at that.
Jonathan, you are a patient man.
How do you determine 'scientifically' what's good or bad?
@@torinmccabe I think you're missing a step here. How do you construct the hypothesis? On what basis do you judge the goodness or badness of the outcome, in reference to what? What is the goal and where do you get it from?
exactly --- if you bring up the problem of linking facts and value, most of the science guy types will be like, "oh yeah, Hume"
but they never seem to realize what that actually means
@@torinmccabe You completely miss the point. The very definitions of "good" and "bad" are not ones rooted in science, and so the hypothesis step is already a misstep. Now we could go an entirely different route where we define good as "useful", and that would be a fair direction to take this. But the very ontology of what " good" and "bad" entails are not themselves scientific.
@@torinmccabe If your/our ideas about good and bad are imperfect on what basis would you judge the goodness and badness of the ideas in scripture to only take the ones that are 'good' or 'better'? Wouldn't those judgements be equally imperfect, rendering the whole endeavor futile? How do you get away from that?
Also presupposing what's good and bad to judge the goodness or badness of something is not the same as 'scientifically' determining what's good and bad.
@@torinmccabeThis is a joke right? Because YOU literally just straw manned him, and then accused him of straw manning you. He did not say, human knowledge of science is imperfect, he quoted EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID, when you started in an earlier comment. "...ad those animals have an imperfect knowledge on what good and bad is". NOTHING in there about science, you're the one who put it there.
Are you even checking with your own previous comments?
Listening to Rat Rules is like having a conversation with myself 4 years ago
Same for me. He is bringing up a lot of the doubts that I still have when listening to Jonathan, and Jonathan is answering them well.
I didn't really hear Jonathan answering to RR's clear and pointed questions, he just went around the bushes. That might be because my epistemology is based on science and not something closer to mysticism.
You sound like me 20 years ago. Not that productive. You seem sure about your believes that you dismiss others.
@@huuppone Jonathan’s point is your epistemology is much more likely based on phenomenology and pattern recognition than “science”. Most people aren’t walking around doing science. And if you were it wouldn’t actually tell you much at all about where you are and what you ought to be doing here.
@@confectionarysound exactly. Science doesn't determine "shoulds and oughts". It CAN'T. It informs, it can help to understand what IS, but it can't "drive".
Stephen's attempted gotchas (like, "You wanna get back to the good old days" when JP began critiquing modern Christianity) ran a serious risk of delegitimizing this conversation. Good on Pageau for holding it together.
@Christian Golden Stephen seems to come across as a generic new atheist internet bully.
@@brando3342 Indeed. Angry...so damn angry
Why is asking tough questions so threatening? Much of what JP Jr. says is incoherent. The upness and the downness the hierarchy bla bla bla. Did Thomas stick his hand into the resurrected body of Jesus? Yes or no? Did Jesus float off into heaven? Yes or no? Very simple answers for 1700 years of Christian creeds. This guy as well as JP are totally opaque in what they are saying.
you can tell that Jonathan understands exactly what RR is saying and his thought process on things but that RR does not really understand what Jonathan is saying or his thought process. telling.
I feel like anyone who has been an atheist and had moved away from that at some point would have the same experience.
this is a pretty consistent problem anytime RR talks with people past a basic Christian perspective... like a smart high-school level. Once you actually get into an understanding of a contextually deeper perspective it just *woosh* every time. He needs to take notes from Cosmic Skeptic. He gets stuck on these flat aspects too but at least he talks it out in a more vulnerable and self aware level and really tries to work it out.
God bless you Jonathan 😂
I could learn from your pastoral temperament Jonathan, well done 👍 And I think Stephen has a generous mindset as well 🥰
4 minutes in and despite Woodford seemingly having a full day of preparation he immediately shows this topic is far beyond his grasp.
Right? This guy is such a lightweight. Why does anyone care what he has to say?
Pageau, have me on. It seems like you're letting anyone on.
Ok, stnkold316 of anonymous youtube handles... 😆
Despite being only 4 minutes in you seemingly have an immediate confirmation of negative bias which you've prepared... not good preparation for entertaining ideas imho
@@Thomas...191
I mean, he started getting things fundamentally wrong 4 minutes in, it's just how it is. His whole theme seemed to be trying to coax Johnathan into saying feminine traits were "bad", attempting to ridicule him for believing God truly knows what is true about every person and calling religion "cancer".
Typical smooth brained behavior, wouldn't have expected otherwise.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Well it seems that you haven't watched the rest of the video. Woodford is surprised that Jonathan believes in a ''living God'' as he defined it. And they talk about the problem of Gnosticism where something is considered intrinsically bad.
If you intentionally divorce sexual union from fruitfulness, you risk divorcing pleasure from purpose in general.
There's a world of difference between, on the one hand, a couple ready to sacrifice themselves to one another and their offspring if their sexual union proves fruitful, and, on the other hand, that same couple enjoying each other with a contraceptive protecting them from commitment.
There's a direct line from contraception/masturbation/homosexuality to nihilism.
Very interesting.
There could be a connection for some people, but you say it like it's a guarantee for anyone who uses contraceptives.
I see where you’re coming from but I don’t necessarily think this is a true dichotomy. I don’t see how the two are mutually exclusive.
@@jimothynimajneb622 what are "the two" you're referring to?
"Divorcing pleasure from purpose" that's the problem... why isn't pleasure also considered as one of the purposes? Imo, biblically speaking, sex has 2 purposes(in marriage): to deepen the connection between the husband and wife and to have children. Why is the first one always ignored or considered "fruitless"?
"rationality rules" says - "we need to be able to look scientifically at what is good and what is bad" oy vey, i think that perfectly sums up the disconnect.
To find out what is 'good' and 'bad' via pure science has been tested since about 1800 and more so 1920. It has largely failed, and Sam Harris' attempt at this is very shallow and extremely Christian and value-leaden. Of course, Richard Dawkins thinks the same thing and he also supports abortion and killing unborn babies that are 'unfit'. The Nazis and Communists did the same things in the 20th century, all in the name of 'science'. It doesn't really work.
This is everything I thought it would be. A conversation that has revealed the weakness of Stephen's understanding.
What a great conversation. The part about seeing oneself as a Christian as to RR saying he was an evolved primate was really the core of the dialectic. Hope they can delve into that more next time
I am surprised by all the negative feedback. I really enjoyed this one. I thought it was had in good faith and that there were lots of good questions and answers. I really hope you will do this again.
