Explaining the Fall to Atheists
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 июл 2024
- In this short meditation, I explore the meaning of the Fall in secular terms, and the mistake atheists make in understanding their own placement.
Course on Dante's Inferno: www.thesymbolicworld.com/cour...
Support us for exclusive content and benefits: thesymbolicworld.com/subscribe
📱 SOCIAL MEDIA
Facebook: / thesymbolicworld
Twitter: / pageaujonathan
Instagram: / jonathan.pageau
Our website designers: www.resonancehq.io/
My intro was arranged and recorded by Matthew Wilkinson.
You should make this a "Explaining (X) to Atheists" series
haha try materlialist rationalist christians
Yes!
I feel that statement needs softening a bit. Us vs them.......Perhaps more - How To See The Humanity and wisdom of US as brought down through the Ages. A bit long I know but Unity is key - not division.
@@leanneglascott6836 😫
@@leanneglascott6836 No. We need directness and acknowledgement of difference.
You just keep getting clearer and clearer each time you talk about these topics. Really great to get to watch unfold.
One thing I would have liked to hear you expand on is how all limitstion is death and all suffering is just a gorm of limitation. Meaning sin is death is limitation. Thus fallen.
That's what had always been the clearest to me, ar least.
Here are my thoughts, mostly centered on approach, hope they're valuable:
In my opinion the talk is a bit all over the place, and it would mostly make sense to the people who are already familiar with your work. Jumping from one symbolic explanation to another really wrecks the listener's attention (which has it's uses, but not here imo). Most people still don't even have a sense of what "tree" is, let alone the rest of it, so we've got to be generous and patient.
Besides that, "the fall is the distance from the purpose" argument is the most powerful one. Focusing the conversation, and maintaining the attention on "purposes" is always a good idea. You really helped me most when you described what purposes are, but avoided the discussion about which ones are ideal. The argument where you explained how the enlightenment thinkers are basically talking about a fall whenever they talk about the "gaps" they see, is fantastic. But the argument about the gnostics falls short, because "Why is Jonathan talking about Christian heresies now?" (atheists are seldom generous); it's probably best to put this one at the end, as a final support for the full image.
I, personally, would double down on the "judging good from a distance" argument and would give a few secular examples. It's a bit confronting maybe, but the entire discussion needs a few concrete point throughout, so that the person listening can tie the points together themselves, and the one I mentioned is an easy and concrete one.
Usually people engaging solely in the hermeneutics of suspicion are already blind to what they're doing, so tip-toeing around it makes it more difficult. It makes it more difficult because their own behavior is already veiled to them anyway, veiling it further is pointless. I want to be careful with this, but in my experience, people that are solely using the hermeneutics of suspicion (most atheists) are feasting on carcasses, which means they're very hungry for meaning, and secretly a sense of identity (which is the key moment).
So this is from my experience with talking to atheists:
You begin by laying the groundwork first, by defining some of the terms ("the way ancient people saw it" is a good garment), but in a simple manner. The martyrdom of Christ is not simple, unless you have a seriously high view of reality. But the fall in connection to purposes, the gaps argument, and maybe a few common examples of "judging good from the perspective of bad" should be good enough.
After all this, you want to trick the atheist into eating their own arguments with their deconstruction, BUT at the same time you want to support them in building a constructivist argument (one without the other is just malicious).
I'm trying to be concise, but I'm still working this out myself. Hopefully this next part will be useful:
At this stage, this pattern of speech that works most universally: you talk about the death of the world (only about external things) like presenting the "fall" and "gap" aspect of the enlightenment as a hypocrisy. Then, you make a mock deconstructivist argument (in fact, exactly where the gnostic argument was). "And so, we can say something like [with a mocking voice]: 'what does the gap thing have to do with Adam and Eve being driven out of the garden? Weren't they taken out of the garden because God didn't want them to have more knowledge, or whatever? God created the whole thing anyways, He decided to throw them out.'
I mean, yeah sure, I guess, but then who cares about the story anymore? You know, it's like that one aunt at Thanksgiving dinner whose sole purpose in life is just whining about everyone's problems. The one that always points out that you're fatter than last time she saw you. Oh, but you say something back about her, and it's like the end of the world. If you get where I'm coming from. Alright, so here's how I see the gap thing in connection to the fall....".
At this point you can start constructing the argument and usually the atheist will start considering it. Typically, you construct like so: there's this [problem], AND here's how it's rectified (which I see you doing a lot anyway);
If you're in a live conversation, they'll typically start daydreaming while you talk to them, and will tell you what your explanations remind them of. In other words, the best part in the discussion.
Finally, here you can add the stuff about the gnostics and all the rest of it, since now you're constructing the argument, instead of defending it. All the beautiful and ornamental stuff belong here.
And I'd add this extra stuff for everyone else reading:
None of these explanations depend solely on logical, rationalistic arguments. It's a game centered on food, fundamentally. We're in a deconstructed world and people are starving for meaning, so much so that they forgot what meaning looks like. Atheists are not deconstructing because they're willfully blind (as much as we really want that to be true), they simply have never been properly presented with a higher source of food. Not in a way that would connect with them, never.
And we can say "Well, it's not my job to play tricks and do the thinking for them, and make all these little changes because they're refusing to see.", and to that I would say: If we truly have been blessed by God to grasp some of this wisdom, then it's our job to put it to good use, and bear the fruits necessary, to properly and patiently show people a higher, more beautiful, more refreshing perspective. Some people, expect the atheist to self-sacrifice their approach, but they can't even demonstrate themselves. Right, the atheist is blind, and some Christians feel like they've got this grand understanding, and they're going to show the atheist how blind they are. Sounds like those two persons are the same.
Of course you have to change your approach to fit the perspective of the person. Some people really don't want your help. But when it comes to most of them, you either patiently help them see, or you failed.
And there's all these people that really do their best to absolutely miss your point, but as long as they're having the conversation with you, they are participating, which means soon enough they will tell you where're they're coming from. Like, you might think that you and some atheist are having a discussion about Christianity, but in reality the atheist is arguing with their ultra-devout, tyrannical, strict mother (subconsciously).
And maybe it really sucks when you engage in this conversation, and these topic mean the world to you, but you end up getting all your arguments deconstructed and it makes you feel cold and alone, remember that everybody, Christian and atheist alike, are going through the same experience, because everyone else is also deconstructing their meaningful things. But you can be an enduring example of the opposite.
Alright, I'll stop with my sermon, or whatever this was supposed to be. If you found the last paragraph meaningful and hopeful, notice that I am using the same tactics on you that I explained above. "Tactics", more like a breath of fresh air (at least for me).
I really hope this is useful,
As an atheist I have to say that this by far has been one of the most respectful and understandable positions regarding the topic of those as myself in the comment section of this channel. Some things I don't agree with, but the overall message and sentiment really hit it home for me. Well done brother.
