30:06 thank you for covering this. I made the mistake of placing hope in politics for change only to see I was repeating old patterns. Any reliance on man-made or earthly institutions is bound to fail. It’s been a radical awakening, seeing the idolatrous nature of the worship of reason and money as gods. I’m excited to live the rest of my life completely differently, with Christ at the center of everything.
We need James and Jonathan having a rational discussion and settling their differences. I think both thinkers are brilliant and vital to the cause of saving the west, and should be working together instead of beating each other up. We need a long form, moderated discussion between them.
They will not be able to settle their differences, because it cuts to the heart of their respective worldviews - which couldn't be further apart at a fundamental level. Fwiw, I agree broadly with JP's worldview and think JL's is fundamentally flawed / incoherent. And that can be true even though I may agree with JL in terms of identifing bad outcomes in the world - it's just that JL has fundamentally misdiagnosed the problem and solution & his solution is both unhelpful/bad and not possible!
I was just thinking this the other day! Would be so epic! I feel like it'd be earth-shaking for people. Like Peterson's first appearance was, but even more next level
This was brilliant...several new insights, especially the description of post modernism as using the intercategorical to tear down categories in a failed attempt to reach the transcendent. Thank you.
That's the Moaist style cultural revolution. The revolution is perpetual, to distract and destabilize, so Satan can increase his power over the rulers of this world.
I think the Simple thing that Jonathan pageau keeps pointing out is the inevitability of religion in what ever form. And what JL seems to think that our return to religion is a kind of Natural defect that must always be avoided.
That Lindsay guy seems to think that the natural state of humanity is to be reasonable and atheist and that the religious mind virus just won’t go away He also holds the enlightenment in high regard and bashes Gnosticism but Enlightenment and Gnosis are the same exact thing Transcendence through knowledge = enlightenment Solomon already debunked that in Ecclesiastes he went further to the point that wisdom itself is vanity much less knowledge all is vanity but obedience to God
I agree with you. James Lindsey is not a confessing Christian as far as I know, and according to scripture (Romans one) one's understanding is darkened when you disbelieve. If there is a mechanism to diffuse the tension between godless intellectualism and the simple hearted lover of Jesus' words it is Jesus' words that will prevail in time and space. Literally. The problem with man is not his head … It's his heart-
@@Steblu74 The heart anxious for the enlightenment is not saved (you cannot love two masters, and politics is about the earth and nothing more, and salvation is total. The enlightenment was a movement that captured the western world and it began with tossing out Romans 13 vs 1 - 2.
Pageau’s logic is based on inference, which is normal for our species, but not the strongest option. He makes some valid points but would like to see him engaged in more challenging debates as opposed to agreeable interviews. If his arguments are strong, they will stand.
None of these people even understand what "Postmodernism" actually is or means; look up Hans Georg Moeller for some actual intellectual commentary, or even the old Rick Roderick "Self Under Siege" series.
This is what I found wrong with Lindsey is that he has the right idea but no justified morality. He can’t have the world he wants without it being christian. That is the good world where he wants to be but he doesn’t wanna believe in God.
The whole problem is Christian morals & the liberalism it created. I don’t want that at all. Lindsey doesn’t know what’s good. He just seeks comfort like liberal (conservative) Christians.
Absolutely. Good world can't be build/obtained/inherited without God's Grace. It was one of the illusions of Enlightenment, when they worshipped Reason turning the society into Pagan crowds and blood thirsty riots.
Some categories that need to be better articulated: prerational, rational, transrational. One of the primary confusions of modernism is that everything non rational is pre-rational. One of the primary mistakes of post modernism is that everything non rational is trans-rational. Shooting from the hip, I would say impulses to sin are generally pre-rational or below our rational nature, pure rationality wouldn’t have any impulse at all, and impulses to genuine virtue would be trans-rational, or above our ability to reason.
@4:00. The future is religious but I don't we fully understand what kinds of religions will be coming. One major religion that's being developed slowly is humanism (worship of man, human progress, the ideal human, etc). Currently it is viewed as a philosophy but it is actually religious. It will contend with traditional religions in the future.
Judaism was predicated on the truths reveal by a Divine being. Christianity is based on truths revealed by a divine being. Buddhism is based on revealed truths by an Enlightened Buddha. Religious truth is revealed, not discovered. The worship of humanity is a mental spasm of nervous atheists. Not only is it not transcendental, it has not been revealed.
I think JL has a lot of good information about our predicament. I go to JL for info on the how we got here, the poli-sci stuff and how philosophy, religion shapes the culture and affects faith. JP has his own sphere, which is purely based in faith, religion and how we derive meaning from ancient knowledge. So I just see them as inhabiting very different spheres of influence, but both have very important things to say.
