The definition of religion is that to which we are bound. People do not realize that and materialistic atheism is bleak and unsatisfying. Having it all materiality means nothing and does not satisfy the soul. Of course he cannot bring up religion; it is not a four letter word; but it might as well be. The Pagan religion had meaning and the religions of today except for the fanatical have meaning and are nurturing for body; mind; and soul. Now Alex has brought in religion; good; of course being an agnostic he does not have religious intuition and misses the point in relation to religion which is much more than narrative which is of the head not of the heart. Religion, at its best, is both.
Another point all science knows about is the elemental; which is of the body. Math is cognitive; of the head. The problem is how do you unite the two; the mind/body split. In religion mind and body; cognition and feeling are united through intuition. Most today have limited intuition. A high level of intuition is a great gift. The rationalists seek to diminish it as just a womanist thing and likely to be more wrong than right. One thing that is a fact intuition that is based on both calm reason and calm feeling is always right; always on target.
Science had its root in religion; it would be nice to mention that as well. The problem with science is if it totally detaches from its source it is unmoored; up a creek without a paddle. Cognitive psychology is idiocy on steroids; what will it come up with next, trans humanism or some other abhorrent ideology. Again, detachment from the source as with communism which tried to bring about unity at the material level. Nothing, nothing, can be brought about at the material level ignoring the other two levels. Consciousness; Mind; Elements. Materialists have to come around to acknowledging that there are two other levels or realms, not just the one they posit. The lack of this acknowledgement is why consciousness is what philosophy calls ‘the hard problem.’ Finally, religion is being brought up.
So far, intuition not mentioned once and it is what religion; (that to which we are bound), springs from. Life comes to a physical end; to a materialist that is the end. Beyond the elemental there is consciousness; mind; electricities; electromagnetism; and magnetism; the latter is still a total mystery. To a religious person it does not end with the tangible as the tangible would not exist if there were not a viable intangible. The problem for atheistic philosophy is; why is there something rather than nothing and how does something come from nothing which could be the definition of vagueness. You intuitively know that you are immortal unless you are programmed otherwise, why is that not an option in the conversation. In the East, Consciousness is God; one and the same. In the West, consciousness is ‘the hard problem.’
What I noticed with both Hitchens brother is that they are both very stubborn, tempermental. I listened to Christopher Hitchens more than his brother. I just recently found out about Peter Hitchens. In Peter Hitchen's younger lifetime when he was debating, he was sarcatstically a bit rude or pompous at a time but he seems worse so in hid old age. I never seen him act this way in other videos.
@@NZT42 Yes, Hitchens was correct in saying that Alex was being a bore in that interview, and more than a little annoying. Of course, Hitchens's behavior was completely unacceptable even for an eight year old let alone a grown man, but he did have a point in what he was saying.
Totally agree. I'll admit he was little known to me prior to this exposure, but perhaps one of the most intelligent guests on the podcast ever; sharing a fascinating perspective clearly and concisely while avoiding offense. Truly impressive.
He is actually? The reputation I've always heard of him is that he's a psuedo-intellectual / pop philosopher who doesn't actually engage much with actual scholarship
I like Christopher Hitchens' party analogy to death: “It will happen to all of us, that at some point you get tapped on the shoulder and told, not just that the party’s over, but slightly worse: the party’s going on - but you have to leave. And it’s going on without you. That’s the reflection that I think most upsets people about their demise. All right, then, because it might make us feel better, let’s pretend the opposite. Instead, you’ll get tapped on the shoulder and told, Great news: this party’s going on forever - and you can’t leave. You’ve got to stay; the boss says so. And he also insists that you have a good time.” I see, why there is a sentiment against immortality there, but I also understand, that death is the ultimate fear of missing out, because it will make you miss out on everything. People are fearful of missing out an actual party, so it is natural, that they are also fearful of missing out the party we call life, so in that sense I don't find fearing death, and not just only dying fearful. Also I think - as I have no statistics, but only anecdotal "evidence" - that those who are more accepting their own death are older at average than those who are fearful of it, making so than at a young age you want to live forever, and at an older age, you realize, that while it was good, that much of living is enough.
As an older guy, I look back (& forward) at life and think it’s just ok. Getting older makes me less enamored with keeping the party going but it’s good enough to see it through. Young people have more of the optimism that it will get better, when it’s more likely they’re at the peak experience.
Quite right: to me, FOMO is one reason I “fear” death/non-existence. My hope is that better things will come after I’m gone and though I’m sad I (as me) won’t be around to see and experience it, that doesn’t mean that sadness descends or translates into nihilism, resentment or utter despair. It just doesn’t.
@@williamkoscielniak7871 he’s contrasting the atheist analogy of the afterlife with the Christian version. In the former the party is life, which will continue after you die without you (no afterlife) vs in the latter the party is heaven which you can’t leave.
The way alex switches from debate mode to interviewer/host commentator is extraordinary, Night and day from the Ben Shapiro debate God bless and thank you for all your years of hard work to provide knowledge and insight to your followers
The synchronicity of John's hand causing a blurry face while discussing interactional patterns that become self deceptive and "cloud" the agent-arena relationship 1:15:45, while likely unintentional, was beautiful 😊
I’m a fan of absurdism because it’s clear there’s no meaning but what we create but it’s also clear we evolved to really care about the meaning of our lives. Learning to live with this tension is the human project. Camus makes a good point that people are just hiding from this problem when they latch on to religion or some other narrative. The authentic, brave way to live is to embrace the absurdity and not make excuses or explain it away. That’s what makes the closing to The Myth of Sisyphus so powerful, “The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
I actually believe that most atheists who operate with a reductive materialistic narrative are actually functionally absurdists. Scientists and their relationship with gravity is a great example of this. We don't know why gravity exists or what it even is, but thanks to Einstein we are able to quantify it. They don't believe in any inherent meaning to the universe, but if they can calculate the effects of gravity on an apple, on a plane, and on a space station and use that knowledge to propel us further into the universe, then I see no reason as to why we must know the ontological grounding of meaning or love or humility in order to work with the phenomenology of their experiences. Absurdism is to realize the futility of meaning and yet still continue to cultivate it as they propel themselves through the void of nihilism because their experience is defined by the relativity of accepting their own experiences, or rejecting their own experiences and rejection can only lead to Camus' physical or philosophical un-alivings. Both death and narrative become cop outs.
Absurdism is the belief that searching for a meaning is pointless. Camus in the myth of sisyphus is arguing for Existentialism. His other works like "the stranger" is about absurdism but since you said you are a fan of absurdism, I thought I would mention that what you are really a fan of is existentialism.
@@dccopi it becomes clear when one lacks the presuppositions required to perceive meaning as ontologically objective/necessary. I offer no reason to object to your presuppositions, we all must default to some ideas. For example, the lack of presuppositions to the contrary becomes a justification for us to presuppose that it doesn't exist as such even though we have no ability to prove it.
@@Gruso57 he argues about how other existentialists have stopped short and committed “philosophical suicide”, such as Kierkegaard taking the religious escape hatch. In my reading of it, he’s explaining why existentialism hasn’t fully embrace the absurd. In fact he spends much of the book defining what the absurd is and how to stay in the moment of the absurd, using the term specifically. Perhaps I don’t appreciate the distinction you’re making; that’s possible.
John's greatest strength is his humility! As a scientist he realises he has much to learn from religion and I know of Christians in particular who have learned plenty from John's work. Evidence of the fruitful coexistence of religion and science.
13:32 the scientific worldview denies anything but itself as illusion. But Neitzsche pointed out when relativity, with no absolutes, what happens to our need for a new ethos. He proposed the disposal of good and evil as useful (even, actual) fictions which "scientific" materialistic humankind.
Scientism insists on the scientific, Cartesian, mechanistic compartmentalized "left brain " world-view is all that is real, and all else is irrelevant. The "right brain" world-view is based on awareness, taoist, of process, holistic, emotional, artistic, beautiful, meaningful aspects of experience. Both worldviews help negotiate the world, neither generates the wholeness of what it means to experience reality as a happy, sane, healthy, meaningful life.
I love vervaeke and grateful that you really pinned him down on why and what the desire for an after life in essence really is. This a really important question for both religious and non-religious. It’s one of the most important human questions!
This. I love vervaeke too but he’s rarely challenged like this. I’ll have to listen again and also listen to vanderklays commentary. To me he didn’t have a great answer.
Because we have the intelligibility for it that transcends the phenomenological aspect of our lives. Maybe we are here to remember and remind ourselves what we already know and that the desire is genuine and not an illusion.
The desire for an afterlife and immortality is not unusual phenomena, Because we have the intelligibility for it, that transcends the phenomenological aspect of our lives. Maybe we are here to remember and remind ourselves what we already know and that the desire is genuine and not an illusion.
Try Vervaeke's series "Awakening from the Meaning Crisis" ruclips.net/video/ncd6q9uIEdw/видео.htmlsi=RTCX3Wapk1VTb7mJ it's a bit of a slog (you should definitely be pausing every so often ((really often), and even sleeping) on the concepts) the juice is definitely worth the squeeze, though
@@carel-bartviljoen3465I struggle with the majority of his videos, have to watch them 3 times over and get frustrated. I'm not a patient person and I feel a lot of debates among 'intellects' are for people with too much time on their hands to debate in circles and riddles knowing full well there is no right or wrong answer to any of these topics.
Alex, nice to see Vervaeke here. Then the natural next guess seems to be BERNARDO KASTRUP--I really want to see you engaging him in the channel. Vervaeke and Kastrup had a 2-part dialogue on Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal, which was amazingly good session.
By the way (for Alex), he is similarly to Vervaeke in the "bridging science and spirituality" camp (if that's a thing), only more directly focused on metaphysics. I highly recommend him as a guest.
Excellent conversation! (Still have the end to watch.) When I hear an argument like, "But why would anything matter if it's all destroyed in the heat death?" I hear the devaluation of presence / the overvaluation of imaginal future. I hear the valuing of life ONLY in the absence of death, which I would loosely classify under delusional, since they are two sides of the same coin / mouth & ass of the entity / crest & troth of the same wave of how isness is.
Excellent. There’s an interview on RUclips with Nial Ferguson. He talks why , as an atheist, he regularly goes to church to find a belonging and meaning. It adds light to his wife’s supposed conversion.
As a free thinker i think it is not good, not helpful to convert back to christianity. Mrs Hirsi did it, okay, but it will not help our free cause. A free open society has to battle what is coming towards us. But with modern intelligent democratic means. The christian experiment, 2ooo years, is over. Done. Rational thought has to rule now. Not ancient foggy beliefs. And if Niall wants to go to church, then yes, i get it. Me too .... its a grand old feeling. I love churches and medieval castles ...just ..... in church the sermons in the service are so simple, so low resolution, so uninformative. My 10year old son has more interesting thoughts than those priests...... Experiment over.
I myself used to have death anxiety as well, which completely disappeared after my born-again experience. I would say the feeling of an uncertain and terrifying void was replaced with an invisible but definitely tangible feeling of comfort of being covered and protected - as if no matter what happens, I cannot escape that connection (unless I guess I’m not connected). But not that I’d ever want to be senseless enough to want to escape that 😏🤗😇😇 John was my CogSci professor and have enjoyed his lectures immensely like no other, except my other favourite teacher, Jordan B Peterson 💙 How lucky was I to take part in all that. 🙂🙃😊😊🤩
A fascinating interview Alex! I think the data John pointed to on people of faith having greater mental health benefits has been shown very persuasively. (see Tyler VanderWheele’s USA Today article ‘Religion May Be a Miracle Drug’) But I must say I find the hypothesis that it’s the ‘mystical’ experience that’s driving this very hard to believe. From my own experience as part of a Christian community, it has been other things that seem to be in operation - community support amidst suffering or hardship or joy, a mission- sense of calling towards a work that is worth sacrificing personal comfort for, truth/wisdom- a sense that what we do is true, not in an illusory way but has real weight, Hope in an afterlife and Service- getting out and helping others in practical ways brings that sense of joy and meaning.
What a mystical experience actually is has unfortunately been limited by some to only mean the mystical experience of the quixotic variety. The litany of meaningful things you described can certainly be a significant part of mystical experience. In fact, the earnest way you seem to describe them tells me that you had or still have mystical experiences in relation to, or because of, those things.
All sorts of things can be "very hard to believe". I think it a little ironic that if not for Paul's mystical experience on the road to Damascus, it is most likely that your "Christian community" would never even have come into existence. The original group would have been a footnote in history as a minor group within Judaism with somewhat eccentric ideas about the Messiah - a group that probably would have died with the Roman crushing of the Jewish rebellion of 66-70.
I believe 5 people in total are able to follow all the terms and references made by John V. In ten years he can put this in a way that makes sense to more people. Or just comprehensible. But I still like John.
Yeah: people who don’t get this will give knee-jerk reactions rather than admit they don’t get some of it. That’s a little upsetting to me to put it mildly.
Early on there was a discussion on the loss of narrative which seemed also linked to the silence Vervaeke experienced when he asked his class "where do you get wisdom?" - I guess the point here isn't that we have literally lost all narratives but that there is no core narrative or set of narratives for our society, for example no origin narratives which are commonly agreed upon.
Yes his example of the silence after that question was very enlightening. I think we’ve begun to lose the “narratives” of regular in-person community-building as well. Narrative doesn’t have to be a story someone tells you that you glean wisdom from. Stories and identity form with consistent community. Traditions, memories, rhythms, and identity take shape in a “narrative” like form with communal repetition. And then you will have people telling stories of where we’ve been and who we are. I think society is currently trending towards an increasingly vapid existence in this regard. We need to reverse this intentionally IMO. Religious or not.
@@carolm753 I wonder if the plurality of narrative is a consequence of the change in power structures in society. With a strong central power that dictates what people should believe and what faith practises they should follow, there is at least the appearance of a united society with a core narrative, this is also linked to technology and education - the printing press and the spread of literacy with also impact fragmentation of core narratives.
I've always been more of the mind frame that wisdom is gained through life's experiences. There's a reason young kids don't have wisdom, they haven't lived enough life to have learned what and what not to do. I can tell you not to touch the hot stove but you won't have the experience or wisdom of that sensation until you touched it yourself.
I'm completely onboard with this guy's perspective on meaning and science, and I've arrived at similar conclusions in my doctoral studies in cognitive neuroscience. There might be something unquantifiable about the *experience* of meaningfulness, but modern cognitive science *does* have the tools to explain the underlying structure and causality of meaning - particularly "4E Cognition" (embodied, embedded, enacted, extended). That's my jam.
Regarding the last question about a fear of death (as opposed to a fear of dying), what such a fear seems to be rooted in is the sense that one has not done all the things that one has to do. The fear is that the hard stop of mortality will prevent access to more time to do those things, cutting oneself off from the possibility of doing those things. These things that one has to do aren't necessarily particular accomplishments, but instead the achievement of the sense of meaning (in the fourfold manner that Vervaeke outlines) that such accomplishments can provide, whether it's climbing Mount Everest or reconciling with a loved one or finally getting the sense that the world makes sense. So the better question might be "what can be done when one finds oneself about to die and one realizes that one is not connected to something other than oneself, that one has never made any sense of the world, that one has had no impact on anything, and that the deferral of these to the future is no longer possible because one no longer has a future?" or in other words, "What can be done in the face of immanent death when one realizes that one has lead a life devoid of meaning, with no hope of getting that meaning in the future?" The immanence here can be one of "I'm literally about to die" or " I've realized in the here and now that I will die one day." Though in the latter case, deferral to the future is still an option, albeit an unwise one.
I think your question to John about death in relation to meaning was very potent, and I think it's telling that the examples he gave (e.g. stoicism and epicureanism) to counter the idea that religions offer a sense of meaning due to their conception of the afterlife are also the same "religions" he earlier said developed in a *prior meaning crisis*. Thus, it seems to me what he was saying was really supporting your argument rather than making a strong objection to it!