"I mean, yeah sure, I guess, but then who cares about the story anymore?"
well, why are you assuming that we have to care about the story?
@chottstuff well, many do, actually. Because it matters whether we are dust that only looks forward to decomposing in a grave after our death, or if we believe that we were created and made in the image of God, and that we all still carry that unfallen Image of God in us, no matter how we act.. and that Our Creator took on human form and rescued us from a forever grave in due time to live again with Him the life that we had in the beginning when He first formed Adam and Eve..
Also, where we believe we came from is deeply important to where we believe others came from...and how we treat them.. even as we sin in this fallen world as we hope to be purified to live finer lives.
I really want to believe in (a) God(s) and I don’t understand how can someone not be an atheist. I watched the debate with Alex O’Connor and I still struggle to grasp Jonathan Pageau’s perspective. Where does morality come from? Isn’t morality relative? Isn’t it linked to your environment and circumstances? The gap between what is real and how you would want reality to be: it comes from wanting to avoid pain. No living thing with a nervous system or a brain developed enough to understand psychological pain wants to experience pain in any form. Or hardships and difficulties. Why does that have to be tied to the notion of a deity? And about order: isn’t it all chance? Like out of the infinite possibilities it was bound to happen at some point in space and time? And where do space and time come from? I don’t know, they just are, we (as humans) will know only later when we will have the technology to discover that. Or didn’t Einstein already answer that? Maybe I’m just lacking the cognitive abilities to reason on the same level as Jonathan Pageau. I want to be a Christian so bad because having all the answers to the meaning of life and to make sense of the experiences I go through would be so much easier than just to think that sh*t just happens. And knowing that a loving deity was loving and always here to help you is absolutely a dream and I’m trying to force myself to believe in it but a part of me still think it’s all a story to make us humans feel better about having to live and die.
@llenb1303 hi. I read this several days ago, but i haven't been able to think of anything to say. I think it is because i haven't wrestled with these problems in the highly-intellectual way that you are trying to do it.
My mind works differently. I have always believed in God, and there is a way in which i must renew my faith every morning. .
Perhaps, even as valuable as Jonathan might be here, maybe it would be better to just start going to an Orthodox Church and just BE there Sunday after Sunday, or Vespers after Vespers for a while..
You DO NOT have to be a believer to be there. Your presence won't pollute anything. And i doubt that anyone will condemn you in any way..
Because, eventually, your faith in God will come as some kind of encounter with HIM , which will happen on HIS terms and HIS time schedule.
I am not saying this to trouble or scare you. I don't mean that you will have something happen that slams into you. The Lord is much more gentle and patient than that.
In many cases it is just a quiet awareness that something must be true. All of us who convert to the Orthodox Church seem to have had a moment like that when it all begins to come together
You are just a bit farther away than some of us were, but your heart is seeking and your ego does not seem to be in the way.. and that is a great blessing already.
I hope you will buy a copy of the Orthodox Study Bible , even if just the New Testament and begin to look at it and read the notes.. .
The Church you go to might have them for sale. Or go online..
There is a story in the Gospels of a man who came to Jesus asking that He heal someone.
Jesus asked him if he believed?
He said, Lord, i believe. Help my unbelief.
(I have known that story all my life. But it took on a deeper importance to me about 20 years ago.,)
Why not go to an Orthodox Church and tell the Lord as you go in that you don't believe in Him yet but that you have come to see and learn?
He already knows that.
He gave you a wonderful, active mind. But go to Church and let all its questions rest for a while and just experience some services.
Tell someone at the candle stand that you are new there. And ask them to help you as they see your needs.
No one will bother you.
You will be gjven your space, unless someone talkative like me comes over to greet you..
And then go to coffee hour or lunch and let some people meet you.
Don't assume that everyone there is a member..
Prayers for you..
☦️💝📿💝☦️
Sacrifice is fundamental to spacetime reality. Something dies, I eat. I workout, get stronger. Invest in relationships, reap joy. Sow a seed reap a harvest.
Seeds of harmony, or Seeds of discord.
they're both in the bag, we just have to sort through them.
i appreciate this because most of our division as humans is just a language barrier.
Thanks Jonathan! I hope to see more of these videos again!
You get better and better at describing this stuff! Thank you.
I loved most of it, the pattern of human suffering very clearly articulated. What I did not understand was the part about the two trees and how St. Ephrem described it - they wanted the tree of life but it was easiert to eat from the other one?
Anyway, as a psychotherapist it is always fascinating to me to witness, how most people "wake up", become more conscious, the more they suffer. And that if they accept the suffering, only then can they overcome it.
You have been such an incredible and amazingly positive influence on our family, Jonathan. Thank you!
This was a home run, my friend. I'm saving this one straight to favorites.
Oh my! I think this is one of Jonathan's BEST! I NEEDED THIS!
I love this! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Jonathan, another day my son (11) hurt his leg bad and said "why did God created pain?" I said that we feel physical pain to protect us from something that is not going right. Then he said he didn't believe that diseases and pain exists because of the fall of Adam and Eve. I also find it hard to believe that the world could have existed without disease, for example, because of the structure of reality itself (corruption). Your explanation shed some light about being conscious of what is bad.
I wish you talk more about it.
Loved this, Jonathan. Very good insights for sure. Thank you 🙏
Always a treat Mr. Pageau
I speak for probably a lot of us in that I got really excited at the 16:20 mark when you described the becoming conscious of the tree of life and also refusing to die - would love to see you spend more time there - unless you have another video where you do that 😊
Thanks Jonathan. A good parallel would be the Greek myth of Androgynes by Aristophanes in Plato's Symposium. It tells of androgynous beings being split by the gods into men and women, destined to seek each other out to complete each other. This creation myth encourages men and women to find fulfilment in a romantic partner.
However, the Bible's creation story highlights that 'the fundamental split that needs healing' is not between men and women, but between humans and God.
Just reread the Fall an hour ago. Perfect timing
What book is that?
@@transcendentalarts5942 Genesis ,1st book of old testament
by Camus?
Author please!
I listened to this three times and I really haven't got a clue what question you're answering, let alone how any of this answers it. I just don't see any connection between this and the "fall" as a concept or as it has been understood historically in Western Christianity
I think I will definitely benefit from multiple listens to this. There's a lot to unpack. It ties together so many different things: ideas of sin, desire, aim, and suffering. It never occurred to me that there is some similarity between the Gnostics and the Buddhist idea of freedom from the wheel of reincarnation.
Hi, atheist here. I have no problem understanding the concept of a "fallen world".
What theists dont understand however is that this comes from experience a world where pain and suffering exist, and creating a fantasy about an existance upon which those bad feelings dont exist, and thus comes the idea of an "ideal world". But that's a fantasy, it's escapism.
Reading meister Eckhart right now and your explanation of Christ within this sacrificial context makes a lot of sense in the context of how Eckhart presents Christ. We need to choose our own perceptual death and surrender to become closer to this ‘good.’ But we are not conscious of what we are sacrificing ourselves to until after the fact.