I do not really think you understand Jonathan pageau, when you say his analysis are purely based on faith. Though Jonathan pageau is open and vocal about his faith, he isn't a proselyte. He only show you the structure of how the Cosmos is phenomenologicaly. It has nothing to do with promoting his faith
@@iphang-ishordavid2954 you’re right I mis spoke, not based IN faith, but related to, religious traditions, beliefs, patterns and practices that reverberate through history. He’s not political and doesn’t get into the political material too much, also the Orthodox Catholic traditions are very different from New World Christian beliefs, so I think there is a vast difference between the two men’s material. I am Roman Catholic, and to me faith is separate and exists on a different plane than politics, so I understand the symbology and how that relates to life practices. JL is good at putting the information of the worldly thinkers and philosophers, and anyone can compare and see if it aligns with their own views. I appreciate both for very different reasons.
@@angelavanerp2 You're right in your original comment. JL like Peter Boghossian are very good at diagnosing the problems, and that's where their usefulness ends. Their solutions to it, are purely arbitrary though and based in a relativistic framework which has no force behind it, except whatever their own rhetoric can drum up.
Championing the enlightenment as a Christian is incoherent. The enlightenment begins with the breeching of Romans 13 vs 1-2. Before that the individual was obliged to accept that the powers that be were placed here by god. Any devising around this is parsing so freely as to render any of the articles in the transcendent objective morality parsable in like fashion. Just because you were steeped in a tradition that stems from a merging of the enlightenment with Christianity does not mean that said merger was not the pandora's box, the deception, the evil, etc. I'm not a Christian, but I know that the book says few would be saved.
I've listened to just over two thirds of this conversation, but, based on what I've heard so far I have little reason to believe it will come to a satisfying resolution. As someone who appreciates and has learned from both James Lindsey and Jonathan Pageau, I feel exasperated listening to this. I could be wrong, but I suspect that if either of these two fine, and very busy, men would dedicate some more time and attention to listening to and studying what they other is actually saying, they would find more substantive points of agreement, or at the least, respectful and informed disagreement, both in their analysis of our present cultural and political ills and in how to address them. But, I must say, I find it perfectly plausible that James Lindsey could have shot off his mouth and called Jonathan Pageau a Christian Nationalist, based on something Pageau wrote in a tweet. Because James Lindsey, by his own admission, leans towards a pugilistic, take-no-prisoners approach to making arguments on X/Twitter. However, Mr. Pageau seems to me to be here returning the favor by offering what strikes me as a simplistic, straw-man depiction of Lindsey's understanding of the role of religion, both as a matter of individual belief and as a source of social cohesion and ontology. I also have to say that perhaps precisely because, Mr. Pageau is not, by his own description, political, he may have failed to grasp the degree to which Lindsey, as I understand it, tries to address the tensions often inherent in the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, which at the same time it prohibits Congress from establishing an official religion also prohibits it from making any laws against the free exercise of religion. In contrast to how Pageau seems to describe him here, I do not understand Lindsey as advocating for a "Naked Public Square" in which all statements and arguments must be couched in purely "secular", rationalistic language. I believe Lindsey displays a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of the role of religion in U.S. public life than Pageau gives him credit for. Lindsey is not just another Pinker or Dawkins. And he has himself spoken of the Enlightenment's "dark side" as Pageau phrased it. I understand Lindsey's concerns about Christian Nationalism to be directed at particular individuals and organizations that advocate for some sort of de facto establishment of a, Protestant, form of Christianity as a national religion. Getting back to this conversation, I wish they had focused more on what Pageau and Lindsey actually said in their respective tweets. As it is, I'm left with the impression that Misters Pageau and Lindsey are just flailing about, throwing one another some unenlightening shade on the webs. I take it as a sign that it's time for them each to pontificate a bit less and listen a bit more. If such a thing is possible on "The X."
At 35:20 regarding USA run by Christian Nationalism, I also can’t see it - seems impossible under the Constitution, but maybe that could change…. Even so, I hope at least some us are aware of the notions of Dominion or Kingdom Theology. Some Americans including elected officials certainly are, and they speak and act accordingly. Recall Rusty Bowers, the Arizona House speaker who testified at the Jan.6 inquiry, and others, who consider the Constitution and the Declaration to be divinely inspired. Can’t see how they could take over, but they are one of the many dead or twisted branches of christianity that need to be pruned for that religion to bring about genuine social cohesion. I love Jonathan Pageau. Does anyone else speak anything like him?
IF enough politicians and judges start agreeing with Christian nationalism, they will interpret the Constitution however they want. Even law is downstream from culture. For much of US history, we essentially had a quasi-Christian Nationalist ideology as the dominant ideology. It was just in the hands of mostly mainline/liberal Protestants.
Christians in charge of the mechanisms of this government would however more accurately interpret the constitutional framework built on its own value structure. Being ruled by foreigners with a variety of religious extremisms of their own, we are not likely to see our laws interpreted in such a way that they can even be judged on their own merits
The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence both directly reject Romans 13 vs 1-2. Christ did not say, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, unless you don't have representation." The American Revolution was heretical. Might have been a good thing, but it wasn't Christain.