Likewise!
yup.. he is turning out to be a better christian than them.. a christian must be prepared to deconstruct his own presuppositions whilst always being humble before, and assuming the best of, his fellows..
Satanic irrationality rules on this guy!
"and do everything in love"-- The Holy Bible
Rationality clearly does NOT RULE!!! A humble servant but a deadly master
Rider/elephant. There are many delusional riders according to this metaphor
Reality, then Reason rules, rationality is only workng out whats best in those rulers.
Yes he clearly has to resort to condescension, arrogance and insults to keep his ‘rationale’ ruling in the debate. Kudos to Jonathan for his humility and dignity towards the man
@@bethlanglois9361... come on let's not attribute every virtue to people who confirm our bias and vice to those who don't. That sort of thing has a direct negative effect our ability to think well: it cuts cognitive abilities significantly. I for one can't afford such losses.
See Chesterton's essay on "the Madman" 😆 edit: The Maniac, chapter 3 of Orthodoxy.
I would never have expected Rationality Rules to appear on Jonathan Pageau, this will be interesting...
2020.
Not sure what to make of it.
Pageau is always the on top in these communions..
I laughed my head off when I saw. Can't see Rationality Rules understanding anything to be honest.
4 real
Kudos to Rationality Rules talking with someone who believes something very different to him. He clearly struggles with some of Jonathan's points but so did I before I grew accustomed to his spiritual, meaning-driven worldview
Totally agree. He seems to be trying his best. I don't like the unnecessary and constant criticism of such attempts in foreign comment sections to their own. It's like a foreigner comes to town and people whoop, holler, and deride them, instead of offering hospitality: distasteful.
@@Thomas...191 Yeah, especially frustrated with people calling him a neckbeard. The man is openly considering ideas that challenge everything he knows. How many of us do the same?
@@kukumatz4502 ... we should set up a plank/eye removal service then... haha
I guess he didn't understand the pattern and the framework.
The framework within the patterned pattern in the position between extremes patternnsksbdjngbf
@@parapapapa69 yeah Jonathan is quite esoteric and bizarre if you're not used to the way he thinks. He's trying his best to communicate the spiritual worldview but he ends up sounding repetetive
Considering all that Stephen says about the patriarchy and homosexuality, I think he would find really interesting Tom Holland's book Dominion.
And it would help him to see the Jonathan's point about judging religions from outside
@@forthegloryofthelord Yes, he's standing within Christianity (and its scientific offspring) much more than he seems to realize.
@@j.p.marceau5146 science is an offspring of christianity ? what makes you say that ?
@@MrGustavier Christianity's belief in the intelligibility of nature + its desacralization of nature -> science
That's why science emerged in Christendom. Several people make that point, including Tom Holland, A.N Whitehead, and C.S. Lewis for example.
@@MrGustavier
Did the scientific revolution happen outside of the Christian world or within it, by Christians?
Johnathan, you’re patience throughout this conversation was incredibly inspiring.
"Patience?" 🤣 If you were to take a shot of whiskey every time he interrupted RR in mid-sentence, you would die of alcohol poisoning over several lifetimes.
@@chanting_germ. Sorry, but that still doesn't constitute "an exercise of great patience" in any way. Assuming that Rat doesn't, in fact, completely understand where Pageau is coming from, and is merely trying to show Pageau the circular reasoning and special pleading that swamps his entire belief system, then, at the very best, this constitutes a failure of communication on Pageau's part to effectively distinguish his supposed "arguments" from the sort of woo-woo that is pumped out by, say, Deepak Chopra or Stephen Molyneux. I'm sure Rat was, no doubt, annoyed by what he felt was Pageau's inability to grasp some of arguments as well, and yet, Rat still refrains from interrupting more than once or twice -- an *actual* exercise in great patience.
@@WickedHole You think it would be better to let him talk for 10 minutes in a direction that doesn't even engage with Pageau's argument? Watch his conversation with people like Bret Weinstein or Tarl Warwick, they had very little in common, but at least they were able to understand where the other was coming from. RR see the world like Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc., and he (at least in this conversation) wasn't able to grasp the other side to even start contrasting points. As a viewer it was very frustrating and fruitless, but I get it, I can't blame him, 5 years ago I would react the same way if someone presented me that worldview.
@@issaavedra I personally disagree that RR's talking steered in "a direction that doesn't even engage with Pageau's arguments." Pageau's arguments are not so complicated or esoteric that they are somehow beyond a materialist-minded person like RR to comprehend and engage with; but even if they were, interrupting is not the thing to do. If Pageau had confidence in the validity of his own ideas, he should've simply waited until RR had finished his criticism, and then calmly steered the conversation back to his perspective afterwards. Instead, Pageau jumps in desperately at impatient, almost desperate intervals in RR"s responses, as if he feels the need to stop RR from talking because he's afraid RR is concisely pointing out holes in his theory of 'metaphorical truth' that he, himself, hasn't even thought of yet.
Having "very little in common" (which is definitely not true, but whatever) is no excuse for interrupting. It best, it's rude. At worse, it stresses a lack of confidence in the interrupting person's power of articulating their own ideas -- and by extension, the power of the ideas themselves: sort of similar to the way it's harder to keep a long, complicated, internally contradictory lie afloat than it is to keep a straightforward, simple truth afloat.
@@WickedHole I watched the episode twice as a Christian that was a "rational atheist" not long ago , and the way RR was responding was frustrating, not because he was being dishonest, but he didn't understand Pageau. I agree that Pageau's points weren't complicated, but his view is almost as "esoteric" as you can get, is a proposition that reality itself is symbolic and narrative.
How does he not understand femininity from a symbolic perspective? Like heck he’s read any Jung.
Yeah, it was pretty clear he's never read an iota of Jung, despite dropping his name incessantly.
@@thecannibalrobot Seems like most people who talk about Jung lol
@@mudhut4491 Exactly. Most people think watching a few Peterson lectures suffices for actually reading Jung himself, when this is not the case at all. At most, Peterson is a primer for Jung, but not nearly a substitute.