So much of our striving for the good is tied up in our meta perception, how we perceive others to perceive us. If we are sinful, we perceive others to be angry at us, as this meta perceiving eye is our conscience, and our conscience projects itself onto the world to reflect back to us this gap you speak of. What Christ says, according to Eckhart, is that we are to abandon ourselves so his spirit can dwell within the ground of our being or soul. “When he entered I had to fall away.” What does the son hear from the father? The father can only give birth, the son can only be born.
If Christ is born in my soul then my meta perception is instantly fixed: I now perceive others to perceive me with love. My conscience now projects a loving gaze onto the world and this gaze is what I receive back. In this sense I don’t need to move toward the good because I am the good. “Whatever loves justice becomes possessed with justice, and becomes justice itself.” Or like St. Paul’s notion of sophrosyne vs enkratia. That I can become more sophrosynistic (act virtuously with less effort) through this sacrifice is evidence of the gap but is also what gives my life a foundational purpose.
If you want to explain the fall, I would suggest you start by describing to those who are asking what the world (we) would look like if it (we) had not fallen.
Thank you Jonathan.
This was great. I thought this was one of the best and clearest ways of explaining the fall, in a way that doesn't make it about failing an arbitrary test.
I have to offer some criticism, but i promise it's good faith. I see a lot of content that attempts to explain this topic to atheists. In this case, and in most cases, one point of the explanation is that atheists basically don't believe in transcendental meaning and therefore can't really justify why we perceive some things as good and some as bad. Further, in this video and in most cases, it's framed as though the atheist wrestles with the idea of why there is a gap, unable to really find a satisfactory answer.
The problem is that if you bring this up to an atheist, they're likely going to be able to give you a perfectly well thought out answer, and i feel like you've done this enough to know that. I feel like this is basically just meant for believers, and won't have much if any value with regards to atheists because it just assumes too many wrong things about them from the outset.
I am reticent to comment, because I'm not sure if this is helpful at all. I hope it does not come off as too harsh. I think the issue here is that this is wrapping up many things into a very nice simple, easy package (which is likely correct for what I could follow). However, the assumption that the parts contained in here are understood in the same way by the audience you mention seems hopelessly optimistic. There are many much smaller steps that need to be made before this falls into place for an audience, especially a secular audience. Perhaps this will help, I think that someone like Paul VanderKlay sees John Vervaeke as just one step from the stop of a staircase which ends at 'going to church' or something. Whereas, I see John Vervaeke at the bottom of that same staircase. The illusion of 'just one step away' is caused by using the same language, but attaching different understandings (well, more like concepts) to the words. This is hard to discern, for sure, but there is evidence, John will say 'emanation' but then switch immediate to emergence and go on for some number of minutes. He hand waves the word, when it's clear that it doesn't contain the same importance (or more likely, concept and importance) to him as it does to more religiously minded folks. In the interest of wanting to 'agree' and not wanting (or maybe even being able to) drill down on every single word, things move on. To get more to the bottom of this would require a very long conversation, which I'd be happy to have publicly if that is helpful. I do apologize if this isn't helpful or too cryptic, I've been struggling for 4 years to explain the gap that I see to others.
I remember years ago, watching Jonathan and hear him Talk about patterns. Pattern of this pattern of this and that and the pattern of reality, etc.
I had very little clue what he was talking about back, then perhaps only a little glimmer. pattern? pattern of what?
The more I listen to him the more I understood how everything in reality is based on pattern. It sounds so obvious and trite now, but a pattern is a lens through which you perceive anything And it ends up being invisible to you And he just don’t realize how It is everywhere.
Now, when I hear pattern, a lot of things light up in my mind and a lot of connections are made, But back, then, it was only a little glimmer.
I think this was relevant to your comment
I think it's important to add to this that we have to account for the ground people stand on. When you're an atheist the way that you relate to these ideas and how they appear to you is completely different. They cannot participate with the same purpose and so they will organize meaning either in a way that's completely referencing themselves or in a manner that is disembodied. In other words they will focus on heaven or earth only.
These flat maps are unable to contain the dynamical complexity required for understanding. They might be able to go along in your pattern and agree. But that means that they are enchanted for a bit. Then they will collapse it back into their existing framework and flatten it perverting whatever happened and end up in a Gnostic interpretation.
In other words. You have to lay the foundation first. And that one exists in experience not in conversation.
YOU ARE GREAT, THANK YOU JON YOU ARE AN ARTIST AND A GREAT PHILOSOPHER
Get rid of the idea that there is a gap. Couldn't that be what a secularist might say instead of accepting that there is a gap and saying '"I have to do something about the gap or at least understand the gap."
I really liked this video you did.
As an atheist why even bother with the bible rather than just go to science and psychology etc?
And even more. If god is four omni, everything is according to his plan, and is capable of creating the universe differently then the "the fall" makes no sense.
Probably because science never answers the existential question of what is the meaning of it all. They simply don’t care. That’s not good enough for most people. We need a why if we are suffering. And more and more of psychology is looking to meaning and purpose to alleviate suffering (ET, ACT, PFT, etc) but they tip toe around that you can’t just assign meaning to things. It seems some things are more meaningful than others and some purposes are more meaningful than others. And science can’t really study meaning and purpose like they can a star or atom.
@polodude19 I disagree. Biology and medicine can explain why you feel pain. Neuroscience will be able to map which things generate the sensation of meaningfulness and, eventually, reduce it to a pill. There's no sense in thinking there's some meaning behind reality, meaning is always something conscious agents assign to things.
@@someonesomeone25 I want to respond generally because I don’t want to put words in your mouth. I believe there is a common conflating the concepts of pain and suffering. In my opinion pain and suffering are not the same thing. There has been a lot of clinical research on the difference. To quote from Siler, et el 2019 “Pain has been increasingly recognized as more than a physical problem or a neurological response to injury, but rather as a whole-person experience. Pain extends beyond the biologic response and impacts every dimension of life, including the psychological, social, and spiritual domains. Suffering is often described with emotionally laden terms such as distress, misery, agony, or anguish. Suffering is commonly associated as an aspect of pain such as “he suffered horrible pain” or “the bone metastasis caused such agony and suffering.”
We have plenty of pills that stop physical pain, however the suffering for the patient doesn’t stop. We have a bunch of pills that blunt emotional response, however the majority of the patients depression and anxiety persist.
I appreciate your views and I am not trying to convince you of anything. This is just what I see in practice and hope it can contribute to your journey.
@@someonesomeone25 “Pain is a physical sensation or signal indicating an event within the body. Suffering is the interpretation of that event and involves thoughts, beliefs, or judgments and reflects the
human experience of pain.” (Siler, et el., 2019)
Perfectly clear and very insightful. Thank you very much 🔥
Enjoyed the information and will be thinking more about what was discussed...