James Lindsay is more on the same page with Jordan Peterson re. Christianity. That religious faith serves social and psychological needs that are not being met in secular society. In 'Everybody Is Wrong About God' James adopts a attitude similar to Jonathan Pageau; drop the label, drop the politics and try to talk honestly about human values and motivation.......
Religion as a tool to serve “social and psychological needs” is a dead-end assertion pushed by nihilist gen-x’ers who don’t believe in anything. If you don’t truly believe, the religion will be worthless as a tool of social control (as modernity has shown us). If you do truly believe, religion is infinitely more than a tool of meeting material and psychological needs.
Listening here, I see considerable common ground. I see Twitter JL, joyous warrior loving a tussle and analytical podcast JL as quite different and unhelpful to conflate.
The divine mystery is rather something like supra-rational. At the same time, the non-rational part of us is more complete than the rational part (children are complete, while adults never seem to get there), making the non-rational able to better grasp the divine mystery.
Heidegger shows how the mystery is being as such, and more primary to theology and any worldview or ideology, and that we achieve the highest kind of spirituality if we relate to it questioningly, together, ongoing, preserving that space of questioning.
I too am halfway through 'The matter with things' and a disciple of McGilchrist. Each page is a meditation and potentially life changing. Wonderful to learn you have purchased a copy for each member of your faculty, and are working through it.
I think one of the major stumbling blocks in these conversations is the lack of a clear demarcation of the political vs the cultural spheres of influence. Obviously these spheres influence each other, but I would argue that it is also not necessary for the Vatican to have direct control over the political levers of a society for a rejuvenated Catholic or more broadly Christian culture to implement policy that is fundamentally pro human in a way that a secular humanist would appreciate.
A wonderful discussion. The main problem that hovers in the background, perhaps beyond this chat to cover, is how moderns who accede all these points make the "faith leap" if they cannot subscribe in good existential faith the ontological claims of Christianity, or for that matter the moral dogma of Hell. Even if one grants how salutary a force Christianity has been and remains, it is not so easy to make the Jungian-utilitarian or even mystery-mythos leap. If you don't see the Christian edifice at 3 in the morning, then you don't see it. That's a very deep problem.
Yeah, I'd agree this is the crux (no pun intended) of the issue. It really seems like this is Dr. Peterson's sticking point, too. When someone has dedicated their entire life to only believing things unless and until they can prove them wrong, it's hard to make the shift to saying, "This is the Truth by which all other truths are illuminated." Also, out of curiosity, did you pick 3 am just because it's in the wee hours of the morning, or specifically because it's the witching hour?
@@daniellucas2968 I suppose both (subconsciously). Ray Bradbury talks about the utter desolation of 3 AM. I think it's when the bleakest existential questions can intrude. I do think there's some interesting work being done of the larger teleological argument from design for a Deist take, re which I find the Anthropic Argument very interesting about the immensely improbable statistical radius of 6 or so fundamental constants in permitting life. But this doesn't conduce to Christianity, just to some more general lattice of intellection. (Stephen C. Meyer has done some impressive work on this, and while I don't think all his arguments hold water, the Anthropic fine-tuning seems one very strong case.) I try to stay up with other expositors of this argument, like Edward Feser. But I still find First Mover (not in the time sequence but rather the sustained-existence sense) as failing before the quantum foam from QM, from which we (at least allegedly) know that things can be potentiated without an actualizer.
Reason is not the problem. Read Thomas Aquinas. Lots of reason there. The problem is the rejection of metaphysical reasoning that took place at the end of the 16th century, when the rational investigation of physical reality, and the technological application of physical knowledge, increasingly became over the next few centuries, the only fully legitimate fields of intellectual endeavor.
I don’t believe in virgin births & neither does Johnathan here. But he pretends to which I see as dishonest. They’re all just saying “most people are sheep & need to be herded”. Fine, how about a better religion based in honoring our very real ancestors rather than King of the Jews? I don’t descend from King David.
Heidegger dasein is a key overlooked Being in time - Authenticity as the true understanding of humanity and is brilliant Hostility to technological world view
"The monster is intercategorical" So Pageau's criticism of D&D's "Monster Manual" would be not so much that it depicted demons, but that it is an incoherent attempt to categorize monsters?
I have seen a few prominent internet intellectuals/authors/commentators express an inclination toward a "cultural Christianity" in preference to "wokism" or Islamism. But what is Christianity without faith? Do they want Jesus as a worldly saviour?
There's no turning back in life, only moving forqard. Many people want an easy splution by adopting systems from the past, but I think we're going to have to do better than that if we want real solutions.
When pageau says « Christianity is our best bet » he is in fact speaking and thinking in the manner of the Enlightenment, as if religions are merely tools which can be selected rationally on the basis of their practical advantages. But the question is, not which religion is our best bet, but which one is actually true.