@@thecannibalrobot well said. JBP is like a condensed, pragmatic version of Jung but it’s the tip of the iceberg when you get into it
He can't comprehend because for him Gods brightest star rules not God himself
This video comes off the heels of me, someone who’s left atheism, trying to talk to my atheist best friend about what he thinks people are talking about when they speak of “God” specifically in the Christian sense (the one he’s most opposed to). He couldn’t see that there could be any definition or category that wasn’t inside of the ones he possessed- his frame was so narrow that anything that lay outside it either didn’t register or had to be a ‘square peg that needed to be shaved down so as to fit the round hole of his presuppositions.’
There was a lot of that going on here too.
Yea dude its pride,
If rationality is not submitted to the most high (God) as in the Scholastic period of the Church, then is just that (rationality) "the capability to use the rational mind for good or bad, for correct or wrong" it's pure potential, but is not necessarily correct neither it "rules", potentiality can never be the rule giver, but rather a servant of order. Rationality doesn't rule, it simply obeys the will of the one who is reasoning.
I don't understand. When RR starts with consciousness, and acknowledges the existence of severall contradicting non-arbitrary frameworks... he places himself as the rule giver doesn't he ?
@@MrGustavier Exactly, I believe he doesn't realize it but his way of seeing this is actually closer to a arrogant demonic view of the world rather than one that seeks goodness. He pretty much believes he is in the position of being the Judge and the Ruler of ALL REALITY in every single possibility of this (and like every diabolical ideology) he refutes his own argument by saying that this can not be done, and we must just live in this constant change until we figure out the best way to live the ever changing present, which means to not have a PRINCIPLE that rules the MANY but rather a divided many that are always fighting to rule the TRUE PRINCIPLE of Life (God).
In other words, he wants to be God.
@@irodjetson I.... I feel your response is just a conservative manifesto. Would you allow for the existence of individuals that like constant change ?
@@MrGustavier As a Catholic I can't be a conservative, such a weird understanding of what I said. Christianity allows constant change (that's why Christian cultures are different in every culture that it has manifested and why it changes through time (not in principle, but in manifestation), having a principle does not set boundaries around you, but rather gives you the main characteristics of your being, the boundaries happen to exist in the manifested world, which are the union of the principles that make you and the chaos of possibilities of your being.
@@irodjetson so you accept change, but you don't accept change of your principles ?
Rationality Rules has a strange sort of faith in evolutionary psychology being able to explain things that even evolutionary psychologists say they can't explain. If he really knew the literature he would know that evolutionary psychology doesn't claim to be able to explain half of the things he says it can
Stephen has travelled a long way since his early anti-Peterson rants. There's a lot he still can't see, but It's nice to see him progressing at least.
Incredible! Conversations like these are so important, very refreshing to see two people genuinely trying to get to the bottom of things.
Ok I needed to tripleread the title and the channel before I believed my eyes :D
It's a nice surprise seeing you in this corner of the internet, Bojan! 😁
@@strugglingclimber5062 lol Seeing me in JP's comment section isn't really all that strange :D
@@BibleIllustrated Oh, really? I guess I just ended up not seeing you in the flood of comments. Anyway, nice seeing you! Really appreciate your vids XD
Wild Bojan’s aren’t so uncommon any longer; I have three between lvl 30-40.
@@pontification7891 😂😂 good one
I really enjoyed this energetic, phenomenal conversation. It's so necessary to hear two points of view explored in amenable ways in which neither person is disrespecting the other, well done the two of you. I think that much fruitfulness would come from further discussions between the two of you and can't wait to hear more!
The spirit of truth is given as an advocate before Christ ascends. I notice the presence of this spirit at times when Jonathan speaks.
Rationality: you wanna go back to the good old days??
Also rationality: all I know is I'm a product of evolutionary psychology so that's where I stand
What is the conflict?
When he says _wanna go back to the good old days??_ he is imitating an American conservatory that often throws that line.
They _" wanna go back to the good old day"_ where Black people couldn't enter the same bathroom when women were treated as property, and killing homosexual view as positive.
The point is that the _the good old days_ for some people are when they could oppress other people.
Yup, something people would have said 15 years ago.
@@elcangridelanime If you're just a beast, why is it wrong to oppress others? Chimpanzees certainly have no sympathy for weaker chimpanzees.
There is no mystery in woodfords world, even metaphor has to be reduced to a strictly analytical scientific reality. The imagery can't be allowed to escape from itself into the metaphysical he has to pull everything down from the heavens, because his mind cannot dwell there.
Could it be a fear of darkness, chaos, the unknown? Those fears are certainly rational, but I think you've gotta stumble around a bit, find your footing until those dark places get a bit brighter.
@András Belina That reminds me of Dr. Phil lol. Often on his show he would ask people "what did/do you say to yourself to make this behaviour okay?"
It's like we set out axioms, our objectives first, then determine what's good or bad, rational or irrational based on those.
I don't understand a thing you said ....
The most amazing thing is that Jonathan went through this a second time, after not properly recording it the first time.
This may have been the first conversation of Jonathan's that I did not watch through to the end. Ever.
Rationality Rule's mind is just racing to find a contradiction. He's too much of a debate head.
I think it's an interesting point where he says "being an evolved primate" is his second experience in the morning. For most people on earth it's the millionth thing they experience in a day.
It's actually a conclusion of long though process and I am not sure you can experience it, as much as you can "experience" thinking it.
Yeah I generally start my morning at the point of sleep deprivation and quickly move to my second perspective - that of coffee deprivation! it is a spiritual ritual of sorts -- I definitely see a pattern that is scalable at multiple levels of understanding. ;p
Imagine being so demoralized by the modernist worldview that you can't even articulate your own experience without injecting the 'view from outside'.
I’ve been watching Stephen’s content on and off for the past year or so, and I was pleased to see this discussion. It was frustrating though - several times Stephen comes extremely close to realizing the central flaw in his thinking but then at the last minute he seems to completely veer off and miss the blindingly obvious point that Jonathan is leading him into.
The very fact he expresses a belief in a need to critique Christian ‘patterns’ shows that he is working on an underlying (even if it is not acknowledged by him) belief that there is an objective and higher pattern that we should be conforming ourselves to in order to be truly good.
I was also a little bit surprised (but also not at all shocked) that he didn’t seem to understand the traditional theistic view of God as a ‘consciousness’.
I think he does understand both these points you make, it is just that he rejects them, as he clearly says : "do not start as christian, because this is not who you are, you are an evolved primate."