Very much needed, thank you.
It is very good. To make it even more clear, you could draw some simple pictures. It helps people to see better the abstract. By the way, I loved the idea of desire (or yarn) as a mechanism of everyday life. We 1) see something good we don't have or need; then 2) we desire or yarn for it - feel the disconfort and pain of the lack; 3) Then this desire move us towards action to get it. 4) When we get it, we are satisfied - for a while. Yes. This describes reality. We desire, then act to eliminate desire and feel satisfied. Now imagine if we did not desire in the first place - would we feel already satisfied? No... On the contrary: lack of desire is a symtom of depression... Because, deep down, we know that the better good or what we need continues to exist... In some sense, that is why not desiring the greatest good (God), therefore not seeking Him, in order to get the greatest satisfaction, leaves people in an "existential depression"...
Thank you, Jonathan!
I don’t understand how this addresses the question of whether there is actually any meaning at all. Like couldn’t the desire we experience just be misinformed and not actually have a fulfillment?
Meaning and desire are two different categories. The former is ontological and the latter is psychological
@@LuisffarajAre you asserting this supposed "fall" as described in Genesis is a _factual_ account?
@@Luisffaraj That makes sense. But the reason I asked this is that i think the atheist today doesn't say "Why is this desire in me?" I think they would say that even though I "feel" desire, this is just a product of my evolutionary history, but it is just a delusion and that we can't trust that the desire is real.
The fundamental problem is the disconnect between the atheist’s professed belief juxtaposed to how they actually live. Ie They still seek and behave as if there is an objective purpose to existence even in their hypocrisy of morality. In the end, they are just blaming God for why they can’t be their own “God.”
@alexpaskalis4248 Are you willing to answer some straightforward questions concerning your comment?
I really enjoyed this explanation. As for mortality, I imagine that having to both suffer to acquire knowledge and be immortal would be incredibly cruel and therefore if at any time there's a repentance for having chosen the knowledge of Good & Evil death is always a possible end to your suffering.
Great video. I think it would be interesting to bring in how secularists will use a series of disjointed narratives (like the trolly thing) which they believe informs their ethical decisions.
I think some have faith in good of existence, but I’d like to better understand how this is tied to the resurrection.
Wonderfully clear, thank you
I have to admit the difficulty I encounter whenever I speak about good and evil to atheists is their moral relativism card and the idea that whatever we elevate as being good, both morally and physically, is simply conditionning, social alienation that we made up through evolution for the sole purpose of survival.
I would appreciate if anyone could say something about that.
Thank you for your generosity in sharing with us your meditation on the topic, Jonathan.
My inclination is to argue that "good/evil" and "promotes/undermines human existence" are merely two ways of describing the same dynamic when the latter is properly understood.
Sure, they might quibble with the focus on existence over survival, but that can be justified readily enough by pointing out that there's something memetic in a Dawkinsian sense about human consciousness that seeks self-perpetuation in a realm apart from physical survival. ;)
To say that certain behaviors consistently promote survival/existence is to say that there's a certain stable order at the heart of existence. The atheist would be hard-pressed to reject that and retain science, but the existence between that and God is purely linguistic.
@@ikkinwithattitude Thank you! The will of making one's consciousness persist in a realm outside of the physical one is an idea with which I can defend my view. Take care friend!
@@AlexLGagnon I'd be careful making the argument too much about the will, actually. The quicker you get to something recognizable as a soul, the more likely you are to get pushback from a materialist.
The real advantage I see in bringing up memetics is that it only functions if informational constructs are entities capable of being subject to selection -- in other words, if there are real non-material entities.
And that means that memetics are a perfect means by which to undercut materialism, especially since it's very difficult to argue that natural genetic selection isn't a mere subset of memetic selection. In fact, if the world operates on the principle of selection and selection operates on the level of information, then the proponent of scientism might be better off seeing the world as made of information rather than of atoms!
If you can get the atheist to start thinking of the world in terms of Object-Oriented Programming rather than clockwork, he'll find concepts like forms -- of which the soul is an example -- a whole lot more compelling. And once he believes that bodies are generated by informational constructs rather than informational constructs by bodies, that's when the survival of the soul (as opposed to mere valuable information) can be argued compellingly.
I dont understand how EVERY right wing podcast, from Jordan peterson to matt walsh and others, can start talking about christianity AT THE SAME TIME, and nobody Calls it a grift
How would that be a grift? Sounds more like a conspiracy
Great first pass on the argument, I suggest a written account for people like me that need to read the argument to better understand it for sharing in our own circles to people without this understanding
This explains so much and love the humility!
A quick way to summarize it, although losing a lot of detail in the process, is to note that the atheist criticizes the moral failings in others without having an objective law that determines good and bad.
Now I take you to another example:
The atheist criticizes the errors or shortcomings of believers or the world, based on a light that is not theirs, they believe that by noticing the shadows in others, they are the source of light, but they do not realize that in reality the The source of light is behind them, and it is Christ, in other words they criticize the imperfections of the other people in the room, which are visible thanks to the Light that Christ emanates, and at the same time they do not see theirs because they are looking, to the others, they themselves are turning their backs on Christ, their backs on the light, they do not see their own shadows but they do see those of the others in the room. and instead of turning around to let the light challenge them and their shortcomings be visible, instead of looking for the Creator of light and for Him to be the one who perfects us, they are left with the consolation that at least they detected the evil on other people, without realizing that in the process they condemn themselves.
This can happen to ourselves as Christians.
Let's say that to be a Pharisee you don't have to be a Christian or a believer, it is that attitude of "standing at the door, not passing through it and not letting others pass."
of being an obstacle to revelation.
There is much more to learn from this video of yours Jonathan, I had to listen to it several times to understand it, not because your explanation is bad but because I am multitasking. good topic to meditate on.
Whoosh! Straight over my head - like I have wandered into the advanced class and there is a whole new lexicon to grapple with. I suspect this gives me advantages
Hey Jonathan!
This notion, the fall, is relative to my current essay where I’m analysing John Cassian from the 4th-5th century. I’m investigating what role asceticism plays in his theology. It’s so cool to see overlap, or perhaps propagation of ideas here and now with people from so long ago. The timing of this video was intriguing to say the least.
Could you expand on the gnostics’ view of intrinsic evil suffering perhaps?
Thank you for the content!☺️
Great video, but I think making reference to the five transcendentals can be very useful to explaining the fall to atheists, especially as they tend to be reverant towards their Greek forebears.
love this work harder bro you got this
This guy is legit delusional if he thinks this is any way to talk to an athiest.
(He does not live in the real world, and has no concept of it)
Such gobbledygook. I think it’s pretty clear to nonbelievers why and how humans post hocd suffering into a story about a fallen world. I was hoping in the video he would explain why he thought God would do this, why create something you would be dissatisfied in, then punishthat creation for The creators shortcomings., then create a obscure scenario that would save it. And after the creature is used up and dead, change them in a way to his liking, and then finally make them the way that he could have done from the beginning.