Not only is James Lindsay wrong, so is Arch atheist creator Peter Boghossian. Thank you Jonathan Pageau for taking the Cross of Christ to demolish the stupidity put forth by these men.
They’re both Jewish.Its a natural knee jerk reaction. I don’t think that will ever change. The loudest voices against Christianity are usually. I really wish it weren’t this way.
Such Atheism is nothing but liberal Christianity without the holidays. Nothing unique about it, which is the whole problem. I reject human equality. Interview a real atheist about that fact of nature.
Categories are how things are ordered towards the Final Cause .. the end or purpose of all.. LOVE .. the Person. Why we are moved by beauty and truth and goodness. Aquinas.
It all comes down to secularists wanting to protect LGB rights while wanting Christian influence to fight against the Q and T. The problem is they can't articulate why LGB is ok but Q and T is too far. Christians have a framework of one man and one woman that provides a solid foundation. Once you break that and advocate for LGB then there's no framework or foundation to prevent us from moving to Q and T. If you want to pushback then you have to go all the way and restore the Christian framework because it is the guardrails of liberalism. What we have today is liberalism without Christian guardrails.
Brilliant conversation, exactly along the lines of what I've been tripping on lately, sailing within the guardrails of Roman Catholic tradition... Bernardo Kastrup might be a good guest to have on. I really like him, though he's coming from a non-Christian analytical angle that I don't quite subscribe to. Subscribed here, though, thank you and God bless.
I agree that Christianity is the underlying bedrock of Western values and culture. That a secularism that seeks to be free from religion is essentially 'cutting off the branch' upon which we sit. That said, Encyclopedia Britannica: "It was thought during the Enlightenment that human reasoning could discover truths about the world, religion, and politics and could be used to improve the lives of humankind." Does Mr Pageau reject the proposition that reason can be used to discover much truth? Does he disagree that enlightenment ideals have improved the world? "Religious tolerance and the idea that individuals should be free from coercion in their personal lives and consciences were also Enlightenment ideas." What about the above proposition "doesn't work"? I would argue that it is the separation of enlightenment ideals from their Christian Roots which is why they appear to him to not be working.
I hope they talk one day. James agrees more than you'd think. He's explicitly said that the enlightenment, liberalism and science need theology to keep things sane. He's afraid of Christian Nationalism when it starts to walk and talk like the Woke - that is, he is NOT opposed to Christianity. He's opposed to the corrupted Christianity that is marketed as Christian Nationalism. But Christian Nationalism is currently in the early Nick Fuentes phase where they don't talk clearly, and thus the casual onlooker can easily make excuses. Casual onlookers will in effect build their Motte, which obscures their real intentions of the Bailey. Christian Nationalism isn't just being a good Christian and voting accordingly. That's been done before and without incident. CN wants more, but you have to look at their Bailey. (Look up the Motte and Bailey doctrine that Schackel formulated if you don't get the reference)
Here are some of the faulty ideas of the Enlightenment 1. The Dark Ages vs the Rebirth (Renessance) and the Light (Enlightenment) "The past is dark, we are the light- bringers." Problematic consequence: This denies any history for it is immediately labeled as "dark". Leads to no self-consistency as you need to deny and reject the dark and corrupt yourself 2 years ago. Recently, this has become very obvious. 2. "If only humans relied on Reason! We could build a paradise on Earth" Problem: humans cannot do that. Period. It's like regretting humans don't have scales or exoskeleton. 3. "Religion is stifling (correct). Therefore, if universal freedom is allowed, people will use it well, serving the Good, no God needed (incorrect)" Problem: logical fallacy, faulty basic assumptions or what is called the pre-ontological.
The pride of reason, or intelllectual arrogance, does seem to be a big problem, so to really exercise intellectual humility I think Jonathan should qualify his beliefs more (e.g., "this is what it seems like to me", "one theory/ argument is...")
Finally a Christian that agrees we should not weaponize religion! Jesus didn't mingle with political powers,yet the powers had to acknowledge the movement.
At about 15:20 I had to pause and shout out that I dont see Lindsey as relying entirely on reason, nor trying out a "new" and improved Marxism. If anything, Lindsey has been quite vocal in exposing the Marxism of "what can be, unburdened by what has been." Just a few minutes into any of Lindsey's le tures on the dialectic and/or Gnostic Hermeticum will prove this one sided cynicism quite uninformed. Lindsey might, like Peterson, not embrace yet a faith as distinct as Pageau's, but I definately dont get from Lindsey that he has rejected faith pole, line and sinker in favor of a purely secularized reason de'etre now somehow found in the fundamentalist literalism of the Christian evangelicals. William Blake reminds that "to generalize is to be an idiot; to particularize is alone a distinction of merit." While "All broad and general principles belong to benevolence who protects minute particulars."
James Lindsey is right on the diagnosis of and the immediate consequences of the current social crisis, he is wrong his prescription for it; at least in my opinion.