There is only metaphorical truth: "The words of the Consecration "This is my body" therefore, far from being problematic in their meaning, _are the only words which certainly have meaning, and lend this meaning to all other words._ -Catherine Pickstock_After Writing_
Good luck telling RR what that means.
@@julianw6604 Well I would say that the Canons of the Council of Trent would define it a bit differently. But I will take the word of some 21st Century "Theologian" than some stuffy old Church Council. She is another "science hater" I presume who wants to go back to the magic of the dark ages.
..Does he think Pageau is a Jung fan?
The problem is when asked what influences him Rationality Rules simply says "I am evolved primate" as if no philosophies or psychologies or propaganda have ever influenced him. That 'being evolved" is a natural fact and that somehow that means his intuitions come directly from that fact of his being evolved. But as Jonathan points out this is indeed not something that comes to us naturally. People have gotten along for millennia without ever having such an idea. Saying I am an evolved being is purely a result of an education process filled with materialistic biases not standard observation.
Stephen's primary interests in this conversation is to find common ground on how to deal with practical contemporary societal problems. He tries to build a foundational agreement by stating that both he himself and Jonathan are evolved primates - he suspects this could be a foundational agreement, since even most theists believe in evolution. This is wholly independent of the question of religious and cultural symbols, since Stephen and Jonathan do not agree on what is the significance of these symbols.
@@Shaewaros I understand what you are saying. But claiming that we are all just evolved primates doesn't not supply much common ground. More and more I am finding the notion that we can be explained as essentially being primates to be completely inadequate. You might as well say that we are mammals. Or that we a biological beings. Or that we are made largely of water. All of which are true and do help us to understand facets of ourselves. These are what Michael Polyani described as boundary conditions. But one principle that always holds true in science is that the lower order cannot explain the higher.
Knowing that I mostly consist water, for instance, doesn't explain why I am typing these words on a computer right now. Water rarely affects us unless there is either a shortage of it, a problem with it, or a pathological issue with how we use it within the body. Normally we carry on without thinking about it. Except in its more symbolic aspects.
Likewise it's true that knowing I have a 'reptile brain' doesn't mean that even in the harshest conditions, a concentration camp or a plague, do I suddenly revert to reptile behavior. And knowing primate behavior, while fascinating, might tells us how (but not why) we flash our teeth , or that we are also territorial, and yet the distance between ourselves and a chimpanzee is much greater than the distance between a chimp and a rat. The fact that chimps might use rocks or sticks as tools or weapons has nothing in common with building the pyramids, erecting cathedrals, constructing the Golden Gate Bridge or making, let alone using (!), a smartphone. And while apes can be vicious and territorial this tells nothing about trench warfare in World War One or why people molest their children. The lower can never explain the higher. So 'evolved primate' is simply modern mythology as far as I can tell. Dostoevsky was far closer to the point when he described man as the ungrateful biped.
@@TheAnadromist Thanks for your reply and the interesting ideas. I actually agree with you to an extent here - we can't reduce all of human existence to simple materialistic causality. This is precisely why the symbolic truth that religion can offer is genuinely valuable to individuals and societies alike.
I believe there's still something here. If we can start with the notion that we're evolved natural living beings, it gives us a set of facts that we can work with. Again, it can't help us solve all of humanity's problems, but might help us with some of them. We know many physiological facts about primates and all other living beings. We for instance know, without a shadow of a doubt, that a flower needs light, water and nutrients in order to flourish. Similarly, we know many physiological facts about human beings. Humans also need material sustenance in order to flourish, but this is not the only thing we can directly observe. We can also see that often wealthy people, who have access to an abundance of sustenance, still end up ending their lives for some reason. So there must be something more human beings need than simple material sustenance. Trying to explain human well-beings we can then arrive to something like Maslow's hierarchy of needs that already gives us a pretty good framework on human well-beings.
These simple physiological points of agreement don't give us answers to complex questions of ethics. It doesn't in any way suggest that we ought to care about human well-being. It can however help us understand why most people actually do care about human well-being - as evolved primates we're social creatures capable of empathy. Generally we don't like to see people suffer needlessly. So we should probably work towards building a society where people don't suffer needlessly, because living is such a society is more likely to make us flourish as living beings. Again, it can be argued that there's no objective reason for us to care about human well-being, and I agree, but it's simply an observable fact that we generally do care about human well-being.
@Nick Miller It is certainly based on a mythology. Or as C.S. Lewis wrote of the myth of perpetual scientific progress. " For my own part, though I believe it no longer, I shall always enjoy it as I enjoy other myths. I shall keep my Cave-Man where I keep Balder and Helen and the Argonauts; and there often revisit him."
The scientism crowd still believes in the myth of the "view from nowhere." They believe that it is possible to be a neutral observer.
I feel a bit nostolgic seeing Woodford. I used to watch him when I was an atheist some years ago. However after a few Philosophy classes in college and reading books I got to see that while Woodford is indeed smart he is not good at philosophy let alone "Debunking" as he likes to put in his videos. Still I am thankful he was willing to come on the show. Most atheist youtubers nowadays are quite spiteful so in some sense it is refreshing even though I disagree with him massively.
How is he smart? He was shamelessly peddling low brow transhumanism through social engineering
Could you possibly tell us about your conversion ?
As a non-believer, I see RR as typical of the religious atheists who want to re-create religion in secular western culture.
Anything can be used as a hammer of traditional religion their older and wiser competition. 'Philosophy' and 'science' are the 1st weapons of choice.
One of the hallmarks of totalitarianism is the politicization of all things. So-called atheist's want to politicize all things, for their new religion.
If you read and understand Wittgenstein's take on scientism and its related mumbo-jumbo, you get a better picture of how to view our God-shaped hole.
As ever, there are no answers - but a better view is possible.
@@damianbylightning6823 I think that RR follows the beat of Sam Harris in his genuine pursuit of trying to work out the gaps of secularism and religion in a manner that grounds them in reason based on scientific observations that can unify all cultures in a singular language, like mathematics, on the question of morality and modes if being. They, unlike more militant atheists seem to find that a purely secular approach has left out the baby of spirituality with the bath water and wants to find a universal way of reimagining the spiritual and utilitarian Pearl's of traditional faith. I personally empathize with their aims but I see their folly as well in their presupposition of a purely secular world view. That's another thread tho
@@MrTimberwolfsden I don't doubt his sincerity. I do doubt his ability to use philosophy to aid his common sesne.