Even if a god exists who has a purpose in mind for us, it is no more or less rational or arbitrary to decide to live according to that purpose than any other arbitrarily chosen purpose. You can't get an “ought” from an “is.” The mere fact that a god exists (if indeed one does) and opposes his own purpose does not mean that we therefore ought to live out that purpose. Ultimate purposes are not something that reason can establish. As David Hume once said, “it is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.” By this he didn't mean that there's no difference between the two, or it doesn't matter which we prefer, only that it is not an issue that reason can ultimately decide. To choose a purpose, even if you are choosing to live out a divinely dictated one, is a-rational, not rational or irrational. There's no objectivity to god's purpose. To say that something is objective is to say that it is independent of the judgment of a subject. A subject is any conscious being. If god is a conscious being, and purpose depends on his judgment, then purpose depends on the judgment of a subject and even god's purposes are therefore subjective, not objective. If god deliberately made us, he has a purpose in mind for us, but again, that purpose is not objective. There is no objective reason why we ought to follow that purpose over any other. And what is god's purpose specifically? Something I often hear is that our purpose is to glorify god. That seems like a pretty arbitrary purpose to me. I don't see what's so objectively great about glorifying god. What meaning does glorifying god have? Even if there is a god, there's no such thing as objective purpose or objective value. These things both depend upon the judgments of subjects, and are therefore subjective. I don't understand how there could be any such thing. Because, again, even if there is a God who dictates a purpose to us, there is still no objective, non-circular reason why we ought to fulfil that purpose. If everything was infinite, it would lose any value.
Great discussion. It seems to me that on the issue of desire for immortality, they are both overthinking the issue. Fear of death is inherent in our evolutionary biology. The average person does not contemplate the consequences, they simply see death as a loss and feel death as an end to their significance as biological organisms. Simple as that. Analogous to the avoidance of pain. It's part of our hard wiring.
I don't think it's purely an individual thing, but how human civilization has cultivated an incentive to defend against mortality. Similar to how Ernest Becker explains in The Denial of Death: our evolutionary preoccupations are (from one perspective) a cloaked avoidance of death. We might not think day-to-day about death as seriously, but we like to collectively act as if death is not the end of who we are. Whether that's a belief in gods, a multi-generational science project or simply a desire to leave a legacy beyond ourselves. As humans, we tend to dream more about what we could be, than what we are.
In that respect, it would be the ultimate antithesis of 'self preservation' - the end of the self. It would seem like a natural instinct from that view.
I agree, but I think the point of discussing it is to help people who still have the fear of death. I want to be good to people, make a better world, and hence leave a positive legacy, but I still don't want to die and have a fear of dying. Obviously I accept my fate, but I wish I could choose when and how to go. The conversation got me thinking about if we could live forever but could end it. I could imagine that there would come a time in my life when I felt that I had done everything I wanted to, and would decide to go. Life could simply get boring, or the world could become so perfect that I would feel I am not needed. It's a bit like the idea of heaven (which horrifies me). If I was in a "perfect" place like that, I may want to get out. Dying to get out of heaven, so to speak. 😅
I've met plenty of people who think there will be an afterlife simply because they can't imagine not existing... so I think its fair to say that many people just don't think about death very often because they dont feel like it, they will worry about it later etc.
Drew A. Information (internet): the what B. Knowledge (science): the how C. Wisdom & Meaning (religions, ideologies, tales & stories): the synthesis of the how, what, and why i. Belonging ii. Connectedness ~ to something we would want to exist even if we didn't. (more important than any individual)
there is a correlation with young male suicide and atheism, as atheism gives no meaning, value or purpose, except that which you are forced to make up subjectively for yourself. This deep down made up meaning for existence expressed in memes, and random quotes leads eventually to depression and despair. But some atheists are successful in making up a meaning that keeps them happy and fuzzy whilst living out their objectively meaningless existence in an indifferent universe.
@@ministryofarguments5257 Even if a god exists who has a purpose in mind for us, it is no more or less rational or arbitrary to decide to live according to that purpose than any other arbitrarily chosen purpose. You can't get an “ought” from an “is.” The mere fact that a god exists (if indeed one does) and opposes his own purpose does not mean that we therefore ought to live out that purpose. Ultimate purposes are not something that reason can establish. As David Hume once said, “it is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.” By this he didn't mean that there's no difference between the two, or it doesn't matter which we prefer, only that it is not an issue that reason can ultimately decide. To choose a purpose, even if you are choosing to live out a divinely dictated one, is a-rational, not rational or irrational. There's no objectivity to god's purpose. To say that something is objective is to say that it is independent of the judgment of a subject. A subject is any conscious being. If god is a conscious being, and purpose depends on his judgment, then purpose depends on the judgment of a subject and even god's purposes are therefore subjective, not objective. If god deliberately made us, he has a purpose in mind for us, but again, that purpose is not objective. There is no objective reason why we ought to follow that purpose over any other. And what is god's purpose specifically? Something I often hear is that our purpose is to glorify god. That seems like a pretty arbitrary purpose to me. I don't see what's so objectively great about glorifying god. What meaning does glorifying god have? Even if there is a god, there's no such thing as objective purpose or objective value. These things both depend upon the judgments of subjects, and are therefore subjective. I don't understand how there could be any such thing. Because, again, even if there is a God who dictates a purpose to us, there is still no objective, non-circular reason why we ought to fulfil that purpose. If everything was infinite, it would lose any value.
@@ministryofarguments5257 it's a moral imperative if you are in a position to help to do so. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Its not suppose to give meaning, value or purpose. I make my own meaning. I find freedom and joy in that. Other than that I don't argue with theists. Thank you for your input.
@@chamicels there are no moral imperatives, either it's right or wrong, good or bad, but both are acceptable in atheism, as you have zero guidance, just personal random feelings about what's right and wrong. That's why we see Israeli atheists committing some of the worst crimes in human history right now. Atheism has nothing at all to offer , it's nothing, like asymmetry, except made up ideology, memes etc and that's why atheists have issues about this as documented by Nietzsche quite well. Good luck making up a meaning for your meaningless existence in an indifferent universe that doesn't care if you exist or not. Have a nice day 😃
The reason that we cannot find ''meaning'' anymore is: Because we ask the wrong questions to connect us, and how to clear our mind from to much information! In were we trust the unknown and learn the communication with that unknown.
Death can be sudden and unexpected. It's certainly not just the idea of 'how' one will die but the fact of the permanent interruption of experience. It's not a comforting thought to consider how much of my children's lives I could miss out on if death interrupted my experience.
Our nature is to act in expectation of results or otherwise put, in anticipation of consequences. And it may be that the consequences are inevitable but come in the fullness of time, and are even realised across lives. The inherent mindset of all living beings, in defiance of observation, is of immortality of the self.
Path to what? Even if a god exists who has a purpose in mind for us, it is no more or less rational or arbitrary to decide to live according to that purpose than any other arbitrarily chosen purpose. You can't get an “ought” from an “is.” The mere fact that a god exists (if indeed one does) and opposes his own purpose does not mean that we therefore ought to live out that purpose. Ultimate purposes are not something that reason can establish. As David Hume once said, “it is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.” By this he didn't mean that there's no difference between the two, or it doesn't matter which we prefer, only that it is not an issue that reason can ultimately decide. To choose a purpose, even if you are choosing to live out a divinely dictated one, is a-rational, not rational or irrational. There's no objectivity to god's purpose. To say that something is objective is to say that it is independent of the judgment of a subject. A subject is any conscious being. If god is a conscious being, and purpose depends on his judgment, then purpose depends on the judgment of a subject and even god's purposes are therefore subjective, not objective. If god deliberately made us, he has a purpose in mind for us, but again, that purpose is not objective. There is no objective reason why we ought to follow that purpose over any other. And what is god's purpose specifically? Something I often hear is that our purpose is to glorify god. That seems like a pretty arbitrary purpose to me. I don't see what's so objectively great about glorifying god. What meaning does glorifying god have? Even if there is a god, there's no such thing as objective purpose or objective value. These things both depend upon the judgments of subjects, and are therefore subjective. I don't understand how there could be any such thing. Because, again, even if there is a God who dictates a purpose to us, there is still no objective, non-circular reason why we ought to fulfil that purpose. If everything was infinite, it would lose any value.
@@archangelarielle262 You should read Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling. He writes about some of these issues, like the subjectivity of one's orientation towards God.
I love this guest. The way of formulating this complex problem in this way is very convincing and delicious. You sir was able to eruditely convey the problem of thinking about meaning in our post-something-I-dont-know world in your speech :) If we can have another video with him it would be glorious :)
I think Vervaeke brought a good point to the discussion in that afterlife/immortality isnt universal given that there are religions (i.e. buddhism and hinduism) in which the goal is detachment from the desire to live on. For them, nonexistence is peace, whereas for the christian it's unthinkably nihilistic. Even if there are a few christians who dont believe theyll be conscious or that theyll be attached to anything from this life including their memories, there is still the idea that there purpose that exists in this realm will be attained as they enter into the next and in that sense the meaning of their lives certianly does live on. This was a good conversation but I think Alex needs to really explore more dialogue with Vervaeke. Im biased, i think Vervaeke's work is necessary to reconstructing our communal identities in the wake of the death of God. For me in particular, deconverting from Christianity led straight into the nihilisitic wormhole into the void thst exists at the end of reductive materialism. I experienced meaning, but i didnt feel that i could hold onto it without deconstructing those feelings back into oblivion. It was the works of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu and the Stoics and the pre-Stoics and Epicureans that really helped me to reconstruct a healthy meaningful relationship to reality and Vervaeke's academic publishing has largely been devoted to bringing the wisdom from these traditions into the light of academic empiricism while also helping us to see the truth outside of the proposition. He didnt explore that much here, but he is involved with 4e cognitive science (of which he uses an adapted model revolving around "p") which expands our understanding of identity and knowledge from merely that which can be formulated into propositions and into the realms of the perspectival, participatory, and procedural supported a model of conscience labeled 3r (recursive relevance realization). I think cognitive models like these are necessary for those participating in deconstruction. Our culture contains a lot of the psychological tools necessary for humans to function both at the individual level and the collective via christianity and we need to reconstruct them in its absence if we are to ourcompete it in hopes of progresss.
I don’t recall who said it but the best phrase I’ve heard and experienced myself in regards to psychedelics is “If you die before you die, you won’t die when you die”. If you’ve died, there is no fear of death.
I really appreciated you opening up in the "why is god hidden" episode on the primeer unbelievable channel. I think so many can relate to whanting God to revile himself. Humility may not be a characteristic that the world exalts in, but they don’t understand God’s ways. 1 Peter 5:6 says, “Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time.” There are no shortcuts to true exaltation, something only God can bestow. What is sure is that those who are humble in heart will, at the proper time, be exalted. If we want to truly be exalted we need to truly be humble, saying with our Savior the ultimate expression of humility, “Lord, not my will but Yours be done” (Luke 22:42). John 20:29 Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen, and have believed.
This was exceptionally interesting. It is complementary (it seems to me) to ideas of Terror Management Theory and now my dream discussion would be John Vervaeke with Sheldon Solomon. All sorts of connections seem to be opened up so this ranks as one of the best episodes from Alex. But closer to home here's a personal and very mundane experience that seems to illustrate the issue of meaning. I look after my 2 year old grandson two days a week. It very recently occurred to me that if I died tomorrow he would have no memory when he gets older that I even existed. Yet the time we spend together is full of "meaning" and as every grandparent will tell you, suffused with love, awe and gratitude. To discount all of this as meaning-LESS because of its ephemeral nature is absurd. My death tomorrow will not alter the experience being sufficient in itself.
Thank you for sharing this. I want this to be explored more in these conversations. Great example. And I hope you continue to enjoy your grandson with awe, love, and gratitude. The fear of these existential questions seems to fade into the background when valued connection/meaning is right in front of you.
Your mention of TMT reminds me of a clip of Sam Keen (I believe an outtake from The Flight From Death) and he says something similar along the lines of “We only ask what the meaning of life is when it has left us. When we have meaningful experiences we recognise that they are meaningful in and of themselves and don’t need to be questioned.”
Well this is a kind of limited view of memory. The boy will not consciously remember you but his body remembers, his psyche remembers, in so far as the love and support that he recieves from his caregivers informs his ENTIRE life. It actually doesn't matter that he can't consciously remember it later, the effect is quite incredible, although you have to value that effect as being something that transcends the ego. Your ego desires to be remembered in name and appearance, but meaning in life is actually not connected to that. It's much more meaningful that his existence continues beyond yours and was supported by you, it is an anonymous meaningful act. With that said I'm sure you'll make it past the point where he develops memory and both your ego and meaningfulness will be enhanced :P
Appreciate the pushback in the last segment, the question certainly reaonated with me and I was a bit disappointed with the answer(s) and lack of understanding to be honest.
10:40 I’m excited to watch this. ‘Non-propositional data' seems to organically develop within communities, like churches. Consider the inter-generational interactions, communal traditions, and loyalty that flourish-a space for in-person dialogue akin to a school at times. People without religious affiliations often experience this only within workplaces and family. I am one of the “Nones” yet I have a long history with church. We can’t underestimate the significant human need for this kind of ‘non-propositional’ learning/connection. I find myself wishing there were places for this community that aren’t couched in narrowness of doctrinal thinking or evangelism efforts.
I think that you can, and without the need for theology or theological practice. What he seems to be lamenting is the lack of institutional "meaning interpreters" that pre-package meaning in an easily digestible form. He talks about the lack of connection to things in which individual humans can participate and feel they have an influence on. He claims that science is unable to connect us to a wider "feeling" of belonging. Yet, when I go for a walk in the woods, and I look at the myriad of creatures within it and how they interact, often in mutually dependent ways, even down to the dead logs and animals that die and are scavenged, I feel utterly connected to something much bigger than I am and I realize that my role is as important as the vulture, the hawk, the grubs, the trees, the fungi, in short, everything living around me and I feel connected and part of it, without the need for an intercessor father figure. I find my connection to other people in my community by participating in its civic duties. So I think that it is still there and accessible if you know when and where but mostly how to look.
@@charlespolk5221I think wisdom transcends the plain fact of existence. I think wisdom at its core is a source on how to work with your inner fears, problems or day to day issues. Those kind of things requires a school or a place of learning, experience, experimentation and communication. This is not something you can get just by walking and looking around on your own. It requires community and what I would call self cultivation.
@@worldpeace1822 yeah I agree with this. I think this video’s conversation is pivotal in exploring this idea. The idea that science has “caused” a meaning crisis is only circumstantial for the last several centuries. But I believe we can continue to develop “best practices” from all perspectives/experiences of life that may cultivate this kind of community and intentional locales of connection/meaning/working together for common good. I know this can exist, because of church. Beyond the doctrinal ideas and narrowness of thought… the repetition of being together, the fall festival or potluck, the house meetings, the singing/music…they all provide a really important place of development of these “non-propositional” staples of humanity.
Very interesting conversation. I just wanted to suggest another resource for Alex’s question to John at the end of the podcast about how he should respond to/help people who express fear of death. Sam Harris has a wonderful app called Waking Up that explores mindfulness and wisdom from a secular perspective. The meditations, conversations, and theory have been invaluable in my life and I think they serve as a useful doorway for secular people to explore the benefits of contemplative practice without the normal aspects of religion that I’m sure most viewers of this channel would be skeptical of.
Is fear of death a bad thing? Probably prevents a lot of suicides, but maybe that's a bad thing as well? There really are no universal answers to this. It's a subjective opinion you have to base on your life experiences
@@illaroxTV of course, a healthy fear of death is undoubtedly a good thing for our survival. I interpreted the question as greater than just fear of death in the usual sense, but more the kind of person who feels they are diminished by the fear or it is somehow interrupting their lives. I think for these types of people, a practice like meditation can be a huge help.
The apostle Paul's analogy of the seed dying and growing into something similar but expanded in 1 Corinthians 15 is pertinent to their conversation about the afterlife. I like the way Alex pushed back against John's problem with the concept of immortality. CS Lewis, at the end of the Narnia chronicles, described very well the transition from the world that we know to the eternal world that we are only given glimpses of.
Even if a god exists who has a purpose in mind for us, it is no more or less rational or arbitrary to decide to live according to that purpose than any other arbitrarily chosen purpose. You can't get an “ought” from an “is.” The mere fact that a god exists (if indeed one does) and opposes his own purpose does not mean that we therefore ought to live out that purpose. Ultimate purposes are not something that reason can establish. As David Hume once said, “it is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.” By this he didn't mean that there's no difference between the two, or it doesn't matter which we prefer, only that it is not an issue that reason can ultimately decide. To choose a purpose, even if you are choosing to live out a divinely dictated one, is a-rational, not rational or irrational. There's no objectivity to god's purpose. To say that something is objective is to say that it is independent of the judgment of a subject. A subject is any conscious being. If god is a conscious being, and purpose depends on his judgment, then purpose depends on the judgment of a subject and even god's purposes are therefore subjective, not objective. If god deliberately made us, he has a purpose in mind for us, but again, that purpose is not objective. There is no objective reason why we ought to follow that purpose over any other. And what is god's purpose specifically? Something I often hear is that our purpose is to glorify god. That seems like a pretty arbitrary purpose to me. I don't see what's so objectively great about glorifying god. What meaning does glorifying god have? Even if there is a god, there's no such thing as objective purpose or objective value. These things both depend upon the judgments of subjects, and are therefore subjective. I don't understand how there could be any such thing. Because, again, even if there is a God who dictates a purpose to us, there is still no objective, non-circular reason why we ought to fulfil that purpose. If everything was infinite, it would lose any value.