Where the dreams of reason produces monsters, the inquisitions of faith produce athiests is what Lindsey and McGilchrist argue is the incidence where faith and reason meet as checks upon each other. I don't think I've ever heard Lindsey say that it's all reason and no faith or vice versa. It's not an either/or reality and to believe that it is is to synthesize away the mediation of the two in the Logos as Christ both now and always, in the coming together of All in all. After all, this is Pageau's whole premise behind symbolism without dissolving the particulars to begin with...is it not?
According to these guys, what IS the proper way to deconstruct these "categories?" Are they sacred and beyond question? Why can't we critically analyse history and reevaluate the invention of the categories and what motivated them?
which guys? Pageau and Lindsay? Others? Lindsay's answer might sound like, "I have been busy deconstructing deconstructionism and critiquing critical theory for a few years now." Pageau's might sound like, "the disorder is found not in the transcendence of boundaries but in starting from (or teaching youngsters to start from) a boundless place of transcendence. You have to learn the rules before you can learn when or how to break them." I heard a priest recently who said, "the Church is intolerant in principle and tolerant in practice. The World is tolerant in principle and intolerant in practice." He was saying that the Church starts from the boundaries of good justice and then tolerates (forgives) the transgressions of those boundaries in good mercy, while the World starts from a disordered understanding of mercy that that does factor in justice in the first place and ends up unjustly punishing people who do not conform to whatever is the most hip, fashionable, current, up-to-date definitions of this indefinite space. The World is absurd because it defines the indefinable and constantly updates these boundaries, it binds the boundless and then punishes you for crossing these amorphous definitions; whereas the Church starts from the boundaries of hierarchy derived from right reason and then forgives you for crossing those boundaries in a mercy derived from that same right reason.
@@BalthasarCarduelis Which is insane because the Church is part of the world and as flawed in implementing its principles as anything else. Defining clear opposition between a supposedly unified 'the world' and a unified 'the' church is absurd and this priest is just projecting when he calls the world's boundries absurd. Societies police arbitrary taboos and the community of Christian believers (which is all the New Testment letters mean when they refer to the Church) live in societies like everyone else.
@@AC-dk4fpif Church is entirely in the world, it fails just like the world. Luckily, it isn't entirely engulfed by the world and therefore keeps defying death. "The gates of hell shall not prevail over it," as Christ stated.
I would have wished that the interviewer and Mr Pageau here had been more specific about the Enlightenment and the philosophes who propagated its ideals. Counting Newton, who along with his contemporary Boyle was an enthusiastic practitioner of alchemy, as a member of the Enlightenment, is akin to putting John Adams in the same category as Maximilien Robespierre. Newton and Boyle were devout Christians; and even Spinoza was a firm believer in the existence and power of God (the Geometer). Only with Voltaire and Rousseau, and the cult of fighting the heritage of tradition, do we establish the elevation of Reason as the sole arbiter of Reality. If we are to discuss how things Went Too Far, then we have to examine with whom and how, they exceeded the bounds of harmony with the world. We lose focus by having no specifics to our historical view.
Weird click bait thumbnail. I am perfectly happy to watch an interview with Jonathan Pageau without targeting James Lindsay. Nobody is more right more often than Mr. Lindsay. He has the biggest brain in America. Having said that, I would love to see people like James, Jordan Peterson and Carl Benjamin embrace Christianity. I was tottering on the brink for decades before taking the leap in 2020. I am born again and proud of it. Looking back on the leap I will say this, it was a step, a small, simple step. But it looks like a leap before you take it! Godspeed to all viewers of Creed and Culture.
Thanks, though we weren't targeting Lindsay. We've had him on the show and we ran the thumbnail by him before publishing. Their disagreement is philosophical, not personal.
James is a smart man, but saying he has the biggest brain in the country is a bit of an exaggeration. Also, Alex Jones has been more right more often than him, but it’s hard to beat Jones’ record without being a literal prophet.
Ayii, I appreciate critique of ideals ahnd the like, buht making dramatic headlines for getting people to click on the video is in poor taste. Video ahnd conversation were greait though 🤘🤘
Psiké is the mad from the house. I don't know how it says in English. La razón es la loca de la casa. Thanks for this meeting. It's like to be in the dinning room of home.
I don’t really use Twitter because it seems like it is just a platform for pointless arguments. But after listening to James’ lectures and interviews for hundreds of hours I don’t recognise James from this interview.
In all honesty, what I see Pageau accusing Lindsay of is more accurately attributable to what Jordan Peterson is doing and is also the basis of Christian fundamentalist's frustrations with him over the past few years.
Peterson just doesn’t have the guts to admit it’s all fake. There are way better ideals than liberalism which is what all these nerds are peddling; from Sam Harris to the Pope they all share the same comfort seeking frame. Humanism sucks.