He seems to be on a journey and his views will not be so infantile in a decade or so.
His channel is full of the type of people who would approve of that forehead-slappingly smug and stupid cliché: "Science is real."
I've heard Jonathan emphasize numerous times in other videos the concept/ importance/ necessity of "embodiment". And, although it made sense before, this discussion REALLY clarified that necessity.
He points out that Stephen wants to be able to be outside of ANY frame / religion and be able to judge each religion and choose the best parts of each and throw away the worst parts.
But i think pageau really does a good job of explaining why this is not even possible. A person, the very nature of BEING a human, is to EMBODY the merging of "the above / below", "chaos / order". It's NOT POSSIBLE to do what Stephen wants to believe he can do. It's not possible to be outside of all frames. One can only embody / judge / act WITHIN A SPECIFIC frame.
This also helps me to understand my own beliefs, and the teachings of Christ. It's not my role to "judge", my role is to EMBODY. And within the frame of Christianity / faith in God / submission to the authority of God - to discern how "correctly" I'm "embodying". NOT to survey the world and believe i can choose what's good or bad, NOT to follow "rules" thinking that gets me something, but to EMBODY and allow the frame and my submission to God to correct me and TEACH me along the way. We can't and DON'T live outside of a frame. We ALL EMBODY; THAT'S "what" a human IS. That's what it means to BE human.
(I'm kind of thinking out loud here)
Around the 31 minute mark, John was just trying to explain to Stephen platonic forms and their participants but somehow Steven just wasn’t grasping it. How can he be this philosophically bankrupt?
Also from a purely scientific or evolutionary perspective, what does Woodford even mean by "good" or "evil" 🙁...
Very simple. Consciousness evolved from simpler processes that produced attract and avoid behaviours. Good and evil is basically an "attract an avoid" at much greater scale of complexity.
@@thegnosticatheist
That doesn't address the question
@András Belina yes, because absolute morality cannot exist. That's just a fact. Everytime when someone claims his morality is the morality - he just imposes his own ideas on others.
This is why people who want peace need to talk to others and try to figure out acceptable agreements. And if it's not possible - then defend oneself. The closest idea to universal morality that we have is Non Aggression Principle. And when applied, it works very well.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj it does answer the question. Scientific requires thing to be observable and verifiable. Attraction and avoidance mets both criteria.
@@thegnosticatheist
Verificationism is a dead epistemology, go reread your talking point. Also learn what the is-ought distinction is.
Just a reminder that the whole spartans fostered gay relationships because it makes the men fight harder is a misappropriation of an instance of the sacred band of Thebes, also in Rome, homosexuality was a-ok if you're on top, not so much much if you're on a bottom.
RR says he understands, but it certainly doesn't seem like he does with the way he argues. At least this was a very civil discussion.
I'm just glad this kind of dialogue is happening. Open mindedness is rare
Despite my criticism of RR, I am grateful to see him on this channel having a cordial and lively discussion with Jonathan. Thank you RR, it is good to hear your perspective and how you view the world.
Thank you.
I rarely feel triggered, but when Stephen said "Peterson goes one level deeper" I felt most definitely offended and rolled my eyes. :D
I love you both bros :)! The way you handled this conversation is admirable! Stephen, I salute your bravery to explore this path! This is exactly where the discourse needs to be in our times. I love it! And I love the love and humor note you ended on. Looking forward to the continuation!
Jonathon’s framework is capable of encompassing RR’s but the opposite isn’t true, and so Jonathan can understand RR’s view point and arguments but the other way around doesn’t seem to be true. Or so it seems to me 🤷♂️.
interesting, I was thinking the opposite.
Jonathan, for some strange reason, stop his backward search for wisdom 2000 years ago... RR stops millions of years ago with the appearance of homo sapiens...
All language is metaphor. If it’s arbitrary, there’s no communication.
Language is signal in the noise!
We pass breath that moves the air and it vibes in our fellows ears and they come into communion with the meaning beneath the noise!! It's nothing short of a miracle.
Yes another conversation please! It would be interesting to hear how Stephen explains from where his value judgement comes from
Fascinating conversation. There were several new concepts on both sides that my mind was opened up to. Kudos to both of you.
Ugh. He is just looking for ways to prove that he is right.
"Metaphorical truth" has nothing to do with whether or not the belief is true or false, only the outcome. Pointing out that it must be false is something that comes from someone who isn't engaging honestly. (Even if he thinks he is).
I think the mistake is differentiating truth and metaphorical truth. They are the same thing, the problem is that rarely is truth ever actually observed or recorded truthfully.
For example, a child tells his parents that his stomach hurts and they take him to the doctor. It turns out that his appendix was about to burst. Factually, it is untrue that his stomach hurt. If his parents had debated with him and asked him to prove that his stomach hurt, they would (probably) be terrible parents.
Likewise, the idea that when you are talking to someone they must respond at the level you would speak at if you shared their experience or knowledge is the height of folly. Rather, it is up to the listener to attempt to understand the speaker, even more so than it is up to the speaker to be understood. After all, the speaker can't read the mind of the listener in order to understand the perfect way to communicate a concept.
Alas, we have completely flipped that concept on its head and now society is built upon the assumption that if the speaker can't communicate at whatever the desired level of the listeners is, the speaker brings nothing of value and can be discarded out of hand. Truly, the mark of a fool is the unwillingness to understand.
Oh great. "I think when you use the word femininity that you have bad intentions because you are using it alongside other things I interpret as bad therefore you are a bad person." Uggh. Typical.
Yes, it has more to do with levels of resolution, angle of attention or levels of emphasis, and so it is dishonest to say that the the sun doesn't turn around the earth because it obviously does at the proper level of resolution and attention. This does not make all truth "subjective" or relative. Truth statements are always pointing towards a purpose which frames the type of language it necessitates.
@@JonathanPageau And it seems to be a universal failing of atheists to not acknowledge the frame of the speaker and instead they substitute their own frame. The reality I have found is that the most important part of any understanding is to understand the frame that is being used. Once that first step is done, most of the rest of the conversation and understanding comes fluidly.
Sadly, I have yet to meet an atheist who focuses first on understanding the frame of the person they are speaking to. (I have met agnostics who make that effort.)