@@archangelarielle262 If there is a God who has created us and has a purpose for us, it would be no more or less rational to be guided by that purpose if, and only if, this hypothetical Creator was silent about the purpose in question and/or indifferent to whether or not we paid any attention to it. But if the Creator chose to reveal his purposes to us (and it would make little sense to have a purpose for us and not reveal it) that would make all the difference in the world. Obviously the Christian worldview has a very clear (albeit not exhaustive) picture of what that purpose is, insofar as it has been revealed in the writings that underlie and underwrite the Christian worldview. On the premise that these writings (Scripture) are authoritative and trustworthy, then it makes sense to affirm that the chief end of humankind is to "glorify God and enjoy him forever". Obviously those who do not accept the premise will not accept either that such an affirmation makes sense, much less that it can be regarded as objective. But it is a conception of human existence that provides a foundation for meaning, and helps us to make sense of our longing for some kind of immortality, so well expressed by Alex in this conversation. As CS Lewis put it, "If we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world".
Thank you for this one. :) I'm not a philosopher, but I really enjoy these discussions, so thank you. Please graciously accept my potatoes!!! 🥔🥔🥔 I once heard that we like to tell stories because it's how our brains structure memory - or something like that. We remember things through these somewhat chronological narrative systems and so, given enough play-time away from functional existence, we start playing around with them and creating stories. They can serve political purposes, educational ones, as a means to communicate and/or alleviate some of our existential dread. This is art, this is symbolism stuff covered in art majors' 101 classes. So then to meaning: Why can't I just be happy that the world around me, which I am dependent on, is healthy and safe? Similarly, why shouldn't I be depressed if the world around me, which I am dependent on, is sick or dying and unsafe - especially when I rationalize that I have little to no power to fix it? Anxiety and panic seem perfectly rational reactions in this context. Maybe in the way anger has the purpose to make us stand up and fight against something, fear is trying to tell us something too. I feel there is still a lot of meaning-making going on. Before the recent AI art movement, which is causing whole new feelings of powerlessness, there was a massive boom in people making and consuming contemporary art on social media and for personal businesses. What is art if not meaning-making? Commodity sure, but I like to believe people are drawn to deeper waters because it's the type of play we are evolved for. I don't believe anything has intrinsic value. But we can and do make stuff valuable. Why so afraid of death? Suffering sure, that's painful and therefore scary, but why death? I've never met a very old person, disabled by their age, who doesn't yearn for an end. Why is the nothingness so scary, especially when it feels like so few people choose to live with agency? You get these new-ish videogames now, after the gaming popularity explosion, where the game isn't really art instead it's obviously a product, it ticks all the generic boxes without really letting you think or do anything genuinely interesting. It just scratches a limbic itch and players buy and play it, wasting months of their lives without it giving them anything necessarily meaningful. So then, what's so scary about an end to meaning? Let's say you fill your life with meaning, that you have lived a full life - are you scared of how it will feel when the meaning ends? What if there is no feeling? I don't think an endless existence has to be horrific. Tezuka Osamu (manga artist) had a work called Hi no Tori (The Phoenix), I watched the 2004 anime and in one of the final episodes (spoilers!) this man who becomes accidentally immortal lives past a nuclear winter where everyone else dies. It deals with his loneliness and how he spends the rest of basically eternity becoming an uber-scientist, studying everything in the hopes of re-inventing life and failing painfully and horrifically at it. In the end he lives so long that he watches the rebirth of Earth right back up to the evolution of a new homo sapien. Isn't that kind of cool? Even when we pass, the universe continues and eventually it will end but we got to be a part of it, that's cool, right? In this show, the end of Earth is not this horrific thing, it's awesome in the original sense of the word. Maybe there's some drive in us to regulate social systems even for when we are not around, because generally there's a next generation and the idea of there not being one is just not something we are able to cope with. Why does it matter if people are changed by my work if they are all going to end? Because at one time they were alive and potentially suffering - I don't want them to suffer (maybe a biological empathy thing). When you look at a community of animals and there is some kind of environmental or social challenge they are faced with and you watch them overcome it there's like this "WOOOO! You go little guys, I'm so proud of you." Maybe that mirrors how we feel about ourselves. Maybe it's about the kind of story we want to tell. We don't want to tell the story of these stupid cruel apes who lived on a rock and harmed or off-ed all other life on the rock, we want to tell the story of these glorious apes who overcame it all and thrived. We love the monomyth; we love the wise and gracious ruler. Maybe it's not about making something that will outlive us, it's about making something that will add to that story? Maybe it's how our ego(s) work. Or maybe it's all "because horse" - there's a ton of symbolism in horses. As for psychedelics, in game-design and anthropology we have the magic-circle, a deep kind of play, I don't really have the words or the rich context for it. My one lecturer used to say "a grey blob that you hold, it's shapeless, it oozes through your fingers, but you keep trying to hold it as if it has a form" - she was talking about coming to terms with new concepts, but I think it can apply to meaning-making as well. Anecdotal example relating to awe: When I was a teen, my two friends and I got up before the sunrise to visit a damn and have a picnic. It was quite dark and there were leopards on the farm, so we were scared to get out of the vehicle and open the gates - we took turns, and the excitement created a kind of camaraderie. We arrived at the damn with a collective sigh of relief and then suddenly we three went dead quiet as we heard this unexplainable da-doof-da-doof-da-doof-da-doof. As we looked up a singular wildebeest came galloping across the damn wall with the sun rising behind it. We ended up not having the picnic because that experience was enough, it was something special, full of awe. It was beautiful and it was meaningful in a way all of us could understand without theological agreement. This is the magic circle for me, but I may be way off base. And you can find it sitting behind a microscope or a black-board, or in nature, or at church, or while consuming art - it's a deep feeling of appreciation.
The descriptions created some vivid Images in my mind. And I can relate to your main points. Although they are not well defined, I (believe I) can sense the meaning-creating awareness of this Basic feeling that accompanies existence and Sometimes envelopes the moment when left undisturbed. You mentioned the sensation of awe. I'd say awe is just the emotion of astonishment mixed with true seeing. But this true seeing can happen all the time and I predict (Not there yet) that It is only when you do see without obstruction, that you cease to ask meaningless questions like what ist meaningful, and hence live a meaningful life
Knowledge can come from your smart phone but if you're looking for wisdom you have to put that together yourself. This is the burden of sentience. It's the tension that will consume most of your experience. Wisdom can't come directly from somewhere external. It's more of a process than it is a definitive answer to anything. This makes it both contextual as well as temporary. Which is what makes it valuable. This is why religion ultimately fails in its pursuit to nail down the idea of a transcendent meta wisdom. It's just not there no matter how hard you try to conjure it.
Did you like how Ben couched his language about the Atheist Society vs Muslim Society question Alex brought up. He was trying really hard not to say he thinks most muslims are practicing radical Islam.
@@JusticeIsALie Yes. One can sense him trying to wiggle out of it uncomfortably. This is the kind of sophistry even most of the Muslim apologists engage in when cornered. I meant to write my previous comment that you responded to with my this ID. This is where we engage with Muslim callers (and for that matter any caller with different religious flavor) and pit their arguments against rational arguments.
@@JusticeIsALiehow can you be a bit Muslim there's Muslims they are extremists you can't be a bit but most are Muslims by culture and not fully convinced most religous people have doghts luckily for us as the quran is very clear
I followed your channel for some time but this interview earned a subscription. Amazing back and forth. Thanks Alex and John, and thank you for all your fascinating work!
As a non-native speaker I have a question when reflecting on my own comment: Is it wrong to use "followed" in this context? Is "have followed" correct? Thanks to anyone who is inclined to respond
@@simonahrendt9069 'Followed' is the past tense of 'follow' and is correct in the way you used it. 'Followed' also shows up in the 'Subscribe' button after you click on it - which means you are now 'following' the channel.....'>....
As a believer my purpose in this temporal life is to meet my creator at peace in the afterlife. To achieve that i have to go thru this life guided by my creator. May God guides all of us.
I found the section on life after death and how this relates to feeling life is meaningful was very strange. Veraeke had already said people with a faith have a greater sense of meaning, but the all faith groups registered around the same level of meaningfulness. Alex queried if a believe in life after death was responsible for this as it is common to the main faith groups. At this point Vervarke seemed to go off at a tangent. First he started with Buddhism and the idea that they don't have a strong belief in life after death - but they aren't one of the three main faith groups (Christianitiy, Islam and Hinduism) who surely must have been responsible for most of the data collected? Plus it might be the case in western Buddhism but for many eastern Buddhists do have a belief in life after death. Then Vervaeke admitted that he meditated on the idea that eternal life was horrific and argued with Alex for some time that he couldn't understand how people could find a belief in life after death meaningful or even coherent - well, this lack of comprehension is surely the fruit of what he has been meditating on, so it is personal to him, that wouldn't be the case for most believers.
Thinking about it some more, the middle section on life after death seems like it is a very personal view from Vervaeka - before and after he is talking about studies and research but in this section it is all "I", "me" language, he is saying he doesn't find it helpful, not that studies don't find it helpful.
great discussion, so glad you were able to get some time with john. i really enjoyed it, i think he did as well. you did a great job of teasing out and also challenging his ideas. i think critical feedback from thinkers like yourself will really add value to his project
I always feel like people who debate this ignore the possibility of much of it may stem from "pseudo belonging" that comes from social media. Maybe the lack of people using social structures for belonging is less about being less religious and more about the fact that there is a bad fit between our brains reward structures and what we actually need. There was a time when you couldn't get a like on insta to get a sense of reward, so you would actually need to fill it by engaging with people.
That’s still the case though. People conflate their sense of identity with a sense of belonging & that’s exactly the problem. It’s not a real belonging.
Humanism was declared insufficient. It is a much larger discussion than one can have in comments but... I have watched this video few times in the span of the year and recently I have read biography/collected poems of Eliot. It is a bit scary that in one of the sentences in the book author describes the time Eliot lost his believe in humanism... That observation resonates within me. The whole Dawkins proposition that we witnessed countless times - last time with the debate with Ali - poetry, science, good will towards people, everyday kindness was thrown in the trash by Eliot on one point of his later life. Humanism was declared by him insufficient. Humanism is for me something to the effect that Joseph Conrad mentions in The Mirror of the Sea: In reading these chapters one is always hoping for the revelation; but the personality is never quite revealed. We can only say that this thing happened to Mr. Conrad, that he knew such a man and that thus life passed him leaving those memories. They are the records of the events of his life, not in every instance striking or decisive events but rather those haphazard events which for no definite reason impress themselves upon the mind and recur in memory long afterward as symbols of one knows not what sacred ritual taking place behind the veil.” Words of Conrad from Wiki: If irony exists to suggest that there's more to things than meets the eye, Conrad further insists that, when we pay close enough attention, the "more" can be endless. He doesn't reject what [his character] Marlow [introduced in Youth] calls "the haggard utilitarian lies of our civilisation" in favor of nothing; he rejects them in favor of "something", "some saving truth", "some exorcism against the ghost of doubt"-an intimation of a deeper order, one not easily reduced to words. Authentic, self-aware emotion-feeling that doesn't call itself "theory" or "wisdom"-becomes a kind of standard-bearer, with "impressions" or "sensations" the nearest you get to solid proof. Conrad... adopted a broader ironic stance-a sort of blanket incredulity, defined by a character in Under Western Eyes as the negation of all faith, devotion, and action. Through control of tone and narrative detail... Conrad exposes what he considered to be the naïveté of movements like anarchism and socialism, and the self-serving logic of such historical but "naturalized" phenomena as capitalism (piracy with good PR), rationalism (an elaborate defense against our innate irrationality), and imperialism (a grandiose front for old-school rape and pillage). To be ironic is to be awake-and alert to the prevailing "somnolence." In Nostromo... the journalist Martin Decoud... ridicul[es] the idea that people "believe themselves to be influencing the fate of the universe." (H. G. Wells recalled Conrad's astonishment that "I could take social and political issues seriously.") Ecology of practice is the thought I have got from this podcast. But there are in me thoughts that collide with modern economy. There is a greate piece in Carl Sagan Contact: One of Xi's crimes in the eyes of the Cultural Revolution had been to admire some of the ancient Confucian virtues, and especially one passage from the Great Learning, which for centuries before every Chinese with even a rudimentary education knew by heart. It was upon this passage, Sun Yat-sen had said, that his own revolutionary nationalist movement at the beginning of the twentieth century was based: The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue throughout the Kingdom first ordered well their own states. Wishing to order well their states, they first regulated their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their persons. Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first rectified their hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first sought to be sincere in then-thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things. Thus, Xi believed, the pursuit of knowledge was central for the well-being of China. But the Red Guards had thought otherwise. Nihilism was described beautifully by your guest in the first minute of the video. There are strategies to live by and yet here we are... Sorry for the lengthy one ;)
1:09:44 And here’s why I so appreciate my old ‘Mile-a-minute’ professor, John Vervaeke: Meaninglessness in externalities doesn’t necessitate same state within… and between.
This is just anecdotal of course but.. I'm not really afraid of death nor do I think that the meaning crisis I have is tied to me recognizing my inevitable demise. I think I agree mostly with John that I desire to belong to something that is bigger than any single person, something that has meaning even if I'm not here. And to make a difference through that. Our sense of community has been eroded, so many basic human needs and desires have been commodified, we lack trust in bigger entities because we see so much greed and corruption.. so we feel like lonely hamsters running in wheels to make money until we collapse. That doesn't seem like a life worth living and no amount of "self-improvement" is going to change that.. something much bigger is lacking.
Any fear of death is instinctual and I do think you fear death as well. Maybe you have moments of clarity where you sober up and stop fearing for a tiny bit (like many people who suicide) but then regain that fear back after. Now here I'm going to make (and already made) a lot of assumptions about you which could be wrong I guess but I believe you'd have suicided already if you didn't fear death
@@illaroxTV I've tried but failed. What keeps me from trying harder is that I don't want to inflict more pain to the people close to me. That being said, of course I have some fear of death. I fear the moments leading up to the death but not the non-existence. But it was the non-existence part that was highlighted by Alex in the video and that's what I kind of disagree with.
This guy is smart. The point that dreaming and dreamlike states could be to throw noise into the system to prevent overfitting blew my mind a little bit. Its kinda obvious tbh but never occured to me.
56:52 "i can't imagine what is it like being dead" Well i can, remember the billions of years before you where born, i expect that would be the feeling after you die, the feeling you have of what it was like when you just woke out of bed and forget your dream and that feeling of the time where you just were, the void we experience, every time you forget, but for everything, not fear, not pain, not happiness, just the feeling of not having absolutely any thought or emotion at all, the blank stare of existence. Ten minutes ago you where awake and the clock showed 8 hours ago. That 7:50hrs is what my expectation of the feeling of being dead is.
All of those moments of unconsciousness are skipped over. We only ever Experience experience. You keep referring to _after_ the unconscious/non-existence part is over... Which, is actually not completely wrong... We should ask ourselves "What happened _after_ the last time I didn't exist?" "What happened _after_ non-existence before birth?" ... Well, life is what came after. Why? Because a life came to exist. So, we should ask: will lives exist after this one ends? The answer is yes, there will literally be lives here on Earth after the one reading this dies. So the same thing happens again, but just with some other life which has nothing to do with the life that ended.
Alex is the living embodiment of proof of how kind non believers can be. Proof that non theists don't need the threat of hell to be a polite and good person.
I'm a Christian and I do good things because I feel like doing them but I think Christianity is helpful because it tells us that we should continue to be kind even when we're angry. A lot of people don't do that Christian or otherwise. We definitely don't need the thread of hell but it's nice to have a book to remind us.