For everyone here praising James Lindsay, I suggest you actually read the primary sources he’s citing. He’s wrong about most of the conclusions he comes to, once you honestly dig in. He builds these expansive phylogenetic trees of philosophies and theories, with his own post hoc obfuscations of said philosophy’s intent, completely castrating them from their own critique and context. There’s a lot more to that which he’s on about. Plus, he blocks and namecalls everyone who slightly challenges any of his assumptions with the offer of friendly discourse. Thinkers and philosophers in the discourse sphere distance themselves from him for a reason. Much like the woke will call you an ableist or a transphobe, Lindsay will call you a Gnostic or Wizard; a libertarian-ish sort of intersectionality.
The criticisms of the Enlightenment (and more so of Post-Modernism) are worth considering, but one shouldn't forget that one of the Enlightenment's sources was a repugnance against the wars of religion and such savagery as the _auto da fe_ .
James is right. It would be the same if we wanted to bring Sharia law. Freedom of Religion is a fundamental core of our documents. Anything we allow now, later Islam will want. Be very careful on what you wish for.
We need to create a polity that is traditionally oriented, but can just as easily accommodate non-Christians as Christians. I am not a Christian, so the Christian solution is not open to me.
James Lindsay has always seemed so close to connecting the last dot but just won't do it. Same with Jordan Peterson. These guys just want to rewind the tape a scene or 2 but willing to go back any further.
I guess you don’t know much about Christian history & the inquisition then. In the 1980s the Supreme Court had to ban creationism from public school sciences, good. These fundamentalists right now are championing a nuclear war with Iran to bring about the rapture & “second coming”. People are crazy & im not interested in pretending these beliefs are benign.
Category are, if and only if they have lasting duration. Pluto a planet, is now not. Shift isn't going to suffice for calling trans existence as anathema to typical construction of those typical traditional things. The category belongs in between the useful and user.
Doesn't matter; he's the only one willing to read enough woke literature to truly battle it. Back him, even if he questions your gnosticism (artist's curse).
I think Jonathan doesnt have the confidence to follow his argument to its fullest conclusion. He talks about the Benedict Option and families and communities living on Christian principles, but doesnt seem to think it is either possible or desirable to have whole nations run on those principles. From a Catholic perspective, there is lots of warrant for this. In 1925 Pope Pius XI wrote the encyclical Quas Primas , on the social reign of Christ the King, which summarised the teachings of the Church, that Christ must be the Head. Catholics enthrone the Sacred Heart image in their homes in honour of Christ's headship, and many Catholics long for the restoration of the Sacred Heart as a flag of the nation. Catholic integralists argue that the Two Swords principle of Church and State as mutually interpenetrating , but with ultimate authority residing in the Church, is the best way for a Christian society. And the prophecies of many Catholic mystics point to a future time when a Catholic monarch will rule over a resurrected Christendom.
No the Christian nation is libertarian “Liberty is where the spirit of the LORD is” We don’t need a human monarch when we have a living king. Since the Old Testament God warned the people that a human king will be bad and is unnecessary First they wanted a human king like the pagans had then they wanted human judges
Four comments. Three opinions. I am with the Ghibellines on this; Christendom requires an Emperor with ultimate temporal authority including adjudicating Church councils. The history of the Papacy shows that temporal power destroys theological legitimacy and authority. The history of Protestantism shows that sola scriptura leads to doctrinal anarchy and social dissolution. The answer rests in the first 1000 years. The Pope must come back to the Church Council, renounce his supremacism and reunite the Apostolic Church. We can then proceed with autocephalous election within Western Europe amongst the nations and the United council will anoint a new Emperor. The nations can then support and or rally to him as they see fit and things will turn around fast.
@@NorthernObserver I like this solution. Valentin Tomberg wrote "Europe is haunted by the shadow of the Emperor. One senses his absence just as vividly as in former times one sensed his presence." Tomberg goes on to show that Napoleon and Hitler attempted to take on this mantle, but by trying to rule with the sword they did not succeed. The Emperor rules by use of the sceptre. Symbol of hierarchy, with the cross of Spirit placed over the sphere of the World. Sacred order is only established through submission to the ultimate authority of God.
This, as you say, is one of the best reasons to pretend to be religious, to keep continuity with your cultural heritage, lest you fall prey to new Woke religion, or other more robust religions. Woke vs Islam, who wins? But I still cannot believe in the Supernatural. So.. I want continuity.. but without the supernatural.. but how to do it?
@@druharper Gotcha. I recommend you have a look at the work of Dr William Lane Craig and Professor Richard Swinburne. The latter is coming on the show next month.