I think that was a wonderful explanation, however, it would be interesting if you tried to explain it again so people can decide if there are improvements that can be made. Hearing things like this explained in multiple ways is always useful, and it would be a good experiment to learn what works in the explanation and what doesn’t.
Not sure if this is the kind of feedback you're looking for, but I'm a nonbeliever and I can share thoughts I had after listening to the presentation.
1. As someone who doesn't believe in God anymore I think a more accurate title for the video would have been something like "Offering a Christian take on contingency," or something like that. From my perspective the persistent sense of lack goes all the way down to something like an ameoba. Even a creature like that "experiences" a persistent lack because homeostasis or what you might call fulfillment or completion or purpose is only ever acheived in fleeting moments. The organism's entire existence is a fitful dissolution into its simpler elements. The same can be said of any living system. They are drawn by mechanisms of varying complexity toward homeostasis, but by virtue of their constitution that homeostasis never lasts and so presents a never ending lack. A creature that could be convinced, psychologically or otherwise, that it was finally sated would simply die. I suppose this could point to a transcendent God shaped hole, but it could just be that we are always, as finite contingent creatures, feeling entropy nipping at our heels in underdetermined ways that can be interpretted to mean any number of things. In humans and other primates you're dealing not just with physiological needs, but social ones as well that are built on top of the never ending physiological lack. Hence the capacity for the experience of moral lack. Add to that that humans have to develop. We all understand pretty quickly that we're smaller, weaker, etc. as children.
Anyway, I don't want to ramble, but the point is that this seems like a perfectly serviceable story about why people experience lack of all kinds. So you're quite right that everyone experiences lack, but my sense is that if you really do want to make a case to an atheist your real work is to explain very explicitly what your story provides by way of explanation that a much more local and contingent one doesn't.
2. I also think that you may have the dilema backwards. If you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God who has promised and can guarantee paradise at some point in the future, then the Christian is bound much more tightly to say that everything that comes to pass, as in every single moment, is the best that it could possibly be in light of its role in obtaining paradise. You could step back in the abstract and say that we aren't yet in paradise, but that doesn't change the perfection of each divinely ordained step toward paradise. It is the straightest possible path. Why do Christian's who have this knowledge and believe it still bemoan the various kinds of lack that accompany history? It seems that they should have to say that it couldn't have been better. History is as good as it could possibly be and still acheive its perfection in the age to come.
By contrast a naturalist has various ways of making sense of the notion that things are not as we would like them to be and so generate motivation to work toward changing them. The current state of affairs is totally contingent. If some small thing had been different in the past then the present would be different. There's no divine plan to thwart. It all could have been otherwise and so could be otherwise. And just to head off the obvious retort, even someone like me who thinks that everything is more or less deterministic isn't being inconsistent if I have the desire to change something. It could be the case that I was determined to have the desire and determined to feel the elation of solving the problem. That I can't somehow get outside of the system to confirm if that's true is irrelevant. There isn't a contradiction in going about making choices even if on reflection it seems likely that all my behaviors are ultimately completely constrained by various kinds of causal forces. This is completely separate from the conflation that gets made between a deterministic universe and a person's individual sense of self-efficacy. To be very blunt, I think it's cheap slight of hand to tell someone that if everything's determined your choices don't matter. The only perspective from which they don't matter is one to which no human has any actual access.
Again, assuming that you do want to engage with non-believers, I would think you have to do a better job motivating the choice of a Christian narrative beyond these pretty standard points and give some sense as to why yours is the right way to construe the dilema you describe.
3. It's also not super compelling to me when you tell someone who was raised in a Christian culture that they carry lots of Christian assumptions. That shouldn't be surprising to anyone. I think a secular Western world could be a better world than a Christian one, but that world would be a child of the actual Christian history of the West. It would necessarily carry forward recognizable assumptions. That doesn't mean that it would secretly be a Christian society anymore than Christianity is secretly Judaism or Judaism is secretly whatever came before it. Your child is not you despite having a whole host of recognizable features. My sense is that you have to make a much more positive case on this point than just saying that everyone is using Christian categories and assumptions. This is important also because while Christianity does have a unique way of combining certain ethical norms and cultural practices those norms and practices can be observed in places and times where there weren't Christian influences.
Cheers
Agreed. How do you feel about de-Christianized neo-platonism in the style of Julian the Apostate? From what I've gathered, the more positive or useful aspects of Christian philosphy stem from neo-platonism and it seems a logical metaphysical place to end up, considering a post-Christian naturalist viewpoint. It respects much of Christian philosphy but places Christ as a philospher or prophet figures rather than a divinity. The symbolic aspects of Christ that Pageau is enamored with are returned to the pantheons and the demiurgic respectively. It understands gnosticism but comes to the opposite conclusion about the information, that the material is not evil, it is amoral, infinite, and made from the same chaos to order process that the Gods themselves are made of.
In other language, de-Christianized neo-platonism accepts that communing with the God above the gods is most likely to end up with titans and forces of chaos answering. The gods, and more specifically the king of the gods, are the entities which form the defeated titanic forces into habitable order. It is their judgement of order from chaos which we rely upon to produce/access morality.
@@kingfisher1638 Sounds interesting. I don't know anything more about it than what you've taken the time to share. I am one of those 'let a thousand flowers bloom' sort of secularists so if this framework helps order your life in ways that connect you to yourself and others then dive deep.
I will say that I appreciate the caution that you describe. I'm pretty boring philosophically. I like William James and Richard Rorty, and so I'm not super interested in figuring out the true nature of the divine because I can't imagine how I could confirm whatever suspicions or theories I might generate. I think we would find common cause in encouraging others to receive communications from the divine very carefully.
I also think that we could find commonality in the sense that the constraints that our environments place on us are the seed beds for moral categories and reasoning. The regularities and contraints that we are stuck with and in make certain intuitions more plausible than others and so make different first principles thinkable or actionable.
And finally, Richard Rorty uses the image of polytheism to describe his aspirations for a democratic polity and I find myself in agreement that this is a good starting place. Here too, you and I could be allies.
Anywho, thanks for sharing.
I'm personally experiencing that 'gap' feeling with my journey back to Christ, I accept Him as Lord and Savior and want to know Him and His Word, but I don't fully understand yet on what that looks like in practice
Very intriguing thoughts here. I think I understand what is being said about how the solution to the fall involves death, but I'd love to get checked on it. Does the following sound about right?
Once I recognize the gap between where I am and my end goal, I have to supplant my desire for the end goal (at least temporarily) with a desire for working through the obstacle. If I could simply teleport myself from state to state, no shift of intent would be required, but since I can't do that, I must let my dream be usurped by work. Thus, the death of the dream, but a death that carries the potential for the dream to be reborn later as a reality.