@@avivastudios2311 if you're a christian it's not possible to do good things for the sake of it, you're either avoiding hell or being a god puppet, only atheists can be sincere - we couldn't give a rats ass what god wants, so if i get into heaven it's on merit, not sucking up time. you have no morality - you have to ask god what is moral, you have no creativity, god has to direct you, you talk about atheists having meaning, i do everything for myself or friends and family, you do stuff cos god DEMANDS you do good stuff - you personally don't care, without god you are nothing, right? you just do as you're told.
Interesting discussion. I've met very few people who fear death itself. Most fear dying (i.e., the process). If those fearing death-as-no-longer-existing are comforted by an afterlife then it would seem to necessarily imply they assume the continuity of their current self (i.e.,albeit a fantasy sanitized version).
I'm so happy that Alex's audience are getting Vervaeke pilled. I've wanted these two to talk for years. The more Alex talks with these kind of guests, the further he will move from the silly new atheist understanding of reality. This process is obviously already clearly under way in Alex.
@@christopherhamilton3621projecting what exactly? I was once a devotee of the new atheists as a young person. Then I continued my education and realised their arguments are really bad and not taken seriously by anyone with philosophical or theological training. Dawkins' discussion of Aquinas' 'five ways', for example, is such a confused and embarrassing performance. He got every single one of Aquinas' 'five ways' wrong. The only one worth listening to was Hitchens. His arguments on evil were pretty good (not that theists hadn't been contemplating the same arguments for millenia). This doesn't mean I'm now a Christian or even a 'theist' in the standard/current understanding of that term. I also see Alex treading a similar path.
"The interplay between the formal and the informal, the symbolic and the intuitive, the rigid and the fluid, is the heart and soul of mathematics." - GEB, an eternal braid
Love this! Vervaeke is awesome and this conversation brought out some his best points. A word of caution though, Vervaeke's enthusiasm (while I believe it is sincere), can gravitate towards faux-profundity, similar to Jordan Peterson. He has a gift, but just remember that he doesnt have all of the answers, and treating him as if he does can be cult-like.
I disagree. John takes pains exactly NOT to appeal or reduce to pseudo profundity. Your point to not think he has all the answers is, of course, quite valid. He has none of the hubris of Peterson and strives to be always humble.
Re 1:26. on fear of being dead. I agree with Vervaeke. I think, the fear of death is a function of one's beliefs about an afterlife. If there's a belief in an afterlife that could be either rewarding or punishing, this could logically influence one's fear or anticipation regarding death. It suggests that our perceptions about what comes after death play a crucial role in shaping our fear of death itself.
The whole "you don't fear not existing before you were born" argument is really frustrating because of how blatantly flawed it is: *You can only fear the future not the past, just by the nature of our perception of time* .
I think this argument works not from a temporal perspective but rather by creating a symmetry in the imaginal between the prior "experience" of non existing with the future "experience" of non existing. They are for all purposes the same. Once I realized that I am (we all are) already familiar with "non existing" the fear of death became irrelevant to me.
It does give a concrete example of what is overwhelmingly likely to be the case. Namely that one returns to that state of not-being. So many people cant get their head around the concept of their end until one points this out to them. They are usually very un-reflective and un-philospophical types but I do find there are quite a few of those.
@@bertrandrussell894 It sounds a bit harsh but I think most of us are conditioned to give too much importance to our own continuity of state of existence rather than realizing that we are no exception that rules of existence: everything is bound by finitude. The arrogance is in the fact that we can't conceive the question "but why am I so special that makes me the exception to the rules of existence?" In a sense humanity as a whole is not mature psychologically to accept the full frame of the nihilist background on which we are free (the ultimate freedom) to paint meaning. We become depressive and desperate when if we realize too much that "Santa does not exist". It's the same sort of transition from a child mindset into the reality of responsible adulthood, but for adults. People that are nostalgic about religion don't realize that traditional religions are well adapted to a human level of consciousness that is like a young child and the narratives function like "good night stories". But humanity is 2000 years older now, and has accumulated more experience and knowledge of existence so those narratives don't fit that well anymore.
@@Adaerus I mostly agree. I would say that we do feed damaging lies to kids. If, for instance we told them earlier that they would one day end, rather than never mention it or delude them, they would treat this life with more importance. As for the religious attempt at a coping mechanism I dont think many have properly grappled with eternity, much less an incoherent one of a sort described in religious books.
@@Adaerus I think the whole framing of nonexistence that you and the video is using completely misses the point. People don't fear a reified nothing, they fear the absence of future experience. Because of our relationship to time though this is not a time symmetric fear. It would make no sense for a creature to fear missing out on things which happened before it existed.
Elsewhere, I posted: "According to *Psalm 139* (verses 4 & 16) David tells us that Harold (YHWH) knows everything we will ever do or say - *and that did so before He created the Universe* - He's Omniscient. Harold has seen the last frame of the Movie (in fact He chose to make the movie with that ending.) Do you agree with David?" Eventually, you replied (with some reservations): _"I would have to say _*_I agree with David"._* Now, this means that Harold *specifically* chose to create a world in which he gave *eternal life* (remember you said _"If he rejects God's love he _*_lives eternally_*_ without it")_ to individuals whom HE knew would become Unbelievers and agreed that that would result in *Eternal Suffering.* It matters not if their Free-Will caused them to 'condemn themselves' - He knew they would beforehand, Being Omnipotent, He _could_ have made the world differently but didn't. So, *He deliberately created beings **_in order_** that they should experience eternal suffering.* I would call that a *Moral Monster.*
@@L.Ron_Dow Yes we've been over this before. First off do you have any other examples of God's immorality? Did you discover this pseudo example yourself or get it from a famous atheist like Alex? Next: Anyone who believes he can criticize and second guess God obviously believes he is on the same level as God. Many brilliant people Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal over the centuries have believed that God is love, truth, justice, beauty. They didn't believe it because they knew God's mind. They knew because it was revealed to them by other Christians who in turn had it revealed to them all the way back to Christ and his disciples. They also had personal relationships with God. God is omnipotent. That doesn't mean He can do impossible things like make 1=2 or make a person exist and not exist at the same time or please atheists. If He chose out of love to make man more Godlike and give him free will you can't expect Him not to keep that commitment when the consequences of man's use of it go wrong. If God can see the future that doesn't he mean personally creates very human being or manages every detail of existence. When He chooses to do that it's called a miracle. Miracles by definition occur rarely. So it's obvious He created the universe and then let it run own it's own. If you think you can second guess God then you evidently think you are capable of being God or you would rather be a puppet without free will. Do you want to be a man or puppet? It seems you believe you are a puppet, but with the powers of a god. That's one of the impossible things even God can't make. Most suffering in this world is caused man's exercise of his free will. Men who cause suffering willingly and never repent and change will not be in heaven. Free will does not cause suffering. Men do. If you don't respond I'll presume you can't or that you realize that you are a fool but too proud to admit it.
@@joannware6228 Ok, by sorting the comments by date and scrolling down 3 days, I was able to read your 'disappeared' reply. If you sign-out of your account and try to 'Highlight' your first comment, you'll see the space where it should be - you will always see it if you are signed-in as the poster. They don't like you repeating multi-paragraph comments - it breaches community rules (and can end up with your account removed.) I see that you are back to making your very un-Christina Ad-H0ms.
Love your content! Quick question. I’m not familiar with how the revenue system works between Spotify and RUclips. I switch between these two for your podcasts, but if one helps you out more than the other, then I’ll stick with that one. Thanks for your work!
Can you imagine Jordan Peterson speaking with John? They’re like inverse humans. Peterson rambles on while saying nothing to appear intelligent. John is condensing centuries of insights into sentences.
They actually have had many conversations before! It is a sight to see John gracefully Jiu jitsu Jordan's occasional nonsense, but they have had some productive dialogue as well. A search of both their names should bring up a handful of videos...
I’d agree that, compared with Peterson, Verveake’s ideas are more focused and systematic. But it’s a mistake to dismiss what Peterson’s more rambling style represents. Peterson’s thinking in these kinds of discussions is not disorganized or nonsensical, it is improvised. As such, it can be difficult to follow - not because he’s so much smarter, but because he’s more spontaneously experimental and adventurous. He is willing to drift farther away from a core idea in order to explore a potential connection or synthesis. Sometimes, these digressions don’t pan out, but the digression is no less important. You might say Peterson is more like a jazz musician - experimenting and innovating in real time. Vervaeke is more like a jazz composer or conductor - designing and planning around a more coherent vision.
That was an incredibly interesting talk, very much related to something that bothered me lately. I feel like this was the philosophically most sophisticated interview on this channel of at least this year. Thank you for having him on. And I agree with his statement from 1:28:40. When I 1st took LSD I said to my trip sitter afterwards that I already knew the game, but the graphics and the immersion was better and way more intense.
No one needs existential meaning. The crisis is a result of people believing they need to justify their own existence (primarily to themselves, despite the function of justification being communicative). Moreover, the belief that lives bearing a meaning are superior or preferable is what depresses those who want but fail to fabricate one. Stories have meaning, lives don’t. It’s sad really, how miserable people make themselves in pursuit of some unnecessary ultimate message and justification for their lives.
Yet we all strive for it as if it’s wired into our being. There’s also a difference between pursuing the meaning of life versus the meaning in life. John isn’t talking about the existential meaning of life that you are posting about, if you know anything about his work you would understand that he rather people look for meaning in their life. Saying that people believing they need to justify their existence of the same as saying people need to justify their existence since belief is no different than living. We all live for our belief, I’m presupposing this, and I haven’t found evidence to the latter. This is for conscious human agents with autonomy or even a delusion of autonomy in this world/reality.
You assume too many things about what I’m saying that are not necessitated by my view, and in turn, you misunderstand it. [1] “Like what it the alternative for you?? What do you live for, just hedonism with no goal??” If you ask this question, you don’t understand my point of view. From my perspective, being without meaning is not a problem. It is not something I need to solve. Those who believe they should have a reason for being or living have the problem, which I propose is self invented, or at least co-created socially. I need not live *for* anything in particular. I continue living so long as I breathe, eat, and empty myself of waste; the interest of my activity varies wildly through the course of a day, week, year, as any other being. I can make goals to delight myself or others, serve other drives and functions, occupy the time, etc. but I don’t live for them. Those who lament about having no meaning in the existential sense that is described as “nihilistic” despair; are not despairing because there is no meaning, but because they believe they are without something they ought to have; as is the emptiness meant they were missing something. And in this way, many humans imagine that the void is an issue, and scream for reason and purpose to cover up the silence, instead of simply enjoying it. For me, everyday I feel deeply satisfied in the transformative transience of it all. [2] I’m commenting on the conversation between vervaeke and O’Connor, and particularly about this “nihilistic” pointlessness and/or “meaninglessness” that they discuss toward the latter part of the episode, as well as the more general lament people have in association with this topic. I wasn’t attempting to represent Vervaeke’s body of work. [3] I think this following statement is vague and unfounded: “Yet we all strive for it as if it’s wired into our being.” It is not at all clear or established that this is intrinsic to the species, despite its ubiquity in historical (and possibly some prehistoric) populations. Culture and personal experience greatly informs the activities, goals, and values we develop. Is it actually the case that this sort of preoccupation is innate? Or is a preoccupation with meaning inculcated and learned? A topic far too fraught for a comment section I suppose. [4] “We all live for our belief, I’m presupposing this, and I haven’t found evidence to the latter”. This is just confused. Animals do not live for their beliefs. Did you as an infant also live for your beliefs, before you had any formalized to speak of? Is it that you actually live for your beliefs, or that your conscious deliberation generates reasons because it is so use to producing articles of persuasion and justification in a social environment? Would that also not explain why no other creature (including our recent ancestors) appeared to be concerned with the task? I suspect so.
This pragmatic mindset works for computers, not the human brain, oh and also animals that are not conscious. When given complete awareness such as humans have been given/achieved, the end result will be "why?". We ask why about everything when we are young, and as we slowly age, we either stop at religion, science, or in the sad case that you are trying to portray here with equating the thinking life to a narrative structure - Nihilism. What I think is sad is the denial of meaning. That's a black hole that leads to despair or indifference for most. It's also cognitive dissonance and the easy route out.
What most intellectuals dont get is that narrative is a key element of the way we construct ourselves. When people say they saw their life flash before their eyes, this is not just a figure of speech, it is literally a story that is constantly flashing in the subconscious every time an observation is made. Every time you observe anything, the data is compared to that story in an instant to determine relevance and meaning. Scientific rational thinking is an abstraction that doesnt work for the average person; if you cant put it into a narrative that goes 'person doing action', the information simply wont compute without considerable repetitive effort.
Science does not say that matter cannot have meaning, and Vervaeke is just wrong in asserting this. Nothing has inherent meaning; meaning is gained by things based on how they are used. For example, you can give purpose to a rock by using it as a doorstop. The same thing is true of life. It gains meaning depending on how you use it. Use your life to do something you believe in, and it will have meaning. There is no need for a creator-god to assign it for you.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Get early access to episodes, and get them ad-free, by supporting the channel at www.Patreon.com/AlexOC
The definition of religion is that to which we are bound. People do not realize that and materialistic atheism is bleak and unsatisfying. Having it all materiality means nothing and does not satisfy the soul. Of course he cannot bring up religion; it is not a four letter word; but it might as well be. The Pagan religion had meaning and the religions of today except for the fanatical have meaning and are nurturing for body; mind; and soul. Now Alex has brought in religion; good; of course being an agnostic he does not have religious intuition and misses the point in relation to religion which is much more than narrative which is of the head not of the heart. Religion, at its best, is both.
It is a human fault that it has to be either/or rather than and/both.
Another point all science knows about is the elemental; which is of the body. Math is cognitive; of the head. The problem is how do you unite the two; the mind/body split. In religion mind and body; cognition and feeling are united through intuition. Most today have limited intuition. A high level of intuition is a great gift. The rationalists seek to diminish it as just a womanist thing and likely to be more wrong than right. One thing that is a fact intuition that is based on both calm reason and calm feeling is always right; always on target.
Science had its root in religion; it would be nice to mention that as well. The problem with science is if it totally detaches from its source it is unmoored; up a creek without a paddle. Cognitive psychology is idiocy on steroids; what will it come up with next, trans humanism or some other abhorrent ideology. Again, detachment from the source as with communism which tried to bring about unity at the material level. Nothing, nothing, can be brought about at the material level ignoring the other two levels. Consciousness; Mind; Elements. Materialists have to come around to acknowledging that there are two other levels or realms, not just the one they posit. The lack of this acknowledgement is why consciousness is what philosophy calls ‘the hard problem.’ Finally, religion is being brought up.
So far, intuition not mentioned once and it is what religion; (that to which we are bound), springs from. Life comes to a physical end; to a materialist that is the end. Beyond the elemental there is consciousness; mind; electricities; electromagnetism; and magnetism; the latter is still a total mystery. To a religious person it does not end with the tangible as the tangible would not exist if there were not a viable intangible. The problem for atheistic philosophy is; why is there something rather than nothing and how does something come from nothing which could be the definition of vagueness. You intuitively know that you are immortal unless you are programmed otherwise, why is that not an option in the conversation. In the East, Consciousness is God; one and the same. In the West, consciousness is ‘the hard problem.’
I watched the Peter Hitchens video just before this one and the contrast between each guest’s reaction to Alex challenging them is striking.
What I noticed with both Hitchens brother is that they are both very stubborn, tempermental. I listened to Christopher Hitchens more than his brother. I just recently found out about Peter Hitchens. In Peter Hitchen's younger lifetime when he was debating, he was sarcatstically a bit rude or pompous at a time but he seems worse so in hid old age. I never seen him act this way in other videos.
Did you get the impression that Alex became far more interesting after his interview with Hitchens?
@@NZT42 Yes, Hitchens was correct in saying that Alex was being a bore in that interview, and more than a little annoying. Of course, Hitchens's behavior was completely unacceptable even for an eight year old let alone a grown man, but he did have a point in what he was saying.
Vervaeke has the magical wit to just connect so many things !
John is incredible in the philosophical sphere. This is an awesome guest for Alex
Totally agree. I'll admit he was little known to me prior to this exposure, but perhaps one of the most intelligent guests on the podcast ever; sharing a fascinating perspective clearly and concisely while avoiding offense. Truly impressive.
He is actually? The reputation I've always heard of him is that he's a psuedo-intellectual / pop philosopher who doesn't actually engage much with actual scholarship
@@jacobusvisser6428 I'd advise against reputation and find out for yourself. He must engage in scholarship since he is an assistant professor.