There is something, but I think that some fear on Lindsay side, is, how maybe, in U.S, there are some optics, about, like Mega churches, leader's type, that is even me, from Europe, a strange optic, but yes, we Christian's, can be strange, but a different force, but force of good, but those around are playing with our patience & tolerance, that's the problem, because, i will never abandon our traditions & values, and this people, who arrived here, embrace the wrong way, from communism/marksism to radical islam & don't understand what are they poking around, so there is problem's in horizon, question is, are they sure 🧐
30:06 thank you for covering this. I made the mistake of placing hope in politics for change only to see I was repeating old patterns. Any reliance on man-made or earthly institutions is bound to fail. It’s been a radical awakening, seeing the idolatrous nature of the worship of reason and money as gods. I’m excited to live the rest of my life completely differently, with Christ at the center of everything.
Democracy: The God that Failed by Hans Hermann Hoppe
Except Christianity is man made. Man can make new better religions for people like you but it’s not your fault there’s nothing more on offer.
@@DoctorMandible Thank you for the recommendation.
We need James and Jonathan having a rational discussion and settling their differences. I think both thinkers are brilliant and vital to the cause of saving the west, and should be working together instead of beating each other up. We need a long form, moderated discussion between them.
Have you seen their conversation with Benjamin Boyce?
Lindsay went psycho on him. I know Jonathan appreciates much of his work despite the differences.
They had that in the past, but Lindsay has since gone bonkers. He does not have anything new to add.
James is great, but he has no real solutions. Great at collecting information and reading through lengthy texts though.
They will not be able to settle their differences, because it cuts to the heart of their respective worldviews - which couldn't be further apart at a fundamental level.
Fwiw, I agree broadly with JP's worldview and think JL's is fundamentally flawed / incoherent.
And that can be true even though I may agree with JL in terms of identifing bad outcomes in the world - it's just that JL has fundamentally misdiagnosed the problem and solution & his solution is both unhelpful/bad and not possible!
Im still waiting for a Jonathan and Joe Rogan interview
Jonathan or Fr Stephen De Young on JRE would be amazing.
@@davidgravy2007Joe isn’t ready for that lol
@@OddHarvey My thoughts exactly
I was just thinking this the other day! Would be so epic! I feel like it'd be earth-shaking for people. Like Peterson's first appearance was, but even more next level
@@OddHarveyI agree but I still look forward to the day he is 😅
This was brilliant...several new insights, especially the description of post modernism as using the intercategorical to tear down categories in a failed attempt to reach the transcendent. Thank you.
Thanks for engaging!
That's the Moaist style cultural revolution. The revolution is perpetual, to distract and destabilize, so Satan can increase his power over the rulers of this world.
Took the words right out of my mouth. I concur, completely.
I think the Simple thing that Jonathan pageau keeps pointing out is the inevitability of religion in what ever form. And what JL seems to think that our return to religion is a kind of Natural defect that must always be avoided.
That Lindsay guy seems to think that the natural state of humanity is to be reasonable and atheist and that the religious mind virus just won’t go away
He also holds the enlightenment in high regard and bashes Gnosticism but Enlightenment and Gnosis are the same exact thing
Transcendence through knowledge = enlightenment
Solomon already debunked that in Ecclesiastes he went further to the point that wisdom itself is vanity much less knowledge all is vanity but obedience to God
antichrist be like just listen to me and things will be ok just get away from that religion thing
I agree with you. James Lindsey is not a confessing Christian as far as I know, and according to scripture (Romans one) one's understanding is darkened when you disbelieve.
If there is a mechanism to diffuse the tension between godless intellectualism and the simple hearted lover of Jesus' words it is Jesus' words that will prevail in time and space. Literally.
The problem with man is not his head … It's his heart-
@@Steblu74 The heart anxious for the enlightenment is not saved (you cannot love two masters, and politics is about the earth and nothing more, and salvation is total. The enlightenment was a movement that captured the western world and it began with tossing out Romans 13 vs 1 - 2.
Pageau’s logic is based on inference, which is normal for our species, but not the strongest option. He makes some valid points but would like to see him engaged in more challenging debates as opposed to agreeable interviews. If his arguments are strong, they will stand.
James Lindsay needs more attention on him. Hes able to piece together most accurately from what Ive seen, the puzzle that is postmodern philosophy
Here's our episode with him: ruclips.net/video/3d-eNmwQI5c/видео.htmlsi=cAhtqApsuWo6Ky1T
Also check out Tammy Petersons interviews with wokel distance on postmodernism if you would like to torture yourself a bit more
None of these people even understand what "Postmodernism" actually is or means; look up Hans Georg Moeller for some actual intellectual commentary, or even the old Rick Roderick "Self Under Siege" series.
@@scythermantis Roderick is great.. if he was still alive he'd be a part of TLC for sure..
@@scythermantiswhat do they get wrong?
This is what I found wrong with Lindsey is that he has the right idea but no justified morality. He can’t have the world he wants without it being christian. That is the good world where he wants to be but he doesn’t wanna believe in God.
The whole problem is Christian morals & the liberalism it created. I don’t want that at all. Lindsey doesn’t know what’s good. He just seeks comfort like liberal (conservative) Christians.