And this notion is explicitly laid out in Adam and Eve being told that it would be by the sweat of the brow and in great travail that they would find bread and children. Now that the had fallen they would recognize the good (the life of harvest), and the only way to get to it would be to sacrifice their previously carefree life for one of labor.
Thanks for your insights, Jonathan.
I think the problem becomes easier when we acknowledge that good is only good in relation to lesser good, and evil is only evil in relation to greater good. As in, evil and suffering do not truly exist but are mere illusions we perceive in comparison to the highest ideal - which is unimaginably high.
When we instill the goodness of God within us, with the knowledge that we are serving something beyond our personal desires, we begin to perceive our personal sufferings as unimportant. When we take ourselves, our desires, and our sufferings seriously, we make them into something real, even though they are mere illusions.
In this context, it might be more appropriate to consider God as a measurement rather than a set of characteristics. With this in mind, we can view the earth as a testing ground for what is good. We test how good something is based on how it overcomes or withstands lesser goods. After all, in science, we verify predictions by testing them against their negation.
So, the problem of the gap can be understood in terms of “ideals” as having measurements based on other ideals. An ideal is only ideal based on how it withstands or overcomes lesser ideals. Therefore, the lesser ideal is necessary to highlight and validate the highest ideals.
Thanks for what you’re doing Jonathan! It’s really been reawakened my spirit as I my eyes are opened to the spiritual realities of our world.
Thank you. In my "journey" which I believe to be universal or archetypal, of course it is, but I want to say that simply the specific explanation of the Adam and eve story is not grasped by most Christians and my parents which is why when my mum explained it to me, it was literal.
This rings true in a way that probably does for those people as well. They just may not have the words, and they themselves get confused about it.
Thanks for this explanation, indeed it's one of the most profound ever and is a critical part of many people's learning of the garden of eden and the fall, but sadly it is never explained in any meaningful way. Thanks again.
Flawless. I think you could also add more "purposes" to show how it stacks and how each purpose does not contain itself, but rather is contained in another, giving rise to "rules" and "exceptions" (that attempt to rectify the rule by placing it in the correct place in the hierarchy of rules or purposes).
Yes very good suggestion!
Thank you Jonathan, you explain the fall that accounts for the common usage of broken to describe our shortcomings. Let go and let God, step 6&7, we progress along the path to the degree we are willing to sacrifice old ways of doing things. 📘🙏❤️🔥
What's an example of an "exception" ?
@@scottradcliffe8506 King David disobeying the king (King Saul). You are supposed to obey the king. But in order to seve God prophet David disobeys the king for a higher principle. Another one in the same story... King David goes to a temple for food and the priest gives him and his followers food that was supposed to be for sacrifice (this is another exception).
Talking about the giving into temptation and the sin and explaining that a bit more might help. It feels a little brushed aside under the metaphor of the Nature of our consciousness.
Merci Jonathan! Très utile et bien expliqué !
It would be brilliant to see a conversation with Alex O’Connor and you about the garden of eden and the fall…
I really think JP would benefit from Lacanian thought on the imaginary, symbolic and the real in his work. I think it would add another dimension of depth.
Brilliant.
Thank you. I had never before thought of the process of getting to one's goal was 'suffering', even if very 'small', but it makes a lot of sense. Think of the physiotherapist who prescribes various exercises to heal the body. The exercises expose the weakness of certain muscles. At the beginning they are even somewhat painful to perform until the muscles are stronger. Back to Genesis: the serpent reveals to Eve that she is not like God, and realises that she does want to be like God, and so she must learn the difference between good and evil.
Want a Right and Wrong without a justification for Rightness and Wrongness (that is neither circular or arbitrary)
It was coherent and enjoyable, granted i watched it on double speed.
15:56 so there was suffering before the fall? And suffering isn't necessarily an inherent consequence of the fall?
My understanding is that the distance we currently experience as suffering still would have existed, but it wouldn't have been experienced as suffering without the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
One way I've been thinking about the consequences of the Fruit is as a description of the difference between the experience of humans versus animals. Animals pursue goods instinctively and wholeheartedly; they rarely consider what they're giving up in the process, so it's not painful to do so. Humans, in contrast, are always aware of the sacrifices they must make to reach their goals, which makes covering the distance much more painful.
i think using the phrase "falling short of the ideal" and then expanding upon what that means in the case of Man and God outside of time in the garden, can be helpful
The fall was the fall from the non dual reality of paradise to the duality of this world of illusion
Oh okay library of the untold thanks for truth
I think this is excellent, modulo a few parallel insights...
It's interesting to ask to what extent is e.g. the stoicism of Marcus Aurelius "isomorphic" with Christianity in the sense of which you are talking about the Fall.
Meaning, need one the ontological overhead of Christianity, or does this simply provide one very powerful Jungian lattice down into the essential truth that we are indeed fallen, fallible, highly morally tenuous creatures, often in danger of going vastly awry, even beyond our best plans. Hamlet himself addressed this conundrum in his lapidary "Our wills and fates do so contrary run / That our devices still are overthrown; / Our thoughts are ours, their ends none of our own".
There has been a great deal of hubris among the New Atheists, but this does not of course posit by the converse the Christian metaphysical edifice. But let us say that Christianity ratifies certain deep truths about human nature -- our contingency and moral limits, our need for a transcendent moral frame, the uselessness of utopian dreams...
To what extent can a post-postmodern like myself synchronize with you on the psychological depth of the truth of many of these dogmas without necessarily making any ontological leap of faith -- beyond the Tillich-like affirmation of some "ground of being"?
My goodness, sometimes it is so disappointing to catch a video like this posted on RUclips. There are SOOO many questions that I'd like to ask of you Mr Pageau, as well as any other Orthodox Christians out there...but alas, I know it's just a waste of time and that I'd never be satisfied with any half-ass responses I might get.
Oh well. Maybe one day I'll get to ask some of these in person from people who actually want to have a conversation.
Keep up the good work anyway, and keep making that awesome art!
Starts at 3 minutes
a week ago I had a fall, sliced an artery and some nerves. Discharged to home w/o pain meds. I have had a lot of time to think about pain this week and your video is timely in my life. I have been reflecting on how Jesus "endured the cross" for you and me. Also how the apostle Paul endured many sufferings on the way to Rome. The big difference between them and me is that I am suffering because I am a human being that draws breath. Pain is part of the price of admission of being alive. I was neither pursuing righteousness like Christ or Paul, nor pursuing sin like the 21 year old with gunshot wounds in the bed next to mine in the trauma center. But the fact that I'm laying here thinking how much Christ's suffering was greater than mine makes me think there is a purpose to my suffering. One person suffers and asks "why me God?", implying God is unfair. That person ends up ever so slightly more distant from God. Another suffers and recognizes the great gift of Christ on the cross, and thinks "Thank you for what you did for me that I couldn't do for myself, I need You, be with me please." I protestant Churches we sing "Nearer, my God, to Thee."