@@jacobusvisser6428 wonder where you got that from - Never heard any vervaeke criticism in the last 6 years - he’s a thinker for our time
He's the new Socrates 🙏🏼❤️🤯🙃🤔🙌🔥
Knowledge is about "what" (evidence) and wisdom about "how" (relevance)
I love that definition.
I appreciate Alex’s willingness and ability to translate what his guests say into something that can be related to be the average person.
Ever heard of a Rorschach test?
@@feedthatalgorithm yes, why?
I like Christopher Hitchens' party analogy to death:
“It will happen to all of us, that at some point you get tapped on the shoulder and told, not just that the party’s over, but slightly worse: the party’s going on - but you have to leave. And it’s going on without you. That’s the reflection that I think most upsets people about their demise. All right, then, because it might make us feel better, let’s pretend the opposite. Instead, you’ll get tapped on the shoulder and told, Great news: this party’s going on forever - and you can’t leave. You’ve got to stay; the boss says so. And he also insists that you have a good time.”
I see, why there is a sentiment against immortality there, but I also understand, that death is the ultimate fear of missing out, because it will make you miss out on everything. People are fearful of missing out an actual party, so it is natural, that they are also fearful of missing out the party we call life, so in that sense I don't find fearing death, and not just only dying fearful.
Also I think - as I have no statistics, but only anecdotal "evidence" - that those who are more accepting their own death are older at average than those who are fearful of it, making so than at a young age you want to live forever, and at an older age, you realize, that while it was good, that much of living is enough.
Damn that's a good analogy
As an older guy, I look back (& forward) at life and think it’s just ok. Getting older makes me less enamored with keeping the party going but it’s good enough to see it through. Young people have more of the optimism that it will get better, when it’s more likely they’re at the peak experience.
Quite right: to me, FOMO is one reason I “fear” death/non-existence. My hope is that better things will come after I’m gone and though I’m sad I (as me) won’t be around to see and experience it, that doesn’t mean that sadness descends or translates into nihilism, resentment or utter despair. It just doesn’t.
Leave into where? Where is the party not happening? How can one leave that which has no entrance or exit?
@@williamkoscielniak7871 he’s contrasting the atheist analogy of the afterlife with the Christian version. In the former the party is life, which will continue after you die without you (no afterlife) vs in the latter the party is heaven which you can’t leave.
1:05:30 "it doesnt need to persist for [the intrinsic value of that existence] to go on". Dang. That struck a chord with me.
The way alex switches from debate mode to interviewer/host commentator is extraordinary,
Night and day from the Ben Shapiro debate
God bless and thank you for all your years of hard work to provide knowledge and insight to your followers
He likely did these debates and podcast interviews at different points in time.
@@doctornov7you can tell by the beard growth.
Yeah he basically admits his premise on the Shapiro debate was fake and he knows the real issues with a secular worldview here.
@@CanditoTrainingHQ What do you mean his premise what fake? Can you clarify
John seemed to genuinely be having the time of his life in this conversation. Great episode and guest.
The synchronicity of John's hand causing a blurry face while discussing interactional patterns that become self deceptive and "cloud" the agent-arena relationship 1:15:45, while likely unintentional, was beautiful 😊
So beautiful. Tai-chi hand salience lol
I would love to see a follow up interview-discussion. I believe vervaeke's work and intuitions can really challenge Alex's views in interesting ways.
I wish John would recognize his curse of knowledge and find a way to bridge the gap between his understanding and that of the general public.
Best guest so far in my opinion!!
We are undoubtedly here for long form conversations! This is brilliant.
I’m a fan of absurdism because it’s clear there’s no meaning but what we create but it’s also clear we evolved to really care about the meaning of our lives. Learning to live with this tension is the human project. Camus makes a good point that people are just hiding from this problem when they latch on to religion or some other narrative. The authentic, brave way to live is to embrace the absurdity and not make excuses or explain it away. That’s what makes the closing to The Myth of Sisyphus so powerful, “The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
I actually believe that most atheists who operate with a reductive materialistic narrative are actually functionally absurdists. Scientists and their relationship with gravity is a great example of this.
We don't know why gravity exists or what it even is, but thanks to Einstein we are able to quantify it. They don't believe in any inherent meaning to the universe, but if they can calculate the effects of gravity on an apple, on a plane, and on a space station and use that knowledge to propel us further into the universe, then I see no reason as to why we must know the ontological grounding of meaning or love or humility in order to work with the phenomenology of their experiences.
Absurdism is to realize the futility of meaning and yet still continue to cultivate it as they propel themselves through the void of nihilism because their experience is defined by the relativity of accepting their own experiences, or rejecting their own experiences and rejection can only lead to Camus' physical or philosophical un-alivings. Both death and narrative become cop outs.
Absurdism is the belief that searching for a meaning is pointless. Camus in the myth of sisyphus is arguing for Existentialism. His other works like "the stranger" is about absurdism but since you said you are a fan of absurdism, I thought I would mention that what you are really a fan of is existentialism.
What makes you sure that it is clear there is no meaning?
@@dccopi it becomes clear when one lacks the presuppositions required to perceive meaning as ontologically objective/necessary. I offer no reason to object to your presuppositions, we all must default to some ideas. For example, the lack of presuppositions to the contrary becomes a justification for us to presuppose that it doesn't exist as such even though we have no ability to prove it.
@@Gruso57 he argues about how other existentialists have stopped short and committed “philosophical suicide”, such as Kierkegaard taking the religious escape hatch. In my reading of it, he’s explaining why existentialism hasn’t fully embrace the absurd. In fact he spends much of the book defining what the absurd is and how to stay in the moment of the absurd, using the term specifically. Perhaps I don’t appreciate the distinction you’re making; that’s possible.
John's greatest strength is his humility! As a scientist he realises he has much to learn from religion and I know of Christians in particular who have learned plenty from John's work. Evidence of the fruitful coexistence of religion and science.
I love hearing from John Vervaeke!!! This should be great!
13:32 the scientific worldview denies anything but itself as illusion.
But Neitzsche pointed out when relativity, with no absolutes, what happens to our need for a new ethos. He proposed the disposal of good and evil as useful (even, actual) fictions which "scientific" materialistic humankind.
We've rejected the Tao, and embraced the Dow Jones.
13:32 math has no intrinsic meaning, non-reactive, no hero's journey.
Scientism insists on the scientific, Cartesian, mechanistic compartmentalized "left brain " world-view is all that is real, and all else is irrelevant.
The "right brain" world-view is based on awareness, taoist, of process, holistic, emotional, artistic, beautiful, meaningful aspects of experience.
Both worldviews help negotiate the world, neither generates the wholeness of what it means to experience reality as a happy, sane, healthy, meaningful life.
I love vervaeke and grateful that you really pinned him down on why and what the desire for an after life in essence really is. This a really important question for both religious and non-religious. It’s one of the most important human questions!
This. I love vervaeke too but he’s rarely challenged like this. I’ll have to listen again and also listen to vanderklays commentary. To me he didn’t have a great answer.
When you say "what it *actually* is", what do you mean?
Because we have the intelligibility for it that transcends the phenomenological aspect of our lives. Maybe we are here to remember and remind ourselves what we already know and that the desire is genuine and not an illusion.
The desire for an afterlife and immortality is not unusual phenomena, Because we have the intelligibility for it, that transcends the phenomenological aspect of our lives. Maybe we are here to remember and remind ourselves what we already know and that the desire is genuine and not an illusion.
Amazing epispode Alex! This really pushed the limits of my pseudo-intellectual brain's ability to comprehend, but it was great!
Same, I struggled!
Same here😅
Try Vervaeke's series "Awakening from the Meaning Crisis" ruclips.net/video/ncd6q9uIEdw/видео.htmlsi=RTCX3Wapk1VTb7mJ
it's a bit of a slog (you should definitely be pausing every so often ((really often), and even sleeping) on the concepts)
the juice is definitely worth the squeeze, though
@@carel-bartviljoen3465I struggle with the majority of his videos, have to watch them 3 times over and get frustrated. I'm not a patient person and I feel a lot of debates among 'intellects' are for people with too much time on their hands to debate in circles and riddles knowing full well there is no right or wrong answer to any of these topics.
@@Weakeyedominant Could you share a specific point in this video that you struggled to understand?
Alex, nice to see Vervaeke here. Then the natural next guess seems to be BERNARDO KASTRUP--I really want to see you engaging him in the channel. Vervaeke and Kastrup had a 2-part dialogue on Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal, which was amazingly good session.
YES
+1
By the way (for Alex), he is similarly to Vervaeke in the "bridging science and spirituality" camp (if that's a thing), only more directly focused on metaphysics. I highly recommend him as a guest.
bernado kastrup got wrecked by Chris langen on theories of everything channel
@@humanoid8344 😂? It wasn't even really a debate.
‘You have made us for Yourself and our hearts are restless until we find our rest in You.’
Excellent conversation! (Still have the end to watch.) When I hear an argument like, "But why would anything matter if it's all destroyed in the heat death?" I hear the devaluation of presence / the overvaluation of imaginal future. I hear the valuing of life ONLY in the absence of death, which I would loosely classify under delusional, since they are two sides of the same coin / mouth & ass of the entity / crest & troth of the same wave of how isness is.
Excellent. There’s an interview on RUclips with Nial Ferguson. He talks why , as an atheist, he regularly goes to church to find a belonging and meaning. It adds light to his wife’s supposed conversion.
As a free thinker i think it is not good, not helpful to convert back to christianity. Mrs Hirsi did it, okay, but it will not help our free cause. A free open society has to battle what is coming towards us. But with modern intelligent democratic means. The christian experiment, 2ooo years, is over. Done.
Rational thought has to rule now.
Not ancient foggy beliefs.
And if Niall wants to go to church, then yes, i get it. Me too .... its a grand old feeling. I love churches and medieval castles ...just ..... in church the sermons in the service are so simple, so low resolution, so uninformative. My 10year old son has more interesting thoughts than those priests......
Experiment over.
Too true; shared purpose itself is significant, no matter how it manifests.
I myself used to have death anxiety as well, which completely disappeared after my born-again experience. I would say the feeling of an uncertain and terrifying void was replaced with an invisible but definitely tangible feeling of comfort of being covered and protected - as if no matter what happens, I cannot escape that connection (unless I guess I’m not connected). But not that I’d ever want to be senseless enough to want to escape that 😏🤗😇😇
John was my CogSci professor and have enjoyed his lectures immensely like no other, except my other favourite teacher, Jordan B Peterson 💙 How lucky was I to take part in all that. 🙂🙃😊😊🤩
A fascinating interview Alex! I think the data John pointed to on people of faith having greater mental health benefits has been shown very persuasively. (see Tyler VanderWheele’s USA Today article ‘Religion May Be a Miracle Drug’) But I must say I find the hypothesis that it’s the ‘mystical’ experience that’s driving this very hard to believe.
From my own experience as part of a Christian community, it has been other things that seem to be in operation - community support amidst suffering or hardship or joy, a mission- sense of calling towards a work that is worth sacrificing personal comfort for, truth/wisdom- a sense that what we do is true, not in an illusory way but has real weight, Hope in an afterlife and Service- getting out and helping others in practical ways brings that sense of joy and meaning.
What a mystical experience actually is has unfortunately been limited by some to only mean the mystical experience of the quixotic variety. The litany of meaningful things you described can certainly be a significant part of mystical experience. In fact, the earnest way you seem to describe them tells me that you had or still have mystical experiences in relation to, or because of, those things.
I agree with you thoughts. Also close to my experience as a former atheist now exploring Christian who has been baptized two years ago
All sorts of things can be "very hard to believe". I think it a little ironic that if not for Paul's mystical experience on the road to Damascus, it is most likely that your "Christian community" would never even have come into existence. The original group would have been a footnote in history as a minor group within Judaism with somewhat eccentric ideas about the Messiah - a group that probably would have died with the Roman crushing of the Jewish rebellion of 66-70.
The "shaking" your way out of a rut (1:21:16) is actually a brilliant insight! Possibly life changing.
I believe 5 people in total are able to follow all the terms and references made by John V.
In ten years he can put this in a way that makes sense to more people. Or just comprehensible.
But I still like John.
Yeah: people who don’t get this will give knee-jerk reactions rather than admit they don’t get some of it. That’s a little upsetting to me to put it mildly.
Haven’t had to a chance to watch/listen to this yet, but YES. John Vervaeke is wonderful; glad you both were able to speak!
Early on there was a discussion on the loss of narrative which seemed also linked to the silence Vervaeke experienced when he asked his class "where do you get wisdom?" - I guess the point here isn't that we have literally lost all narratives but that there is no core narrative or set of narratives for our society, for example no origin narratives which are commonly agreed upon.
Yes his example of the silence after that question was very enlightening. I think we’ve begun to lose the “narratives” of regular in-person community-building as well. Narrative doesn’t have to be a story someone tells you that you glean wisdom from. Stories and identity form with consistent community. Traditions, memories, rhythms, and identity take shape in a “narrative” like form with communal repetition. And then you will have people telling stories of where we’ve been and who we are. I think society is currently trending towards an increasingly vapid existence in this regard. We need to reverse this intentionally IMO. Religious or not.
@@carolm753 I wonder if the plurality of narrative is a consequence of the change in power structures in society. With a strong central power that dictates what people should believe and what faith practises they should follow, there is at least the appearance of a united society with a core narrative, this is also linked to technology and education - the printing press and the spread of literacy with also impact fragmentation of core narratives.
@@carolm753 yar, we tend to prefer our data in story form.
I've always been more of the mind frame that wisdom is gained through life's experiences. There's a reason young kids don't have wisdom, they haven't lived enough life to have learned what and what not to do. I can tell you not to touch the hot stove but you won't have the experience or wisdom of that sensation until you touched it yourself.
I'm completely onboard with this guy's perspective on meaning and science, and I've arrived at similar conclusions in my doctoral studies in cognitive neuroscience. There might be something unquantifiable about the *experience* of meaningfulness, but modern cognitive science *does* have the tools to explain the underlying structure and causality of meaning - particularly "4E Cognition" (embodied, embedded, enacted, extended). That's my jam.
Can you break this down further for dumbos like me?
Keeping an eye on this comment to see if you reply with more details
(Another dumbo here)
He is a cognitive scientist. Also, teaches it.
@@spiralsausage sup fellow dumbo lol
Dumbo no. 4 joining the queue
Thank you so much for defining terms and checking in with one another to be sure you are understanding the terms in the same way.
Regarding the last question about a fear of death (as opposed to a fear of dying), what such a fear seems to be rooted in is the sense that one has not done all the things that one has to do. The fear is that the hard stop of mortality will prevent access to more time to do those things, cutting oneself off from the possibility of doing those things.
These things that one has to do aren't necessarily particular accomplishments, but instead the achievement of the sense of meaning (in the fourfold manner that Vervaeke outlines) that such accomplishments can provide, whether it's climbing Mount Everest or reconciling with a loved one or finally getting the sense that the world makes sense.
So the better question might be "what can be done when one finds oneself about to die and one realizes that one is not connected to something other than oneself, that one has never made any sense of the world, that one has had no impact on anything, and that the deferral of these to the future is no longer possible because one no longer has a future?"
or in other words,
"What can be done in the face of immanent death when one realizes that one has lead a life devoid of meaning, with no hope of getting that meaning in the future?"
The immanence here can be one of "I'm literally about to die" or " I've realized in the here and now that I will die one day." Though in the latter case, deferral to the future is still an option, albeit an unwise one.
I think your question to John about death in relation to meaning was very potent, and I think it's telling that the examples he gave (e.g. stoicism and epicureanism) to counter the idea that religions offer a sense of meaning due to their conception of the afterlife are also the same "religions" he earlier said developed in a *prior meaning crisis*. Thus, it seems to me what he was saying was really supporting your argument rather than making a strong objection to it!
Even if a god exists who has a purpose in mind for us, it is no more or less rational or arbitrary to decide to live according to that purpose than any other arbitrarily chosen purpose. You can't get an “ought” from an “is.” The mere fact that a god exists (if indeed one does) and opposes his own purpose does not mean that we therefore ought to live out that purpose. Ultimate purposes are not something that reason can establish. As David Hume once said, “it is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.” By this he didn't mean that there's no difference between the two, or it doesn't matter which we prefer, only that it is not an issue that reason can ultimately decide. To choose a purpose, even if you are choosing to live out a divinely dictated one, is a-rational, not rational or irrational.