It seems to me that this mistake ultimately comes from from their worship of rationality/reason. Rationality/reason is almost universally understood to explicitly ignore frames or reference. Which is ironic given the state of physics being all about frames of reference. Perhaps that is the way to get through to them? Explain things as though it was a physics problem?
@@SirSpence99 A funny thing is that they think they're evolutionary thinkers, while striving for top-down solutions. Jonathan's point about the system organically updating itself would be much more in line with actual Darwinism.
@@SirSpence99 your example of the boy with appendicitis is literally exactly the same example given regarding the plague whereas avoiding the "bad air" achieves the desired outcome just as the "stomach" pain does.
That said, Bret Weinstein, as with all "academics", is a metaphoric truth.
His belief in his own intellectual and moral supremacy is in fact a metaphor for doing as you're told and then repeating the model as if you possess superior knowledge, experience and understanding as a result of paying for a piece of paper from an elite institution.
On the other hand, MeHoKek the lawgiver and HoKek the Messiah are truly ancient Hebrew words and king Pepi lives forever in the Tree of Life with the Morning Star.
It is also TRUE that Africanus said when the Sixth Dynasty fell 70 Kings ruled for 70.days in the 7th dynasty
The hegoat ruled in the Land of Keki called Land of Khmun and Khanan too - from Elephantine to Khemenu
Petition to Bagoas
It's worth delineating empirical truth from metaphysical or metaphorical truth because it clarifies the method of derivation or justification.
Great job guys! Jonathan, your explanation of the symbolic structure and patterns of reality were really clearly explained for me in this video and I have been listening to you since the Metaphysics of Pepe. Thank you both.
The flip in my world-view from approximating Steven’s to approximating Johnathan’s in just one year has been mind-bending.
Heard a lot about RR’s fearsome reputation through the grapevine. Was expecting a buff rooster. I got a scrawny lil chicken. I don’t mean that in a mean way. I’m just kinda disappointed. Mad respect to him for trying to get out of his echo chamber. That takes guts. Now let’s see what he learns!
This conversation woefully exposed the gaps in Stephen's thinking.
Well, obviously the guy I agree with is right and won the debate.
@András Belina the coherence was so close but the shared language is still bumping against something.
that's a very consensual comment :p
@Electro_blob wait ... are you not a christian ?
I wanna see this guy debates Jay Dyer. It would be so funny to watch lol
Damn. Sam harris jordan peterson pt 5. Didn't expect it.
Rationality Rules has always struck me as having a particularly bad case of the atheist blind spot that prevents them from even understanding religious questions, let alone addressing them. As much as I love Jonathan, I don't think he has the atheist day walker skills required to get through to this particular mindset.
Going in with low expectations ...
EDIT: when RR brought up the archetype of feminine darkness as a "gotcha" I knew this was a lost cause. Stuck it through to the end, but no chance. He's thinking ideologically where he needs to be thinking with perception and intuition. A strongly ideological mindset cuts off any sensitivity to perspective that is not one's own.
Like Dawkins, RR's god is The Darwinian Process. The Darwinian Process is the arbiter of truth and morality. This has many problems, not the least of which is that of linking fact and value (which JBP posed to Sam Harris and received no proper response, because there isn't one). But beyond that, why does the Darwinian process always seem to decree that the politics and opinions of he who evokes it are just and truthful? As demonstrated quite clearly here by RR, it becomes relativism. We should be like the bonobo, demonstrating how natural homosexuality is. But not like the chimp, demonstrating how natural it is to eat one's enemies alive.
RR keeps pressing the point that some elements of Christianity are no longer relevant. What Jonathan asked once, but he should've stressed more, is --- by what measure? Clearly RR is opposed to Christianity where it conflicts with his politics, politics that so far as I can tell he has unthinkingly imbibed from mainstream opinion and propaganda. But what about beneath that? Is it The Darwinian Process that dictates some elements of Christianity are no longer relevant? How so?
(Mind you I'm not knocking the value of evolutionary psychology as a science despite its propensity for abuse. It simply has nothing to say about value. You could say everything is The Darwinian Process down to our very concept of value. In that case you've found God --- just swap the terms.)
I've seen atheistic teenagers with more depth than this guy.
It's not even the Darwinian process what he's worshipping. Evolution is organic. He thinks he's somehow in a position to judge these things top-down. Jonathan's points are more Darwinian than his.
👏👏👏👏👏THIS
@@OffbeatRefrigerator agreed, it's not a scientific take. "The Darwinian Process" in all caps becomes a stand in for god. Lex Friedman's discussion with Dawkins is an astonishing example of this.
I love it when two people I follow separately end up talking... feels like an avengers crossover event
"I'm high in empathy."
I bet.
It's like the ultimate virtue signalling thing to say.
Lmao- the high level of his arrogance suggests there’s not much room in there for empathy
High in whatever you call dudes that slip your wife their phone numbers when you leave the room.
I'm a good person... I'm free of sin... The sacred fire is with me alone
...
When Jonathan says “pattern of being” and Stephen says “pattern of being they’re not talking about the same thing.
Stephen seems to think the patterns are chosen and enforced by Christianity. Where Johnathan is saying that pattern enforces itself and Christianity pays attention to it
RR is a realist, and Jonathan is an idealist, so RR interprets patterns as the regularities of reality in a realist sense, meaning the "laws" of physics, the consequence of evolution by natural selection etc.
Jonathan interprets patterns as the regularities of reality in an idealist sense, meaning the transcendance of the structure of heaven and earth, order and chaos through and by human consciousness.
This was a very good convo, you should do a part 2
psychological evolution, primate evolution, or us standing from the point of evolved beings that come with a certain baggage is not "A POINT" of observation from which we can judge at all, since every one of us have very different backgrounds, we are at the edge between our ancestry and our past and the possibilities of being something else in the future, and such point is always moving and bifurcating or uniting with other points because that is the middle in which life happens. You can either accept the path which leads to life or the path that leads to death, and in this is only Christianity that holds the path to life, is the religión (re-ligare) that re-unites all the different aspects of existence in God himself. To think that you can be outside of the pattern of life to Judge life would literally turn you into God, which is impossible unless you are the messiah and you would be a false messiah actually since the true messiah gets embeded IN reality is INcarnated and does not look at his creation from the outside as Stephen is trying to do.
