@@peterrosqvist2480 He gave them a grammar to understand their own traditions better. The 'religion that is not a religion' may have been a diversion, but the 'philosophical silk road' is much more agreeable to the Christian sphere.
In love with words, yes. But on the other side of the coin of his love for words --> John Verveake is also afraid to be misunderstood, be isolated ("cancelled") & be left alone; again. ^^ ❤ Godspeed 🙏❤
I used to be a 6 day Creationist ( 40% of Americans believe this 130+ million). So I don't know what planet JV has been living on. Religion and science are in conflict because religion is based on "Holy Books" that cannot be falsified or ignored. IMO JV is playing to his audience and giving them license for their wacky beliefs. He is always talking about wisdom. What does the Christian and Hebrew scriptures say. "The commencement of wisdom is the fear of Jehovah, and a knowledge of the Holy Ones is understanding." Proverbs 9:10. Total authoritarianism! "In the lips of the intelligent is wisdom found, And A ROD is for the back of him who is lacking understanding." Proverbs 10:13. The usual attacking of the enlightenment AS IF Christianity has something better. I notice that JV does not interact with anyone who actually might push back against his "ideas". His ideas are even more confused and buzzwordy than Jordan Peterson and that is no small feat.
Vervaeke was raised fundamentalist Christian and traumatised by that experience, yet he finds himself somewhere radically different than yourself. He opened this clip with describing the ways in which he has fundamentally changed his approach to his project based on critique, from individualist to dialogical. He is hardly afraid of feedback. He also made a reply to Decoding the Gurus. If anything he is more open to engaging criticism than most.
@@GRIFFIN1238 Well that is good. Why not have a dialog with Paul Churchland? Alex Rosenberg? Richard Carrier? What are specifically the hypothesis he is advocating for? How does he provide evidence which support these hypotheses? There are many systems of metaphysical speculation out there that use a lot of obscure language Plotinus, Hegal, Heidegger, Aquinas.... how do you decide which hypothesis are correct without testing them? I have a very deflationary view of Metaphysics.
Hey Brother I think there's plenty of us who'd love to actually talk about all this stuff with you - assuming you're here due to real interest - but maybe tone down the hostility? The science VS religion topic is a valid concern but I think this space is more a place of discussion and not heated debate. n.n
I do not “ believe “ in God! Just as much as I know that 1+1=2 I know that Gods exists. I know that God exists more than I know that I exist. I know now what is the image in which I am made . I know God. To say that one does not know where God gets you as a hypothesis is as silly to me as saying I don’t know where consciousness gets you .
Let’s just create a new religion where I am the leader who invents the gate keeping jargon… heaven forbid he should just submit to Christ and repent and CRUCIFY his intellect. Go read some Fr Seraphim Rose and humble yourself… 🤦🏻♀️☦️🙏🏻
Just a critic of what john says. Its alot of big words that are substitutes for a simpler way of talking. It sounds deep and meaningful, but from a certain point of view, theres not much there. Especially compared to Jonathan. Good to hear jv has given up his idea of starting his own religion.
The Sacred: unfortunately that definition doesn't seem to have any element of ethics or morality. Maybe he is assuming The Good is congruent with The Sacred? That would be a mistake.
I have only ever heard that from people who can't or won't understand the point. Obviously he believes what he's saying has coherence, and so do PVK and Pageau at least to some extent. You are either insulting their intelligence, or your own.
@@GRIFFIN1238 How would we know if anything JV said has anything to do with reality? They are assertions piled on assertions piled on assertions. How could his speculations be tested?
@@tgrogan6049 Fair question. For one, the highly positive reception of people to the dialogical practices, assuming we can trust our communal sense for what is good. For another, the simple fact of Pageau and Paul being highly interested in what he has to say. Vervaeke seems to have a sort of transcendental naturalism grounded in a fundamental 'Good', what a Christian might call 'God'. Ultimately, we have fundamental assumptions that we base other things off of. Even in a strictly empirical frame. Maybe the philosophical divide is just so vast that we cannot communicate across it, at least not for certain topics. For my own part, I can see what Vervaeke is saying, even if I don't always adopt that philosophical frame. Even if at times I am *highly* sceptical. I dance between worldviews - as painful and disconcerting as that is.
The "Sacred", one of my favourite modern, secular concepts.
John Vervake sure can talk. In love with words. I’m switching off more these days.
Vervaeke can be difficult to understand but his work is brilliant. If you like Pageau and VanderKlay, his work supports theirs.
@@peterrosqvist2480 He gave them a grammar to understand their own traditions better. The 'religion that is not a religion' may have been a diversion, but the 'philosophical silk road' is much more agreeable to the Christian sphere.
In love with words, yes.