There's no objectivity to god's purpose. To say that something is objective is to say that it is independent of the judgment of a subject. A subject is any conscious being. If god is a conscious being, and purpose depends on his judgment, then purpose depends on the judgment of a subject and even god's purposes are therefore subjective, not objective.
If god deliberately made us, he has a purpose in mind for us, but again, that purpose is not objective. There is no objective reason why we ought to follow that purpose over any other. And what is god's purpose specifically? Something I often hear is that our purpose is to glorify god. That seems like a pretty arbitrary purpose to me. I don't see what's so objectively great about glorifying god. What meaning does glorifying god have? Even if there is a god, there's no such thing as objective purpose or objective value. These things both depend upon the judgments of subjects, and are therefore subjective. I don't understand how there could be any such thing. Because, again, even if there is a God who dictates a purpose to us, there is still no objective, non-circular reason why we ought to fulfil that purpose.
If everything was infinite, it would lose any value.
@@archangelarielle262 wow i like your comment, made me think
I like when Alex has a go at being a Christian apologist
vervaeke is not christian actually
Great discussion. It seems to me that on the issue of desire for immortality, they are both overthinking the issue. Fear of death is inherent in our evolutionary biology. The average person does not
contemplate the consequences, they simply see death as a loss and feel death as an end to their significance as biological organisms. Simple as that. Analogous to the avoidance of pain. It's part of our hard wiring.
Very well put on the topic of death. It sums up my feelings.
I don't think it's purely an individual thing, but how human civilization has cultivated an incentive to defend against mortality. Similar to how Ernest Becker explains in The Denial of Death: our evolutionary preoccupations are (from one perspective) a cloaked avoidance of death. We might not think day-to-day about death as seriously, but we like to collectively act as if death is not the end of who we are. Whether that's a belief in gods, a multi-generational science project or simply a desire to leave a legacy beyond ourselves. As humans, we tend to dream more about what we could be, than what we are.
In that respect, it would be the ultimate antithesis of 'self preservation' - the end of the self. It would seem like a natural instinct from that view.
I agree, but I think the point of discussing it is to help people who still have the fear of death.
I want to be good to people, make a better world, and hence leave a positive legacy, but I still don't want to die and have a fear of dying.
Obviously I accept my fate, but I wish I could choose when and how to go.
The conversation got me thinking about if we could live forever but could end it. I could imagine that there would come a time in my life when I felt that I had done everything I wanted to, and would decide to go. Life could simply get boring, or the world could become so perfect that I would feel I am not needed.
It's a bit like the idea of heaven (which horrifies me). If I was in a "perfect" place like that, I may want to get out. Dying to get out of heaven, so to speak. 😅
I've met plenty of people who think there will be an afterlife simply because they can't imagine not existing... so I think its fair to say that many people just don't think about death very often because they dont feel like it, they will worry about it later etc.
YESSSSS Alex and John together. BIG.
Great set of questions and considerations from Alex, best interview with John I have come across, managed to extract a lot of information
Drew
A. Information (internet): the what
B. Knowledge (science): the how
C. Wisdom & Meaning (religions, ideologies, tales & stories): the synthesis of the how, what, and why
i. Belonging
ii. Connectedness ~ to something we would want to exist even if we didn't. (more important than any individual)
to help others is the meaning of my life.
there is a correlation with young male suicide and atheism, as atheism gives no meaning, value or purpose, except that which you are forced to make up subjectively for yourself. This deep down made up meaning for existence expressed in memes, and random quotes leads eventually to depression and despair. But some atheists are successful in making up a meaning that keeps them happy and fuzzy whilst living out their objectively meaningless existence in an indifferent universe.
@@ministryofarguments5257 Even if a god exists who has a purpose in mind for us, it is no more or less rational or arbitrary to decide to live according to that purpose than any other arbitrarily chosen purpose. You can't get an “ought” from an “is.” The mere fact that a god exists (if indeed one does) and opposes his own purpose does not mean that we therefore ought to live out that purpose. Ultimate purposes are not something that reason can establish. As David Hume once said, “it is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.” By this he didn't mean that there's no difference between the two, or it doesn't matter which we prefer, only that it is not an issue that reason can ultimately decide. To choose a purpose, even if you are choosing to live out a divinely dictated one, is a-rational, not rational or irrational.
There's no objectivity to god's purpose. To say that something is objective is to say that it is independent of the judgment of a subject. A subject is any conscious being. If god is a conscious being, and purpose depends on his judgment, then purpose depends on the judgment of a subject and even god's purposes are therefore subjective, not objective.
If god deliberately made us, he has a purpose in mind for us, but again, that purpose is not objective. There is no objective reason why we ought to follow that purpose over any other. And what is god's purpose specifically? Something I often hear is that our purpose is to glorify god. That seems like a pretty arbitrary purpose to me. I don't see what's so objectively great about glorifying god. What meaning does glorifying god have? Even if there is a god, there's no such thing as objective purpose or objective value. These things both depend upon the judgments of subjects, and are therefore subjective. I don't understand how there could be any such thing. Because, again, even if there is a God who dictates a purpose to us, there is still no objective, non-circular reason why we ought to fulfil that purpose.
If everything was infinite, it would lose any value.
@@ministryofarguments5257 it's a moral imperative if you are in a position to help to do so. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Its not suppose to give meaning, value or purpose. I make my own meaning. I find freedom and joy in that. Other than that I don't argue with theists. Thank you for your input.
@@chamicels there are no moral imperatives, either it's right or wrong, good or bad, but both are acceptable in atheism, as you have zero guidance, just personal random feelings about what's right and wrong. That's why we see Israeli atheists committing some of the worst crimes in human history right now. Atheism has nothing at all to offer , it's nothing, like asymmetry, except made up ideology, memes etc and that's why atheists have issues about this as documented by Nietzsche quite well. Good luck making up a meaning for your meaningless existence in an indifferent universe that doesn't care if you exist or not. Have a nice day 😃
The reason that we cannot find ''meaning'' anymore is: Because we ask the wrong questions to connect us, and how to clear our mind from to much information! In were we trust the unknown and learn the communication with that unknown.
Death can be sudden and unexpected. It's certainly not just the idea of 'how' one will die but the fact of the permanent interruption of experience. It's not a comforting thought to consider how much of my children's lives I could miss out on if death interrupted my experience.
Our nature is to act in expectation of results or otherwise put, in anticipation of consequences. And it may be that the consequences are inevitable but come in the fullness of time, and are even realised across lives. The inherent mindset of all living beings, in defiance of observation, is of immortality of the self.
Love to see John here, Alex. One of your best!
If you are asking yourself how do you find meaning - you're already on the right path.
Path to what? Even if a god exists who has a purpose in mind for us, it is no more or less rational or arbitrary to decide to live according to that purpose than any other arbitrarily chosen purpose. You can't get an “ought” from an “is.” The mere fact that a god exists (if indeed one does) and opposes his own purpose does not mean that we therefore ought to live out that purpose. Ultimate purposes are not something that reason can establish. As David Hume once said, “it is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.” By this he didn't mean that there's no difference between the two, or it doesn't matter which we prefer, only that it is not an issue that reason can ultimately decide. To choose a purpose, even if you are choosing to live out a divinely dictated one, is a-rational, not rational or irrational.
There's no objectivity to god's purpose. To say that something is objective is to say that it is independent of the judgment of a subject. A subject is any conscious being. If god is a conscious being, and purpose depends on his judgment, then purpose depends on the judgment of a subject and even god's purposes are therefore subjective, not objective.
If god deliberately made us, he has a purpose in mind for us, but again, that purpose is not objective. There is no objective reason why we ought to follow that purpose over any other. And what is god's purpose specifically? Something I often hear is that our purpose is to glorify god. That seems like a pretty arbitrary purpose to me. I don't see what's so objectively great about glorifying god. What meaning does glorifying god have? Even if there is a god, there's no such thing as objective purpose or objective value. These things both depend upon the judgments of subjects, and are therefore subjective. I don't understand how there could be any such thing. Because, again, even if there is a God who dictates a purpose to us, there is still no objective, non-circular reason why we ought to fulfil that purpose.
If everything was infinite, it would lose any value.
You could argue you are already doing it, but only if you do not stop.
@@archangelarielle262 You should read Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling. He writes about some of these issues, like the subjectivity of one's orientation towards God.
I love this guest. The way of formulating this complex problem in this way is very convincing and delicious. You sir was able to eruditely convey the problem of thinking about meaning in our post-something-I-dont-know world in your speech :) If we can have another video with him it would be glorious :)
I think Vervaeke brought a good point to the discussion in that afterlife/immortality isnt universal given that there are religions (i.e. buddhism and hinduism) in which the goal is detachment from the desire to live on. For them, nonexistence is peace, whereas for the christian it's unthinkably nihilistic. Even if there are a few christians who dont believe theyll be conscious or that theyll be attached to anything from this life including their memories, there is still the idea that there purpose that exists in this realm will be attained as they enter into the next and in that sense the meaning of their lives certianly does live on.
This was a good conversation but I think Alex needs to really explore more dialogue with Vervaeke. Im biased, i think Vervaeke's work is necessary to reconstructing our communal identities in the wake of the death of God. For me in particular, deconverting from Christianity led straight into the nihilisitic wormhole into the void thst exists at the end of reductive materialism. I experienced meaning, but i didnt feel that i could hold onto it without deconstructing those feelings back into oblivion. It was the works of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu and the Stoics and the pre-Stoics and Epicureans that really helped me to reconstruct a healthy meaningful relationship to reality and Vervaeke's academic publishing has largely been devoted to bringing the wisdom from these traditions into the light of academic empiricism while also helping us to see the truth outside of the proposition.
He didnt explore that much here, but he is involved with 4e cognitive science (of which he uses an adapted model revolving around "p") which expands our understanding of identity and knowledge from merely that which can be formulated into propositions and into the realms of the perspectival, participatory, and procedural supported a model of conscience labeled 3r (recursive relevance realization). I think cognitive models like these are necessary for those participating in deconstruction. Our culture contains a lot of the psychological tools necessary for humans to function both at the individual level and the collective via christianity and we need to reconstruct them in its absence if we are to ourcompete it in hopes of progresss.
I don’t recall who said it but the best phrase I’ve heard and experienced myself in regards to psychedelics is “If you die before you die, you won’t die when you die”. If you’ve died, there is no fear of death.
Amazing!! Highly respect both people in this dialogue.
I really appreciated you opening up in the "why is god hidden" episode on the primeer unbelievable channel. I think so many can relate to whanting God to revile himself. Humility may not be a characteristic that the world exalts in, but they don’t understand God’s ways. 1 Peter 5:6 says, “Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time.” There are no shortcuts to true exaltation, something only God can bestow. What is sure is that those who are humble in heart will, at the proper time, be exalted. If we want to truly be exalted we need to truly be humble, saying with our Savior the ultimate expression of humility, “Lord, not my will but Yours be done” (Luke 22:42).
John 20:29
Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen, and have believed.
This was exceptionally interesting. It is complementary (it seems to me) to ideas of Terror Management Theory and now my dream discussion would be John Vervaeke with Sheldon Solomon. All sorts of connections seem to be opened up so this ranks as one of the best episodes from Alex.
But closer to home here's a personal and very mundane experience that seems to illustrate the issue of meaning. I look after my 2 year old grandson two days a week. It very recently occurred to me that if I died tomorrow he would have no memory when he gets older that I even existed. Yet the time we spend together is full of "meaning" and as every grandparent will tell you, suffused with love, awe and gratitude. To discount all of this as meaning-LESS because of its ephemeral nature is absurd. My death tomorrow will not alter the experience being sufficient in itself.
Thank you for sharing this. I want this to be explored more in these conversations. Great example. And I hope you continue to enjoy your grandson with awe, love, and gratitude. The fear of these existential questions seems to fade into the background when valued connection/meaning is right in front of you.
Your mention of TMT reminds me of a clip of Sam Keen (I believe an outtake from The Flight From Death) and he says something similar along the lines of “We only ask what the meaning of life is when it has left us. When we have meaningful experiences we recognise that they are meaningful in and of themselves and don’t need to be questioned.”
@@hamez1300 I was not aware of this at all. Thanks for the reference - I'll check it out.
Well this is a kind of limited view of memory. The boy will not consciously remember you but his body remembers, his psyche remembers, in so far as the love and support that he recieves from his caregivers informs his ENTIRE life. It actually doesn't matter that he can't consciously remember it later, the effect is quite incredible, although you have to value that effect as being something that transcends the ego. Your ego desires to be remembered in name and appearance, but meaning in life is actually not connected to that. It's much more meaningful that his existence continues beyond yours and was supported by you, it is an anonymous meaningful act.
With that said I'm sure you'll make it past the point where he develops memory and both your ego and meaningfulness will be enhanced :P
Finally someone asked the question of narratives and how they fit in. Great pod 🌞
Appreciate the pushback in the last segment, the question certainly reaonated with me and I was a bit disappointed with the answer(s) and lack of understanding to be honest.
I'm from Indonesia. Thanks for such deep, thought-provoking discussion about life's biggest question: what's the meaning of life?
10:40 I’m excited to watch this. ‘Non-propositional data' seems to organically develop within communities, like churches. Consider the inter-generational interactions, communal traditions, and loyalty that flourish-a space for in-person dialogue akin to a school at times. People without religious affiliations often experience this only within workplaces and family. I am one of the “Nones” yet I have a long history with church. We can’t underestimate the significant human need for this kind of ‘non-propositional’ learning/connection. I find myself wishing there were places for this community that aren’t couched in narrowness of doctrinal thinking or evangelism efforts.
I think that you can, and without the need for theology or theological practice. What he seems to be lamenting is the lack of institutional "meaning interpreters" that pre-package meaning in an easily digestible form. He talks about the lack of connection to things in which individual humans can participate and feel they have an influence on. He claims that science is unable to connect us to a wider "feeling" of belonging. Yet, when I go for a walk in the woods, and I look at the myriad of creatures within it and how they interact, often in mutually dependent ways, even down to the dead logs and animals that die and are scavenged, I feel utterly connected to something much bigger than I am and I realize that my role is as important as the vulture, the hawk, the grubs, the trees, the fungi, in short, everything living around me and I feel connected and part of it, without the need for an intercessor father figure. I find my connection to other people in my community by participating in its civic duties. So I think that it is still there and accessible if you know when and where but mostly how to look.
@@charlespolk5221I think wisdom transcends the plain fact of existence. I think wisdom at its core is a source on how to work with your inner fears, problems or day to day issues. Those kind of things requires a school or a place of learning, experience, experimentation and communication. This is not something you can get just by walking and looking around on your own. It requires community and what I would call self cultivation.
@@worldpeace1822 yeah I agree with this. I think this video’s conversation is pivotal in exploring this idea. The idea that science has “caused” a meaning crisis is only circumstantial for the last several centuries. But I believe we can continue to develop “best practices” from all perspectives/experiences of life that may cultivate this kind of community and intentional locales of connection/meaning/working together for common good. I know this can exist, because of church. Beyond the doctrinal ideas and narrowness of thought… the repetition of being together, the fall festival or potluck, the house meetings, the singing/music…they all provide a really important place of development of these “non-propositional” staples of humanity.
@@charlespolk5221 I responded to the other comment but tagging you in case you want to chime in! :)
Kudos Alex for *actually* having a somewhat open mind
Very interesting conversation. I just wanted to suggest another resource for Alex’s question to John at the end of the podcast about how he should respond to/help people who express fear of death. Sam Harris has a wonderful app called Waking Up that explores mindfulness and wisdom from a secular perspective. The meditations, conversations, and theory have been invaluable in my life and I think they serve as a useful doorway for secular people to explore the benefits of contemplative practice without the normal aspects of religion that I’m sure most viewers of this channel would be skeptical of.
@mellowmood20 thank you for the ‘Waking Up’ App resource recommendation!
Is fear of death a bad thing? Probably prevents a lot of suicides, but maybe that's a bad thing as well? There really are no universal answers to this. It's a subjective opinion you have to base on your life experiences
@@illaroxTV of course, a healthy fear of death is undoubtedly a good thing for our survival. I interpreted the question as greater than just fear of death in the usual sense, but more the kind of person who feels they are diminished by the fear or it is somehow interrupting their lives. I think for these types of people, a practice like meditation can be a huge help.
The apostle Paul's analogy of the seed dying and growing into something similar but expanded in 1 Corinthians 15 is pertinent to their conversation about the afterlife. I like the way Alex pushed back against John's problem with the concept of immortality. CS Lewis, at the end of the Narnia chronicles, described very well the transition from the world that we know to the eternal world that we are only given glimpses of.