I love it Jonathan, Stephen didn't notice maybe but he was trying to make you apostatize in such a weird way and now I understand why you call people that try to make you do that (stand above all patterns to judge the patterns of reality) your enemies. Much love and may God keep blessing you!!!
Interesting points! What evidence is there of Christianity leading to life and evidence that Christianity reunites all aspects of existence?
@@theshirecrier-310 Every culture has had a culture of death, either human sacrifice, abortion, contraception, or things that are openly accepted and that are in principle against the very nature of life, and everytime Christianity (for me is just the catholic and the orthodox to some extent) arrived to any culture that worshiped death in a sense has been gained with death through love by Christian Martyrs beginning with Christ himself. I mean Rome was conquered by the deaths of Christian Martyrs, by proclaiming truth were condemned and by wilfully accepting death because of love of the enmies a new culture was born.
@@theshirecrier-310 Plus, the very concept of God for Christians is unity and multiplicity (Holy Trinity / triune / three and one) at he same time (concepts of life and reproduction, creativity) while evil in principle is the one that divides the one that separates and cuts, and everything that is false and falseness himself all that in the end causes death.
@@irodjetson So, Christians that dont believe in trinity are not supporting life?
@@theshirecrier-310 There is no such thing as a Christian that don't believe in the Trinity, if they don't believe in the Trinity then they are Christians simply by name but not by definition. Christ himself told his disciples to baptize using the trinitarian formula of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
RR’s hubris is astounding.
Jonathan you were a class act. You made some great points I haven’t put together yet. The only problem was the anxiety from the guest. Very limited view of Christianity. You were patient. Better then I would have been.
Yeees! This conversation was amazing! Please record more! Maybe, for next time, pick a specific topic - a book or a video or whatever, and try to stay within that topic, so you have sort of a common ground to stand on from which you can argue.
Stephen talks about evolving to live in a society today, as if we don't actually produce the society. He speaks in a very complicated way somewhat naively and makes little sense whereas Jonathan talks in a very complicated way that seems accessible and logical to an ordinary person.
"evolutionary psychology"
I remember being like RR, when I was 14. What a smoothbrain, and this is coming from an atheist.
He's like an awful pastiche of the new atheists (Dawkins et al). We knew their arguments were bad back then, but this guys arguments are just laughable.
Loved this conversation, Jonathan, thank you. The sooner we are honest that secularity and the evolutionary paradigm are not neutral positions above all others, the better. Evolution offers no participation, community, or love. Hope to see you both speak again soon!
Having watched Stephen’s material evolve from total dismissal of Peterson and others as peddlers of nonsense to coming to a good understanding of his evolutionary thinking, I am blown away. Kudos to you, good sir.
What fascinates me is that it took me almost no time at all to go from hard core atheist, dismissing all religious people as delusional fools, to a whole new world of understanding of religious stories via Peterson’s Maps of Meaning lectures.
At the time, I was so excited by this new understanding and I was convinced that it would prompt a rapid transformation/maturation of the atheist movement. But to my horror, the atheist movement put its back up to Peterson. As I was learning from Peterson, I was also a long term listener of Thomas Smith of the “Serious Inquiries Only” podcast, and Sam Harris, and I was absolutely shocked that neither of them could hear what he was saying. Listening to just a few hours of his U of Toronto lectures renders him perfectly intelligible, so it was super frustrating to see him treated like he’s a William Lane Craig type.
If the only difference between out-of-hand dismissal and serious consideration was a small amount of exposure, then boy was that a tragic loss for the atheist movement.
Matthieu’s book “The Language of Creation” has added several more layers of understanding as well. I’m trying to read the entire bible this year with my wife, so I’m finishing Matthieu’s book just in time!
Would you ever consider writing a book, Jonathan?
I see your point.
I consider myself in the cate_orie of "atheist that turn their back on JPeterson"
And I can tell you exactly why : JPeterson is an idealist. He is not a materialist. He uses the scientific lan_ua_e to lure in scientifically minded people, and to smu__le in _od.
This was made very blatant durin_ his final talk with sam harris in london with dou_las murray.
JPeterson is a "jesus smu__ler".
It seems evident to me why he has such a hu_e number of atheists amon_ his followers. because, as he puts it, for some people, "life is sufferin_", and his reformulation in symbolic lan_ua_e of pra_matism and Jun_ian philosophy offers a workin_ solution for many of them.
but life is not sufferin_ to me... so I don't need him...
"Rationality rules? I'm not interacting with that guy" -pageau like a year or two ago talking to Paul lol
Can't wait to listen to this one
I have been following Stephen for a while, I have to say he has evolved in his pursuit.
I like Pageau's comment on scalability. That's been my concern as I've been trying to bridge the gap between Vervaeke and Vanderklay.
Thank you both for this conversation!
Lots of ego coming off of Woodward, he seems to want to speak and think in sharply focused categories and hold concepts as though they are objectively real instead of mere tools. A lack of appreciation for blurriness, complexity, and nuance. Lots of binary judgements. The way that patterns shift and interact with the instantiations of reality is not so simple to be this applies or this doesn't. Important questions are how does this pattern apply, how do we understand and implement this pattern, how do we better understand and refine our understanding of patterns and how they interact? And are there other ways of describing the patterns of reality that are more accessible, provide better insight, or more functional within our current context? Then of course how do we bridge between these understandings in order to deepen understanding and support communication between frameworks and world views?
He seems to repeatedly get confused about the difference between the patterns themselves and their instantiations and interpretations. And even more than that he seems to not even recognize the fact that the conceptual tools that we use to describe patterns are themselves merely maps that are attempting to describe the territory. The issues that we have in religion have less to do with patterns being wrong then patterns being described in limited and flawed ways as well of barriers in communicability having a lot to do with the individuals ability to manifest an accurate and appropriately detailed image of the pattern within themselves or recognize the external representation of such an image.
He is typical of left thinking now. He wants Platonic forms - in some form. A kind of idiot Socrates - with a hangover.
He seems to sense age-old problems. This acknowledgement, on the left, seems to lead lefties to postmodern mumbo-jumbo. Let's hope he becomes a bit more adult than most people who walk away from leftist mumbo-jumbo and tin its gods.
He seems to be on a journey - he'll probably end up in the people's republic of postmodistan. But there's always hope.