But on the other side of the coin of his love for words --> John Verveake is also afraid to be misunderstood, be isolated ("cancelled") & be left alone; again. ^^ ❤
Godspeed 🙏❤
This is a great teaser, excited for the full conversation.
I am grateful for J V s progression 🙏 this claryfications ..the goal to make space for the sacred dimension
I'm excited to see his presence on JBPs Gospel Seminar. He's mentioned elsewhere that it was a restorative experience.
I tried so hard to avoid another subscription fee. I surrender. Going to sign up for no wait no adds. Well played sir.
Lord have mercy! 😢😢😢
I used to be a 6 day Creationist ( 40% of Americans believe this 130+ million). So I don't know what planet JV has been living on. Religion and science are in conflict because religion is based on "Holy Books" that cannot be falsified or ignored. IMO JV is playing to his audience and giving them license for their wacky beliefs.
He is always talking about wisdom. What does the Christian and Hebrew scriptures say. "The commencement of wisdom is the fear of Jehovah, and a knowledge of the Holy Ones is understanding." Proverbs 9:10. Total authoritarianism! "In the lips of the intelligent is wisdom found, And A ROD is for the back of him who is lacking understanding." Proverbs 10:13. The usual attacking of the enlightenment AS IF Christianity has something better. I notice that JV does not interact with anyone who actually might push back against his "ideas". His ideas are even more confused and buzzwordy than Jordan Peterson and that is no small feat.
Vervaeke was raised fundamentalist Christian and traumatised by that experience, yet he finds himself somewhere radically different than yourself.
He opened this clip with describing the ways in which he has fundamentally changed his approach to his project based on critique, from individualist to dialogical. He is hardly afraid of feedback. He also made a reply to Decoding the Gurus. If anything he is more open to engaging criticism than most.
@@GRIFFIN1238 Well that is good. Why not have a dialog with Paul Churchland? Alex Rosenberg? Richard Carrier? What are specifically the hypothesis he is advocating for? How does he provide evidence which support these hypotheses? There are many systems of metaphysical speculation out there that use a lot of obscure language Plotinus, Hegal, Heidegger, Aquinas.... how do you decide which hypothesis are correct without testing them? I have a very deflationary view of Metaphysics.
Hey Brother I think there's plenty of us who'd love to actually talk about all this stuff with you - assuming you're here due to real interest - but maybe tone down the hostility? The science VS religion topic is a valid concern but I think this space is more a place of discussion and not heated debate. n.n
"I used to be a 6 day Creationist."
This is new info to me. But it makes a lot of sense. 😶
What an actor🙂
I do not “ believe “ in God!
Just as much as I know that 1+1=2 I know that Gods exists.
I know that God exists more than I know that I exist. I know now what is the image in which I am made . I know God. To say that one does not know where God gets you as a hypothesis is as silly to me as saying I don’t know where consciousness gets you .
Let’s just create a new religion where I am the leader who invents the gate keeping jargon… heaven forbid he should just submit to Christ and repent and CRUCIFY his intellect. Go read some Fr Seraphim Rose and humble yourself… 🤦🏻♀️☦️🙏🏻
Just finished a full and intense listen and bravo. Bravo! So excited for the full thing!
Just a critic of what john says. Its alot of big words that are substitutes for a simpler way of talking. It sounds deep and meaningful, but from a certain point of view, theres not much there. Especially compared to Jonathan. Good to hear jv has given up his idea of starting his own religion.
The Sacred: unfortunately that definition doesn't seem to have any element of ethics or morality. Maybe he is assuming The Good is congruent with The Sacred? That would be a mistake.
So John Lennon is dead, not G-d? Re-enchantment.
Strangely hostile comment section. Not sure what to make of that. Looking forward to my favorite trio of conversationalists! (sorry Jordan)
I am SUCKER for SACER!!
Pure word salad.
I have only ever heard that from people who can't or won't understand the point.
Obviously he believes what he's saying has coherence, and so do PVK and Pageau at least to some extent.
You are either insulting their intelligence, or your own.
@@GRIFFIN1238holy shit that was poetry
@@GRIFFIN1238 How would we know if anything JV said has anything to do with reality? They are assertions piled on assertions piled on assertions. How could his speculations be tested?
@@tgrogan6049 Fair question. For one, the highly positive reception of people to the dialogical practices, assuming we can trust our communal sense for what is good. For another, the simple fact of Pageau and Paul being highly interested in what he has to say.
Vervaeke seems to have a sort of transcendental naturalism grounded in a fundamental 'Good', what a Christian might call 'God'. Ultimately, we have fundamental assumptions that we base other things off of. Even in a strictly empirical frame. Maybe the philosophical divide is just so vast that we cannot communicate across it, at least not for certain topics.
For my own part, I can see what Vervaeke is saying, even if I don't always adopt that philosophical frame. Even if at times I am *highly* sceptical. I dance between worldviews - as painful and disconcerting as that is.