Even if a god exists who has a purpose in mind for us, it is no more or less rational or arbitrary to decide to live according to that purpose than any other arbitrarily chosen purpose. You can't get an “ought” from an “is.” The mere fact that a god exists (if indeed one does) and opposes his own purpose does not mean that we therefore ought to live out that purpose. Ultimate purposes are not something that reason can establish. As David Hume once said, “it is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.” By this he didn't mean that there's no difference between the two, or it doesn't matter which we prefer, only that it is not an issue that reason can ultimately decide. To choose a purpose, even if you are choosing to live out a divinely dictated one, is a-rational, not rational or irrational.
There's no objectivity to god's purpose. To say that something is objective is to say that it is independent of the judgment of a subject. A subject is any conscious being. If god is a conscious being, and purpose depends on his judgment, then purpose depends on the judgment of a subject and even god's purposes are therefore subjective, not objective.
If god deliberately made us, he has a purpose in mind for us, but again, that purpose is not objective. There is no objective reason why we ought to follow that purpose over any other. And what is god's purpose specifically? Something I often hear is that our purpose is to glorify god. That seems like a pretty arbitrary purpose to me. I don't see what's so objectively great about glorifying god. What meaning does glorifying god have? Even if there is a god, there's no such thing as objective purpose or objective value. These things both depend upon the judgments of subjects, and are therefore subjective. I don't understand how there could be any such thing. Because, again, even if there is a God who dictates a purpose to us, there is still no objective, non-circular reason why we ought to fulfil that purpose.
If everything was infinite, it would lose any value.
@@archangelarielle262 If there is a God who has created us and has a purpose for us, it would be no more or less rational to be guided by that purpose if, and only if, this hypothetical Creator was silent about the purpose in question and/or indifferent to whether or not we paid any attention to it. But if the Creator chose to reveal his purposes to us (and it would make little sense to have a purpose for us and not reveal it) that would make all the difference in the world. Obviously the Christian worldview has a very clear (albeit not exhaustive) picture of what that purpose is, insofar as it has been revealed in the writings that underlie and underwrite the Christian worldview. On the premise that these writings (Scripture) are authoritative and trustworthy, then it makes sense to affirm that the chief end of humankind is to "glorify God and enjoy him forever". Obviously those who do not accept the premise will not accept either that such an affirmation makes sense, much less that it can be regarded as objective. But it is a conception of human existence that provides a foundation for meaning, and helps us to make sense of our longing for some kind of immortality, so well expressed by Alex in this conversation. As CS Lewis put it, "If we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world".
Thank you for this one. :)
I'm not a philosopher, but I really enjoy these discussions, so thank you.
Please graciously accept my potatoes!!! 🥔🥔🥔
I once heard that we like to tell stories because it's how our brains structure memory - or something like that.
We remember things through these somewhat chronological narrative systems and so, given enough play-time away from functional existence, we start playing around with them and creating stories. They can serve political purposes, educational ones, as a means to communicate and/or alleviate some of our existential dread. This is art, this is symbolism stuff covered in art majors' 101 classes.
So then to meaning: Why can't I just be happy that the world around me, which I am dependent on, is healthy and safe?
Similarly, why shouldn't I be depressed if the world around me, which I am dependent on, is sick or dying and unsafe - especially when I rationalize that I have little to no power to fix it? Anxiety and panic seem perfectly rational reactions in this context.
Maybe in the way anger has the purpose to make us stand up and fight against something, fear is trying to tell us something too.
I feel there is still a lot of meaning-making going on. Before the recent AI art movement, which is causing whole new feelings of powerlessness, there was a massive boom in people making and consuming contemporary art on social media and for personal businesses. What is art if not meaning-making? Commodity sure, but I like to believe people are drawn to deeper waters because it's the type of play we are evolved for.
I don't believe anything has intrinsic value. But we can and do make stuff valuable.
Why so afraid of death? Suffering sure, that's painful and therefore scary, but why death? I've never met a very old person, disabled by their age, who doesn't yearn for an end. Why is the nothingness so scary, especially when it feels like so few people choose to live with agency? You get these new-ish videogames now, after the gaming popularity explosion, where the game isn't really art instead it's obviously a product, it ticks all the generic boxes without really letting you think or do anything genuinely interesting. It just scratches a limbic itch and players buy and play it, wasting months of their lives without it giving them anything necessarily meaningful. So then, what's so scary about an end to meaning?
Let's say you fill your life with meaning, that you have lived a full life - are you scared of how it will feel when the meaning ends? What if there is no feeling?
I don't think an endless existence has to be horrific. Tezuka Osamu (manga artist) had a work called Hi no Tori (The Phoenix), I watched the 2004 anime and in one of the final episodes (spoilers!) this man who becomes accidentally immortal lives past a nuclear winter where everyone else dies. It deals with his loneliness and how he spends the rest of basically eternity becoming an uber-scientist, studying everything in the hopes of re-inventing life and failing painfully and horrifically at it. In the end he lives so long that he watches the rebirth of Earth right back up to the evolution of a new homo sapien. Isn't that kind of cool? Even when we pass, the universe continues and eventually it will end but we got to be a part of it, that's cool, right? In this show, the end of Earth is not this horrific thing, it's awesome in the original sense of the word.
Maybe there's some drive in us to regulate social systems even for when we are not around, because generally there's a next generation and the idea of there not being one is just not something we are able to cope with.
Why does it matter if people are changed by my work if they are all going to end? Because at one time they were alive and potentially suffering - I don't want them to suffer (maybe a biological empathy thing). When you look at a community of animals and there is some kind of environmental or social challenge they are faced with and you watch them overcome it there's like this "WOOOO! You go little guys, I'm so proud of you." Maybe that mirrors how we feel about ourselves. Maybe it's about the kind of story we want to tell.
We don't want to tell the story of these stupid cruel apes who lived on a rock and harmed or off-ed all other life on the rock, we want to tell the story of these glorious apes who overcame it all and thrived. We love the monomyth; we love the wise and gracious ruler. Maybe it's not about making something that will outlive us, it's about making something that will add to that story? Maybe it's how our ego(s) work. Or maybe it's all "because horse" - there's a ton of symbolism in horses.
As for psychedelics, in game-design and anthropology we have the magic-circle, a deep kind of play, I don't really have the words or the rich context for it. My one lecturer used to say "a grey blob that you hold, it's shapeless, it oozes through your fingers, but you keep trying to hold it as if it has a form" - she was talking about coming to terms with new concepts, but I think it can apply to meaning-making as well.
Anecdotal example relating to awe: When I was a teen, my two friends and I got up before the sunrise to visit a damn and have a picnic. It was quite dark and there were leopards on the farm, so we were scared to get out of the vehicle and open the gates - we took turns, and the excitement created a kind of camaraderie. We arrived at the damn with a collective sigh of relief and then suddenly we three went dead quiet as we heard this unexplainable da-doof-da-doof-da-doof-da-doof.
As we looked up a singular wildebeest came galloping across the damn wall with the sun rising behind it. We ended up not having the picnic because that experience was enough, it was something special, full of awe. It was beautiful and it was meaningful in a way all of us could understand without theological agreement. This is the magic circle for me, but I may be way off base. And you can find it sitting behind a microscope or a black-board, or in nature, or at church, or while consuming art - it's a deep feeling of appreciation.
The descriptions created some vivid Images in my mind. And I can relate to your main points. Although they are not well defined, I (believe I) can sense the meaning-creating awareness of this Basic feeling that accompanies existence and Sometimes envelopes the moment when left undisturbed. You mentioned the sensation of awe. I'd say awe is just the emotion of astonishment mixed with true seeing. But this true seeing can happen all the time and I predict (Not there yet) that It is only when you do see without obstruction, that you cease to ask meaningless questions like what ist meaningful, and hence live a meaningful life
Knowledge can come from your smart phone but if you're looking for wisdom you have to put that together yourself. This is the burden of sentience. It's the tension that will consume most of your experience. Wisdom can't come directly from somewhere external. It's more of a process than it is a definitive answer to anything. This makes it both contextual as well as temporary. Which is what makes it valuable. This is why religion ultimately fails in its pursuit to nail down the idea of a transcendent meta wisdom. It's just not there no matter how hard you try to conjure it.
Your debate with Ben was excellent. We are exmuslims/atheists reviewing your debate with Ben.
Did you like how Ben couched his language about the Atheist Society vs Muslim Society question Alex brought up. He was trying really hard not to say he thinks most muslims are practicing radical Islam.
@@JusticeIsALie Yes. One can sense him trying to wiggle out of it uncomfortably. This is the kind of sophistry even most of the Muslim apologists engage in when cornered.
I meant to write my previous comment that you responded to with my this ID. This is where we engage with Muslim callers (and for that matter any caller with different religious flavor) and pit their arguments against rational arguments.
@@JusticeIsALiehow can you be a bit Muslim there's Muslims they are extremists you can't be a bit but most are Muslims by culture and not fully convinced most religous people have doghts luckily for us as the quran is very clear
Thank you Alex - you're doing tremendous work. It's so appreciated.
This is a truely wonderful discussion
I followed your channel for some time but this interview earned a subscription. Amazing back and forth. Thanks Alex and John, and thank you for all your fascinating work!
As a non-native speaker I have a question when reflecting on my own comment: Is it wrong to use "followed" in this context? Is "have followed" correct? Thanks to anyone who is inclined to respond
@@simonahrendt9069 'Followed' is the past tense of 'follow' and is correct in the way you used it. 'Followed' also shows up in the 'Subscribe' button after you click on it - which means you are now 'following' the channel.....'>....
Where do you go for wisdom, you seek experience and others who've experienced.
As a believer my purpose in this temporal life is to meet my creator at peace in the afterlife. To achieve that i have to go thru this life guided by my creator. May God guides all of us.
I found the section on life after death and how this relates to feeling life is meaningful was very strange. Veraeke had already said people with a faith have a greater sense of meaning, but the all faith groups registered around the same level of meaningfulness. Alex queried if a believe in life after death was responsible for this as it is common to the main faith groups. At this point Vervarke seemed to go off at a tangent. First he started with Buddhism and the idea that they don't have a strong belief in life after death - but they aren't one of the three main faith groups (Christianitiy, Islam and Hinduism) who surely must have been responsible for most of the data collected? Plus it might be the case in western Buddhism but for many eastern Buddhists do have a belief in life after death. Then Vervaeke admitted that he meditated on the idea that eternal life was horrific and argued with Alex for some time that he couldn't understand how people could find a belief in life after death meaningful or even coherent - well, this lack of comprehension is surely the fruit of what he has been meditating on, so it is personal to him, that wouldn't be the case for most believers.
Thinking about it some more, the middle section on life after death seems like it is a very personal view from Vervaeka - before and after he is talking about studies and research but in this section it is all "I", "me" language, he is saying he doesn't find it helpful, not that studies don't find it helpful.
@@purplesoup2 This is a frequent habit of Vervaeke's. For him, all views naturally converge on his own melange of Western Buddhism and Neo-Platonism.
Very thoughtful interview. Love hearing John's thought processes.
Wow. Vervaeke has his finger on something important.
great discussion, so glad you were able to get some time with john. i really enjoyed it, i think he did as well. you did a great job of teasing out and also challenging his ideas. i think critical feedback from thinkers like yourself will really add value to his project
I always feel like people who debate this ignore the possibility of much of it may stem from "pseudo belonging" that comes from social media.
Maybe the lack of people using social structures for belonging is less about being less religious and more about the fact that there is a bad fit between our brains reward structures and what we actually need.
There was a time when you couldn't get a like on insta to get a sense of reward, so you would actually need to fill it by engaging with people.
In general there is an ever increasing divergence between our brains reward systems and what is actually good for our physical and mental wellbeing.
That’s still the case though. People conflate their sense of identity with a sense of belonging & that’s exactly the problem. It’s not a real belonging.
Humanism was declared insufficient. It is a much larger discussion than one can have in comments but...
I have watched this video few times in the span of the year and recently I have read biography/collected poems of Eliot. It is a bit scary that in one of the sentences in the book author describes the time Eliot lost his believe in humanism... That observation resonates within me. The whole Dawkins proposition that we witnessed countless times - last time with the debate with Ali - poetry, science, good will towards people, everyday kindness was thrown in the trash by Eliot on one point of his later life. Humanism was declared by him insufficient.
Humanism is for me something to the effect that Joseph Conrad mentions in The Mirror of the Sea: In reading these chapters one is always hoping for the revelation; but the personality is never quite revealed. We can only say that this thing happened to Mr. Conrad, that
he knew such a man and that thus life passed him leaving those memories. They are the records of the events of his life, not in every instance striking or decisive events but rather those haphazard events which for no definite reason impress themselves upon the mind and
recur in memory long afterward as symbols of one knows not what sacred ritual taking place behind the veil.”
Words of Conrad from Wiki:
If irony exists to suggest that there's more to things than meets the eye, Conrad further insists that, when we pay close enough attention, the "more" can be endless. He doesn't reject what [his character] Marlow [introduced in Youth] calls "the haggard utilitarian lies of our civilisation" in favor of nothing; he rejects them in favor of "something", "some saving truth", "some exorcism against the ghost of doubt"-an intimation of a deeper order, one not easily reduced to words. Authentic, self-aware emotion-feeling that doesn't call itself "theory" or "wisdom"-becomes a kind of standard-bearer, with "impressions" or "sensations" the nearest you get to solid proof.
Conrad... adopted a broader ironic stance-a sort of blanket incredulity, defined by a character in Under Western Eyes as the negation of all faith, devotion, and action. Through control of tone and narrative detail... Conrad exposes what he considered to be the naïveté of movements like anarchism and socialism, and the self-serving logic of such historical but "naturalized" phenomena as capitalism (piracy with good PR), rationalism (an elaborate defense against our innate irrationality), and imperialism (a grandiose front for old-school rape and pillage). To be ironic is to be awake-and alert to the prevailing "somnolence." In Nostromo... the journalist Martin Decoud... ridicul[es] the idea that people "believe themselves to be influencing the fate of the universe." (H. G. Wells recalled Conrad's astonishment that "I could take social and political issues seriously.")
Ecology of practice is the thought I have got from this podcast. But there are in me thoughts that collide with modern economy. There is a greate piece in Carl Sagan Contact:
One of Xi's crimes in the eyes of the Cultural Revolution had
been to admire some of the ancient Confucian virtues, and
especially one passage from the Great Learning, which for
centuries before every Chinese with even a rudimentary
education knew by heart. It was upon this passage, Sun
Yat-sen had said, that his own revolutionary nationalist
movement at the beginning of the twentieth century was based:
The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue
throughout the Kingdom first ordered well their own states.
Wishing to order well their states, they first regulated their
families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated
their persons. Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first
rectified their hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first
sought to be sincere in then-thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in
their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their
knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation
of things. Thus, Xi believed, the pursuit of knowledge was
central for the well-being of China. But the Red Guards had
thought otherwise.
Nihilism was described beautifully by your guest in the first minute of the video. There are strategies to live by and yet here we are... Sorry for the lengthy one ;)
1:09:44 And here’s why I so appreciate my old ‘Mile-a-minute’ professor, John Vervaeke: Meaninglessness in externalities doesn’t necessitate same state within… and between.
This is just anecdotal of course but.. I'm not really afraid of death nor do I think that the meaning crisis I have is tied to me recognizing my inevitable demise. I think I agree mostly with John that I desire to belong to something that is bigger than any single person, something that has meaning even if I'm not here. And to make a difference through that. Our sense of community has been eroded, so many basic human needs and desires have been commodified, we lack trust in bigger entities because we see so much greed and corruption.. so we feel like lonely hamsters running in wheels to make money until we collapse. That doesn't seem like a life worth living and no amount of "self-improvement" is going to change that.. something much bigger is lacking.
Any fear of death is instinctual and I do think you fear death as well. Maybe you have moments of clarity where you sober up and stop fearing for a tiny bit (like many people who suicide) but then regain that fear back after. Now here I'm going to make (and already made) a lot of assumptions about you which could be wrong I guess but I believe you'd have suicided already if you didn't fear death
@@illaroxTV I've tried but failed. What keeps me from trying harder is that I don't want to inflict more pain to the people close to me.
That being said, of course I have some fear of death. I fear the moments leading up to the death but not the non-existence. But it was the non-existence part that was highlighted by Alex in the video and that's what I kind of disagree with.