I'm so sorry to hear about your fall and the pain you're enduring. Your reflections on suffering and its purpose are deeply moving. It's incredibly inspiring how you're able to find meaning and connection to Christ's suffering even in such difficult times. Your strength and faith are evident in your words, and they remind us all of the profound lessons in both pain and grace.
I'll pray for you, that you find comfort and healing, and that you continue to feel God's presence with you. May your faith grow even stronger through this trial.
This sounds so much like the Austrian economic "praxeological" model-the a priori science of action. I see their libertarian prescription of ownership and voluntarism as an echo of the Christian notion of being made in God's image.
Jonathan - this is fine to deal with a Voltaire and so on but there really is only one person to contend with on this question and it is Nietzsche.
This is a great explanation, and clearly explained!
The question that came up for me though is: what then is the role of Christ? Is He simply just for example of what we should strive for? Or is His role more than that? (Of course I have my opinion, and believe you would agree His role is more, but I only heard the "example" perspective here).
Or to put another way, how does Christ, as the lamb of the world, tie into The Fall? Certainly Christ is more than just an example of how we're missing the mark.
Also I want to thank you for what you do, I have learned and grown as a Christian so much, because of God's work through you an sharing these ideas and videos with us!
Christ's role is to redeem the suffering that we experience as a result of the Fall -- He makes it meaningful by taking it into Himself and therefore transforming it into a path to divinization.
thinking gnosticism in a material framework is totally backwards
You have explained the fall in the psychological aspect. How would you explain the fall in the social aspect of today s society? How does the fall relates to our familiar relationships?
I would say live in the moment and the gap will vanish, the gap is us thinking too much.The animals do what they need to do and dont think too much about it, no point in trying to know everything when it is impossible for us to do so , live in the moment and dont sweat the small stuff as they say.
A good description, but I feel that there needs to be a clearer, point-by-point, explanation of why the Atheist conception of 'good' doesn't make any sense. It was in there, but hard to understand for someone who hasn't heard the concept before.
This is an issue I've been interested in understanding better but I haven't been able to get a grip on, so yeah it was helpful. This is the first time I've heard of Saint Ephraim, I'll check him out. If someone could break it down into digestible bites or steps that would be cool.
From what I understand, he is a very challenging read but best of luck
The gap you are speaking of is self accountability, jealousy, resentment, and lust. It ask stems from our base human nature and people's perspective of those tendencies
I sometimes wonder what would be the evolutionary advantage of mourning the deceased.
It seems even the animals who mourn their deceased relatives can sense the gap between what is and what could/should be.
This makes me wonder, because I see the fruit of knowledge to be a human reality, which the other animals do not share in. Yet they can clearly feel loss and sadness. Do they indeed have a sense of the Fall, or is their experience rather a "pure"(?) form of the emotion, experienced in its appropriate context without the conscious haunting of that Gap?
Better than most anyone could do in a single little discourse.
Symbolic World fans might enjoy my recent essay on Milton's fallen angles and a passage about the higher purposes they try to adopt once in his hell. PostModernConservative substack, Carl Eric Scott
Knowledge is the fruit of good and evil. Tree of life gives you the fruit of life, love and this is different kind of good. Evil is desintegration of unity toward nonexistence. Knowledge leads you to second dying in astral worlds.
Genesis didn't use the term fallen. "Their eyes were opened," it says after they ate the fruit. Jesus didn't use the term fallen either. He used "blind." Seems with our eyes being open to the knowledge of good and evil, the truth is obscured. So it wasn't a fall-more accurately, it was a blinding.
Is the fall of man the loss of losing sight of the good? Thus falling from the good... Increasing the gap.
Thanks so much for this fascinating take on The Fall. I agree that the story/ allegory shows that we are in a state of being separate (or cast away) from God. I’ve been thinking about the ego and how it creates the constant illusion of individuality. When Adam and Eve decide that they’re naked and cover themselves up, they’ve become “self-conscious” and forever doomed to see themselves as individuals, separate from God.
Perhaps in a pure, spiritual state, we were all one with God in a perfect realm of light. I like to think that’s where we are trying to get back to. Our light, our father, our home.
Why were Adam and Eve the kind of people who would disobey God? Or succumb to the manipulation of the serpent?
Lies create the roads for the vehicles that are true.
This is sort of implying to me that there is a subconscious yearning in the man for a pre fall state in whatever action man finds himself doing. It's always there in like a fractal model of a curse God made on Adam and Eve as sort of a 'cost' of getting back into Eden
Great video. Could you talk about the atonment and the meaning of Christ's death? I would love to hear your explanation on this
Jonathan I love this take but one thing I cant seem to reconcile in my mind is how this relates to a purpose that is evil?
For instance there have been people in history that have strived to do truly terrible things, yet in their mind’s eye they feel aa they are striving towards their own version of good
Hey Jonathan, thank you so much for this! I’m wondering if you’ve ever watched Loki Season 1 & 2? It’s one of the most stunning series I’ve watched because I believe it touches on these topics in Genesis & with Jesus in an Jungian sense and shows free will (knowledge of good and evil) vs union with God (sacred timeline under He Who Remains) as a fundamental theme throughout it. I would love if you have any thoughts on the series after watching it, your insights always blow me away
My neighbor has a beautiful garden , everyday out there tending it and by afternoon he needs some libations to ease the strain . Sadly he falls regularly and cannot get up without help and cursing "Goddammit , this gravity is hell " does this make him Godly ?
This is really insightful - thank you. However, I wish you had come full circle and explained a bit more why the fall happened. This is a great explanation of what the fall is, but in the context of a loving omnipotent god, was the fall allowed to happen (maybe even intended) and if so why? In essence the fall is a separation from God - maybe the fall is necessary to know and love God? Can you truly know something without experiencing being separated from it? Some thoughts… I can’t remember exactly the framing from the beginning of the vid but I think it’d be good to make sure the ideas presented address completely the initial framing. Still enjoyed very much!
I think that the fall shouldn’t have happened, and God would’ve given us everything we have now but infinitely better had we made the right choice. Despite our eyes falling away from the truth of unity with God, Christ reveals the spirit of the right choice in the garden. That kind of a man gives everything to do the right thing. At least that’s how it’s been coming together in my head. It’s hard to see how we could know white without black, or how anything could exist without pain and suffering. But I don’t trust my understanding to be the foundation of what could be if things were better. It’s not beyond God. Anyway, that’s what I’ve been thinking recently.
@@seantoal5261 Appreciate your thoughts!
I think the answer lies in understanding love - what it is and what it isn't - for there to be love, there needs to be the condition of "not love"
@@russellpizel3750 interesting thought..
Thank you sooo much. This, when I would probably have to listen to a couple times. And if you wanna make it more simple for me, that would be great!😅
It was a good explanation, but the Adam and Eve part was a bit fuzzy, could have gone a little bit more into detail, also touching on original sin some more.