@@damianbylightning6823 a lot of shade coming off that commentary, but I found it pretty amusing and there is some good signal in there, thanks
Totally unexpected crossover between you two, but I'm very glad it happened. Love the discussion so far.
most people", "most Christians", "colloquial use"....I feel like all RR does it caricature the majority and then criticizes them instead of talking to Jonathan. Just because most people don't understand calculus, doesn't mean "true" calculus doesn't exist. I also find it interesting that RR appeals so much to science and reason yet doesn't provide any justification for why we should believe in those mechanisms in the first place. God bless you Jonathan, that was a challenging discussion.
“Metaphorical fight” ❤️it
Was worth having to re-record for that joke. In my opinion of course 😊
Drink everytime he says evolutionary psychology as an escape of the limits that his worldview has.
I wish I could be as patient as Jonathan is with conversations like this.
I love these conversations with atheists because they force Jonathan to think of new ways of describing his own ideas. They may feel a bit more jarring but they are very productive. Keep up the good work ..
Jonathan is clearly getting the most from it.
From a simple voyeur from the fringe of Jonathans crowd responding to the outro:
Firstly, I hope the two of you gentlemen will continue having conversations.
Secondly, it would be interesting for me to follow said conversations, unless the pressure of having third-person eyes on your exchange makes it unreasonably difficult.
God bless both of you :D
It is truly remarkable to watch how the quality of discourse around Christianity has evolved in recent years.
I remember growing up listening to Richard Dawkins and Bill O'Reilly debate in 2007 feeling self-satisfied and smug in my secular agnosticism. How absurd Christianity seemed to me then.
Jordan Peterson's output and in particular his discussions with Sam Harris in 2018 changed things. And now this...
The hard-line atheist position has evidently lost a serious amount of ground and intellectual credibility and continues to recede.
Thank you both for engaging in this most fascinating conversation.
Jonathan's question "where do you stand?" was particularly illuminating.
Are you still agnostic ?
@@christianlacroix5430 No - I consider myself Christian now. Although the way I think about it is that I have always been Christian in some sense. Though back then I was an ignorant Christian or a Christian in denial or something like that. I think it can be kind of misleading to look purely at the superficial level of propositional and explicit belief to locate our religion. What I would say is that Christian ontology (Christian notions of time and space for example) and culture has inevitably forged my very identity from the day I was born. I was born and grew within a Christian frame. When I say I was "agnostic" that is how I would have identified at the time. But in retrospect I simply see myself as a Christian in denial or a Christian ignorant of their Christianity or something like that. Or a Christian undergoing a crisis of faith. Even though I wouldn't have consciously seen it that way. Unconsciously that is an accurate description of what was happening.
@@samuelglenn123 do you accept idealism ? ou do you reject it ?
@@MrGustavier sure I accept idealism. mind and "reality" are intimately tied up in deeply mysterious ways.
@@samuelglenn123 I think in the future, those mysteries might be solved, probably by science, like science solved other mysteries (tide goes in tide goes out :p).
I thought this was a very insightful conversation. Thank you both for making this happen, I’d love to see more.
Is anybody else really tired of hearing the baby in the bathwater analogy
Yes! Thank you for putting it out there!
haha yes, I always found it weird...
I'm revisiting some of these older videos and I find it so interesting how he speaks of evolution as having a will and being causal and being able to choose
32 minutes in and clearly Woodford is having a hard time understanding the symbolic connotations of reality because his agenda/bias against religion won't allow him to. Let's see what the rest of the video has to offer..
yes I also have a hard time understanding the symbolic connotations. I wasn't brought up in a religious environment so I don't understand why people use such poor and dated symbolism when we have such profound work that has been done to describe reality in the past 2000 years...
After watching the video, can you name a single instance where Jonathan was willing to engage with any of Stephens ideas? As far as I can tell, there was not a single instance where Jonathan was willing to even entertain the idea that we ought to evaluate religious concepts based on their applicability to our contemporary societal norms and values. Stephen on the other hand was willing extent an olive branch by acknowledging the fact that some religious symbols can be enormously useful. As far as I can tell, Stephen genuinely tried his best to engage with Jonathan's ideas and find common ground that both parties could find satisfying and beneficial. If there were indeed some symbolic connotations that Stephen missed or failed to understand, I'd like to hear what they were.
The only criticism I'd aim at Stephen would be him rather unnecessarily pointing out the negative connotations associated with femininity in Christian symbolism - not that he was wrong about the issues, but because Jonathan clearly didn't hold a simplistic notion about the feminine as a purely negative force.
@@Shaewaros he specifically explained WHY what you suggest CAN'T be done. He SPECIFICALLY addressed this, you just didn't like his explanation. You HAVE to stand WITHIN a frame - it's NOT POSSIBLE to do as you and Stephen suggest and stand on the outside of all and judge each fairly based on the goodness / badness of each. Watch the video again. This is the second comment I've seen you make where he SPECIFICALLY addresses something you erroneously claim he didn't address. But the fact is you just chose to ignore his response. Watch the video again please
...and he sort of asking Jonathan to step out of his belief and make a checklist for the pros and cons of Christianity ...that was funny
@@demetriusmiddleton1246 What Stephen is doing during this conversation is trying to build a bridge between Jungism and a more conventional Empiricist points of view. He is trying to find a compelling middle ground, since these views are are fundamentally at odds with each other.
What Jonathan did in the course of this conversation was to stick to his Jungian framework and refused to engage with any ideas outside of this theoretical framework. When Jonathan is talking about the Christian frame, he is basically saying "I will not agree to evaluate any epistemologies that do not meet my strict Jungian point of view". This is basically synonymous to saying "I know what is right, so I don't need to consider your point of view". Do you think this is a productive way to have a meaningful conversation?
Jungism does not present any scientific proof of it's claim, so it's not possible to use it as compelling evidence in a conversation dealing with real societal issues. By scientific proof I mean Jungism doesn't have any way of testing whether the claims it makes about the nature of reality are actually true (meaning they're the actual state of affairs). This is why it absolutely cannot be used as the foundation of any practical evaluation of societal norms or laws, otherwise the rules of our society would be based on a seemingly arbitrary and baseless set of norms. This is why Stephen - who understands Jonathan's point of view perfectly well - cannot agree to Jonathan's claims about a Christian frame working as the grounding for Western societal norms. We have to build our societies based on values that we know actually have a measurably positive impact on the society.