This guy is smart. The point that dreaming and dreamlike states could be to throw noise into the system to prevent overfitting blew my mind a little bit. Its kinda obvious tbh but never occured to me.
Exactly right! Overfitting is a huge issue in many aspects of thought, judgement & analysis.
Nice one Alex! I'd be glad if you could bring Iain McGilchrist to the podcast. Anyways, keep the good work!
this really does have to happen
Awesome to see John here!
56:52 "i can't imagine what is it like being dead"
Well i can, remember the billions of years before you where born, i expect that would be the feeling after you die, the feeling you have of what it was like when you just woke out of bed and forget your dream and that feeling of the time where you just were, the void we experience, every time you forget, but for everything, not fear, not pain, not happiness, just the feeling of not having absolutely any thought or emotion at all, the blank stare of existence. Ten minutes ago you where awake and the clock showed 8 hours ago. That 7:50hrs is what my expectation of the feeling of being dead is.
All of those moments of unconsciousness are skipped over. We only ever Experience experience. You keep referring to _after_ the unconscious/non-existence part is over... Which, is actually not completely wrong... We should ask ourselves "What happened _after_ the last time I didn't exist?" "What happened _after_ non-existence before birth?" ... Well, life is what came after. Why? Because a life came to exist. So, we should ask: will lives exist after this one ends? The answer is yes, there will literally be lives here on Earth after the one reading this dies. So the same thing happens again, but just with some other life which has nothing to do with the life that ended.
@@naturalisted1714 yes, but i have to ask how much people care for after the last human alive. The "new life"
It's nice to see Alex converse with someone he can't toy with
Alex is the living embodiment of proof of how kind non believers can be.
Proof that non theists don't need the threat of hell to be a polite and good person.
Some people need it, some don't, it's just a motivator to act in way or another
I'm a Christian and I do good things because I feel like doing them but I think Christianity is helpful because it tells us that we should continue to be kind even when we're angry. A lot of people don't do that Christian or otherwise. We definitely don't need the thread of hell but it's nice to have a book to remind us.
@@NextPiece_ some people need to be threatened with hell? are you insane?
@@avivastudios2311 if you're a christian it's not possible to do good things for the sake of it, you're either avoiding hell or being a god puppet, only atheists can be sincere - we couldn't give a rats ass what god wants, so if i get into heaven it's on merit, not sucking up time.
you have no morality - you have to ask god what is moral, you have no creativity, god has to direct you, you talk about atheists having meaning, i do everything for myself or friends and family, you do stuff cos god DEMANDS you do good stuff - you personally don't care, without god you are nothing, right? you just do as you're told.
@@NextPiece_Literally who?
Interesting discussion. I've met very few people who fear death itself. Most fear dying (i.e., the process). If those fearing death-as-no-longer-existing are comforted by an afterlife then it would seem to necessarily imply they assume the continuity of their current self (i.e.,albeit a fantasy sanitized version).
I'm so happy that Alex's audience are getting Vervaeke pilled. I've wanted these two to talk for years. The more Alex talks with these kind of guests, the further he will move from the silly new atheist understanding of reality. This process is obviously already clearly under way in Alex.
“…silly new atheist understanding of reality.” 🤪 Sounds like projection & strawmanning…
@@christopherhamilton3621projecting what exactly? I was once a devotee of the new atheists as a young person. Then I continued my education and realised their arguments are really bad and not taken seriously by anyone with philosophical or theological training. Dawkins' discussion of Aquinas' 'five ways', for example, is such a confused and embarrassing performance. He got every single one of Aquinas' 'five ways' wrong. The only one worth listening to was Hitchens. His arguments on evil were pretty good (not that theists hadn't been contemplating the same arguments for millenia). This doesn't mean I'm now a Christian or even a 'theist' in the standard/current understanding of that term. I also see Alex treading a similar path.
"The interplay between the formal and the informal, the symbolic and the intuitive, the rigid and the fluid, is the heart and soul of mathematics." - GEB, an eternal braid
Fantastic speaker, love deep dives on stuff like this.
I really appreciate your even handedness.
Love this! Vervaeke is awesome and this conversation brought out some his best points.
A word of caution though, Vervaeke's enthusiasm (while I believe it is sincere), can gravitate towards faux-profundity, similar to Jordan Peterson. He has a gift, but just remember that he doesnt have all of the answers, and treating him as if he does can be cult-like.
I disagree. John takes pains exactly NOT to appeal or reduce to pseudo profundity. Your point to not think he has all the answers is, of course, quite valid. He has none of the hubris of Peterson and strives to be always humble.
Re 1:26. on fear of being dead. I agree with Vervaeke. I think, the fear of death is a function of one's beliefs about an afterlife. If there's a belief in an afterlife that could be either rewarding or punishing, this could logically influence one's fear or anticipation regarding death. It suggests that our perceptions about what comes after death play a crucial role in shaping our fear of death itself.
The whole "you don't fear not existing before you were born" argument is really frustrating because of how blatantly flawed it is: *You can only fear the future not the past, just by the nature of our perception of time* .
I think this argument works not from a temporal perspective but rather by creating a symmetry in the imaginal between the prior "experience" of non existing with the future "experience" of non existing. They are for all purposes the same. Once I realized that I am (we all are) already familiar with "non existing" the fear of death became irrelevant to me.
It does give a concrete example of what is overwhelmingly likely to be the case. Namely that one returns to that state of not-being. So many people cant get their head around the concept of their end until one points this out to them. They are usually very un-reflective and un-philospophical types but I do find there are quite a few of those.
@@bertrandrussell894 It sounds a bit harsh but I think most of us are conditioned to give too much importance to our own continuity of state of existence rather than realizing that we are no exception that rules of existence: everything is bound by finitude. The arrogance is in the fact that we can't conceive the question "but why am I so special that makes me the exception to the rules of existence?" In a sense humanity as a whole is not mature psychologically to accept the full frame of the nihilist background on which we are free (the ultimate freedom) to paint meaning. We become depressive and desperate when if we realize too much that "Santa does not exist". It's the same sort of transition from a child mindset into the reality of responsible adulthood, but for adults. People that are nostalgic about religion don't realize that traditional religions are well adapted to a human level of consciousness that is like a young child and the narratives function like "good night stories". But humanity is 2000 years older now, and has accumulated more experience and knowledge of existence so those narratives don't fit that well anymore.
@@Adaerus I mostly agree. I would say that we do feed damaging lies to kids. If, for instance we told them earlier that they would one day end, rather than never mention it or delude them, they would treat this life with more importance.
As for the religious attempt at a coping mechanism I dont think many have properly grappled with eternity, much less an incoherent one of a sort described in religious books.
@@Adaerus I think the whole framing of nonexistence that you and the video is using completely misses the point. People don't fear a reified nothing, they fear the absence of future experience.
Because of our relationship to time though this is not a time symmetric fear. It would make no sense for a creature to fear missing out on things which happened before it existed.
These people really took the "we don't know" to the next metaphysical level, didn't they?
"To fall in love with God is the greatest romance; to seek Him the greatest adventure; to find Him, the greatest human achievement."
-St. Augustine
Elsewhere, I posted: "According to *Psalm 139* (verses 4 & 16) David tells us that Harold (YHWH) knows everything we will ever do or say - *and that did so before He created the Universe* - He's Omniscient. Harold has seen the last frame of the Movie (in fact He chose to make the movie with that ending.) Do you agree with David?" Eventually, you replied (with some reservations): _"I would have to say _*_I agree with David"._* Now, this means that Harold *specifically* chose to create a world in which he gave *eternal life* (remember you said _"If he rejects God's love he _*_lives eternally_*_ without it")_ to individuals whom HE knew would become Unbelievers and agreed that that would result in *Eternal Suffering.* It matters not if their Free-Will caused them to 'condemn themselves' - He knew they would beforehand, Being Omnipotent, He _could_ have made the world differently but didn't. So, *He deliberately created beings **_in order_** that they should experience eternal suffering.* I would call that a *Moral Monster.*
@@L.Ron_Dow Yes we've been over this before. First off do you have any other examples of God's immorality? Did you discover this pseudo example yourself or get it from a famous atheist like Alex?
Next:
Anyone who believes he can criticize and second guess God obviously believes he is on the same level as God.
Many brilliant people Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal over the centuries have believed that God is love, truth, justice, beauty. They didn't believe it because they knew God's mind. They knew because it was revealed to them by other Christians who in turn had it revealed to them all the way back to Christ and his disciples. They also had personal relationships with God.
God is omnipotent. That doesn't mean He can do impossible things like make 1=2 or make a person exist and not exist at the same time or please atheists. If He chose out of love to make man more Godlike and give him free will you can't expect Him not to keep that commitment when the consequences of man's use of it go wrong. If God can see the future that doesn't he mean personally creates very human being or manages every detail of existence.
When He chooses to do that it's called a miracle. Miracles by definition occur rarely.
So it's obvious He created the universe and then let it run own it's own. If you think you can second guess God then you evidently think you are capable of being God or you would rather be a puppet without free will.
Do you want to be a man or puppet? It seems you believe you are a puppet, but with the powers of a god. That's one of the impossible things even God can't make.
Most suffering in this world is caused man's exercise of his free will. Men who cause suffering willingly and never repent and change will not be in heaven. Free will does not cause suffering. Men do.
If you don't respond I'll presume you can't or that you realize that you are a fool but too proud to admit it.
@@L.Ron_Dow Lrondon makes think of L Ron Hubbard. Did you et my reply or are you going to use that excuse again?
@@joannware6228no, didn't get it, it has been disappeared by our hosts but I will find it by another route and reply later.
@@joannware6228 Ok, by sorting the comments by date and scrolling down 3 days, I was able to read your 'disappeared' reply. If you sign-out of your account and try to 'Highlight' your first comment, you'll see the space where it should be - you will always see it if you are signed-in as the poster. They don't like you repeating multi-paragraph comments - it breaches community rules (and can end up with your account removed.) I see that you are back to making your very un-Christina Ad-H0ms.
The reason I can't find meaning is that I run away when the topic comes up. Anyone wanting to infest my life with meaning will have to catch me first.
Love your content! Quick question. I’m not familiar with how the revenue system works between Spotify and RUclips. I switch between these two for your podcasts, but if one helps you out more than the other, then I’ll stick with that one. Thanks for your work!
Id like to know that too
Spotify pays much better than youtube.
this conversation and topic is above my paygrade
Can you imagine Jordan Peterson speaking with John? They’re like inverse humans. Peterson rambles on while saying nothing to appear intelligent. John is condensing centuries of insights into sentences.
ruclips.net/video/DLg2Q0daphE/видео.htmlsi=dprGd8rRVEYD1P5F
They actually have had many conversations before! It is a sight to see John gracefully Jiu jitsu Jordan's occasional nonsense, but they have had some productive dialogue as well.
A search of both their names should bring up a handful of videos...
They’ve got a few videos together that are pretty good.
@@KalebPeters99Hey Kaleb! Good to see you again lol
I’d agree that, compared with Peterson, Verveake’s ideas are more focused and systematic. But it’s a mistake to dismiss what Peterson’s more rambling style represents.
Peterson’s thinking in these kinds of discussions is not disorganized or nonsensical, it is improvised. As such, it can be difficult to follow - not because he’s so much smarter, but because he’s more spontaneously experimental and adventurous. He is willing to drift farther away from a core idea in order to explore a potential connection or synthesis. Sometimes, these digressions don’t pan out, but the digression is no less important.
You might say Peterson is more like a jazz musician - experimenting and innovating in real time. Vervaeke is more like a jazz composer or conductor - designing and planning around a more coherent vision.
That was an incredibly interesting talk, very much related to something that bothered me lately. I feel like this was the philosophically most sophisticated interview on this channel of at least this year. Thank you for having him on.
And I agree with his statement from 1:28:40. When I 1st took LSD I said to my trip sitter afterwards that I already knew the game, but the graphics and the immersion was better and way more intense.
No one needs existential meaning. The crisis is a result of people believing they need to justify their own existence (primarily to themselves, despite the function of justification being communicative). Moreover, the belief that lives bearing a meaning are superior or preferable is what depresses those who want but fail to fabricate one. Stories have meaning, lives don’t.
It’s sad really, how miserable people make themselves in pursuit of some unnecessary ultimate message and justification for their lives.
Yet we all strive for it as if it’s wired into our being. There’s also a difference between pursuing the meaning of life versus the meaning in life. John isn’t talking about the existential meaning of life that you are posting about, if you know anything about his work you would understand that he rather people look for meaning in their life. Saying that people believing they need to justify their existence of the same as saying people need to justify their existence since belief is no different than living. We all live for our belief, I’m presupposing this, and I haven’t found evidence to the latter. This is for conscious human agents with autonomy or even a delusion of autonomy in this world/reality.
Like what it the alternative for you?? What do you live for, just hedonism with no goal??
There wouldn't be a crisis if (most) people didn't feel a need for existential meaning.
You assume too many things about what I’m saying that are not necessitated by my view, and in turn, you misunderstand it.
[1] “Like what it the alternative for you?? What do you live for, just hedonism with no goal??”
If you ask this question, you don’t understand my point of view. From my perspective, being without meaning is not a problem. It is not something I need to solve.
Those who believe they should have a reason for being or living have the problem, which I propose is self invented, or at least co-created socially. I need not live *for* anything in particular. I continue living so long as I breathe, eat, and empty myself of waste; the interest of my activity varies wildly through the course of a day, week, year, as any other being. I can make goals to delight myself or others, serve other drives and functions, occupy the time, etc. but I don’t live for them.
Those who lament about having no meaning in the existential sense that is described as “nihilistic” despair; are not despairing because there is no meaning, but because they believe they are without something they ought to have; as is the emptiness meant they were missing something. And in this way, many humans imagine that the void is an issue, and scream for reason and purpose to cover up the silence, instead of simply enjoying it. For me, everyday I feel deeply satisfied in the transformative transience of it all.
[2] I’m commenting on the conversation between vervaeke and O’Connor, and particularly about this “nihilistic” pointlessness and/or “meaninglessness” that they discuss toward the latter part of the episode, as well as the more general lament people have in association with this topic. I wasn’t attempting to represent Vervaeke’s body of work.
[3] I think this following statement is vague and unfounded:
“Yet we all strive for it as if it’s wired into our being.”
It is not at all clear or established that this is intrinsic to the species, despite its ubiquity in historical (and possibly some prehistoric) populations. Culture and personal experience greatly informs the activities, goals, and values we develop. Is it actually the case that this sort of preoccupation is innate? Or is a preoccupation with meaning inculcated and learned? A topic far too fraught for a comment section I suppose.
[4] “We all live for our belief, I’m presupposing this, and I haven’t found evidence to the latter”.
This is just confused. Animals do not live for their beliefs. Did you as an infant also live for your beliefs, before you had any formalized to speak of? Is it that you actually live for your beliefs, or that your conscious deliberation generates reasons because it is so use to producing articles of persuasion and justification in a social environment? Would that also not explain why no other creature (including our recent ancestors) appeared to be concerned with the task? I suspect so.
This pragmatic mindset works for computers, not the human brain, oh and also animals that are not conscious. When given complete awareness such as humans have been given/achieved, the end result will be "why?". We ask why about everything when we are young, and as we slowly age, we either stop at religion, science, or in the sad case that you are trying to portray here with equating the thinking life to a narrative structure - Nihilism.
What I think is sad is the denial of meaning. That's a black hole that leads to despair or indifference for most. It's also cognitive dissonance and the easy route out.
What most intellectuals dont get is that narrative is a key element of the way we construct ourselves. When people say they saw their life flash before their eyes, this is not just a figure of speech, it is literally a story that is constantly flashing in the subconscious every time an observation is made. Every time you observe anything, the data is compared to that story in an instant to determine relevance and meaning. Scientific rational thinking is an abstraction that doesnt work for the average person; if you cant put it into a narrative that goes 'person doing action', the information simply wont compute without considerable repetitive effort.
speak for yourself. I find plenty of reasons to live. But religion is not one of them.
Lots of math/ logic jargon. I love it
Science does not say that matter cannot have meaning, and Vervaeke is just wrong in asserting this. Nothing has inherent meaning; meaning is gained by things based on how they are used. For example, you can give purpose to a rock by using it as a doorstop.
The same thing is true of life. It gains meaning depending on how you use it. Use your life to do something you believe in, and it will have meaning. There is no need for a creator-god to assign it for you.
You’re misrepresenting his point here.