I am a big fan of your channel. I think you do a great job of explaining these difficult concepts.
My counter to your view is why must this gap be explained by God and not more celestial means. The gap between ourselves and our values differs from culture to culture, family to family and individual to individual. If it were due to this God sized hole in our soul, wouldn’t it be universal?
It’s not even universal in the same culture at different periods of time. There was a time in American history when some people practiced slavery and inflicted brutality on their fellow man without shame. There was no suffering or “gap” in their morality. People felt completely justified in those actions. Now many Americans have a gap where they’re trying to reconcile the actions of their ancestors with the values they hold now.
When it comes to rationalists using Christian values against Christians, it’s explainable by the fact that their Christian culture instilled those values in them and they’re deeply ingrained. They took their values for granted acting as if what was good is self-evident. They’re not self-evident. If they were there would be a lot less disagreement in the world about what is right and good.
Throughout history people have had this gap but on one hand you have a man who suffers because he wasn’t kind enough today and another man feels shame that he didn’t brutally slay enough members of the enemy tribe when they burned their village to the ground. The gap between our reality and our values seems more like it comes from genetic predisposition, cultural and familial influences, environmental influences and other worldly phenomena than divine origins.
> where does our moral sense come from ?
ostracism from elders. family and peers say " eating pork is bad!" and their children believe that eating pork is bad, they don't know why but they have a strong emotion that eating pork is bad. people tell their kids that worshipping images is evil so the kids think worshipping images is evil. or they tell their kids that refusing to worship images is evil so the kids believe that iconoclasts are evil. people own slaves and their kids also think owning slaves is perfectly ok.
people tell their kids that polygamy is good/bad and the moral belief of the kids is exactly their parent's belief.
> why is there a gap ?
the gap is between our desire for positive experience and the implacable uncaring universe that does not bend to our will. the frustration caused by the incongruity between our will and the uncaring universe is the gap. but it's only a gap if we start with an anthropocentric presupposition and assume that reality should satisfy us. once we stop being solipsistic and anthropocentric the gap paradox vanishes. the universe (or god) doesn't care about our feelings.
> if the world is meaningless and purposeless than what gives us a moral sense?
I have the same question about faith. what meaning and purpose does the abrahamic god provide ? to worship him forever and make him feel glory and pride ? why is that meaningful ? it might be enjoyable for god, but what do we get as humans ? the privilege to tell god how great he is and to praise him?
that has no value to me, I can't feel driven or compelled towards such a purpose.
and what is the meaning ? so that god can display his power ? how is that meaningful to us ? it has no value to me.
Paul describes his god as " him who works all things according to the counsel of his will " meaning that no thing that god wills does not transpire. if he wants it, it happens ! there is no event outside god's will. if he didn't want it, it would not happen.
so if there was a fall or gap, that's only god's plan.
if god did not desire the outcome of present existence, then he failed miserably
if god works all things according to his will, then this is exactly the desired outcome that he planned all along.
otherwise we would have to say that god willed some outcome, but reality completely deviated away from his plan.
if there is a god, this reality is either god's plan or god's failure.
if it is god's plan, we are not responsible or culpable for any outcome. if it's not god's plan, then he failed to achieve whatever he had in mind so he can't possibly be omnipotent or omniscient.
a theologian cannot say " god created everything perfectly, but creation became rotten against his will "
divine foreknowledge does not permit failure. god knew everything and decided to create, meaning that he desired the outcome.
I totally agree with your second point
'> why is there a gap ?'
if you start with the presupposition that the world should be perfect, what does a perfect world look like?
Even before 'the fall' they had to TEND THE GARDEN so there already was a 'gap'. If he is going to use the example of having to open the grocery store door.. well they had to go find the fruit to eat! vs just hooked up like Neo in the matrix like living in a womb.
Hey Jonathan,
My two penneth worth as you asked...
You're explaining to a Christian, not an athiest. I'm playing the role of an athiest in the below comments.
Just some technical points, you can substitute out technical words like 'telos', or explain them in the moment. You go on to explain telos but this happens later than first use. What are gnostics and gnostic heresies and gnostic thinking why are they bad? Something about adding another layer of God, this time evil? Maybe skip over the gnostics?
You need to explain the idea of a gap from different angles at the outset. Once the idea of the gap is as clear as can be, only then go into Voltaire was it? and religious ideas.
You seem to be trying to explain the idea of a gap both horizontally and vertically. The vertical gap is not clear and may need an explanation of 'the vertical' first. Is 'the God shaped hole' vertical or horizontal? I presume athiests don't go for the God shaped hole idea anyway.
Avoid the word 'suffering' in the early explanations. You can use JBPs idea of delayed gratification and then translate this idea into how religion talks about it.
Who are Adam and Eve and what is their story? And what *is* the fall?
Overall, if you want to get this across to an athiest, it's better to start with a scientific question, explore this scientific idea, then move across to how religion tackles the idea. Always start with the science.
The idea of the gap and the fall are still not 100% clear to me but here are some ideas that may be useful. The gaps between atoms, molecules, cells, animals, etc. The gaps between musical notes. Where does a thought come from? The gap between wish and action, habits and addictions. Husband and wife. Parents and child. Want and have.
id imagine that a secularist would not deny suffering or the gap, (it's not totally clear whether you mean it as suffering or not) they would disagree with you on what the gap is, and clearly you are using this gap concept the way you are in order to lead to something even more unprovable which is the issue in the first place and the reason why there are so many religions and philosophies in this world. because everyone thinks of and experiences suffering differently.
"why can't a secularist see this! this is insane!" pageau ponders as he paces back and forth not realizing that his psychological reality is not everyone else's and that he is trying to explain something using words like "structure" that is fundamentally unprovable.
Also it's really funny because atheists are very vocal and aware about the problem of evil and how imperfect human beings are. If all that is required is an explanation, then they just explain it differently and amorally, in a way that doesn't put guilt on people who did nothing to deserve it.
Jonathan, I've been following you since 2019 and have benefited greatly from your insights and explanations, leading me into the Orthodox Church. I think your description of the "gap" is confusing. You say "there's a gap between what you think should be and what is in the world" (2:37), and "every time you move towards purpose you will have that problem of the gap between where I want to go and where I am" (17:00). This can be heard as development and growth itself being a problem, which is dangerously close to saying that creation is inherently evil/fallen. I know this is not your intention, but I don't think you're making clear the difference between the gap between good and evil and the gap between development and telos.
I think a better symbol is the idea of a path or way. When one is on a path there is a gap between where they want to go and where they are, but nevertheless there is a sort of rest within the motion so far as they know they are on the best path to take them to their desired end and they have the experience of "approaching". The fall then is not the gap between where you are and your desired end, but between where you are and the Path. This reflects the manner Christ defines himself: "The Way, the Truth, and the Life." I think this may also relate to St. Maximus' idea of "ever-moving rest".