Absolutely. Good world can't be build/obtained/inherited without God's Grace. It was one of the illusions of Enlightenment, when they worshipped Reason turning the society into Pagan crowds and blood thirsty riots.
Some categories that need to be better articulated: prerational, rational, transrational.
One of the primary confusions of modernism is that everything non rational is pre-rational.
One of the primary mistakes of post modernism is that everything non rational is trans-rational.
Shooting from the hip, I would say impulses to sin are generally pre-rational or below our rational nature, pure rationality wouldn’t have any impulse at all, and impulses to genuine virtue would be trans-rational, or above our ability to reason.
@4:00. The future is religious but I don't we fully understand what kinds of religions will be coming. One major religion that's being developed slowly is humanism (worship of man, human progress, the ideal human, etc). Currently it is viewed as a philosophy but it is actually religious. It will contend with traditional religions in the future.
That’s ancient nothing new
nothing new under the sun, weve seen this before just read a history textbook its just a different name then before
You say "but" except that was precisely his point.
Sounds like Christianity.
Judaism was predicated on the truths reveal by a Divine being. Christianity is based on truths revealed by a divine being. Buddhism is based on revealed truths by an Enlightened Buddha. Religious truth is revealed, not discovered. The worship of humanity is a mental spasm of nervous atheists. Not only is it not transcendental, it has not been revealed.
Jesus, Im so grateful to be nowhere near the top of the hierarchy... so happy and grateful to witness God and all His works..
I think JL has a lot of good information about our predicament. I go to JL for info on the how we got here, the poli-sci stuff and how philosophy, religion shapes the culture and affects faith. JP has his own sphere, which is purely based in faith, religion and how we derive meaning from ancient knowledge. So I just see them as inhabiting very different spheres of influence, but both have very important things to say.
I do not really think you understand Jonathan pageau, when you say his analysis are purely based on faith. Though Jonathan pageau is open and vocal about his faith, he isn't a proselyte. He only show you the structure of how the Cosmos is phenomenologicaly. It has nothing to do with promoting his faith
@@iphang-ishordavid2954 you’re right I mis spoke, not based IN faith, but related to, religious traditions, beliefs, patterns and practices that reverberate through history. He’s not political and doesn’t get into the political material too much, also the Orthodox Catholic traditions are very different from New World Christian beliefs, so I think there is a vast difference between the two men’s material. I am Roman Catholic, and to me faith is separate and exists on a different plane than politics, so I understand the symbology and how that relates to life practices. JL is good at putting the information of the worldly thinkers and philosophers, and anyone can compare and see if it aligns with their own views. I appreciate both for very different reasons.
@@angelavanerp2 You're right in your original comment. JL like Peter Boghossian are very good at diagnosing the problems, and that's where their usefulness ends. Their solutions to it, are purely arbitrary though and based in a relativistic framework which has no force behind it, except whatever their own rhetoric can drum up.
@@alisterrebelo9013 What country has implemented "the solutions that work"?
Championing the enlightenment as a Christian is incoherent. The enlightenment begins with the breeching of Romans 13 vs 1-2. Before that the individual was obliged to accept that the powers that be were placed here by god. Any devising around this is parsing so freely as to render any of the articles in the transcendent objective morality parsable in like fashion.
Just because you were steeped in a tradition that stems from a merging of the enlightenment with Christianity does not mean that said merger was not the pandora's box, the deception, the evil, etc. I'm not a Christian, but I know that the book says few would be saved.
I've listened to just over two thirds of this conversation, but, based on what I've heard so far I have little reason to believe it will come to a satisfying resolution. As someone who appreciates and has learned from both James Lindsey and Jonathan Pageau, I feel exasperated listening to this. I could be wrong, but I suspect that if either of these two fine, and very busy, men would dedicate some more time and attention to listening to and studying what they other is actually saying, they would find more substantive points of agreement, or at the least, respectful and informed disagreement, both in their analysis of our present cultural and political ills and in how to address them.
But, I must say, I find it perfectly plausible that James Lindsey could have shot off his mouth and called Jonathan Pageau a Christian Nationalist, based on something Pageau wrote in a tweet. Because James Lindsey, by his own admission, leans towards a pugilistic, take-no-prisoners approach to making arguments on X/Twitter. However, Mr. Pageau seems to me to be here returning the favor by offering what strikes me as a simplistic, straw-man depiction of Lindsey's understanding of the role of religion, both as a matter of individual belief and as a source of social cohesion and ontology.
I also have to say that perhaps precisely because, Mr. Pageau is not, by his own description, political, he may have failed to grasp the degree to which Lindsey, as I understand it, tries to address the tensions often inherent in the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, which at the same time it prohibits Congress from establishing an official religion also prohibits it from making any laws against the free exercise of religion. In contrast to how Pageau seems to describe him here, I do not understand Lindsey as advocating for a "Naked Public Square" in which all statements and arguments must be couched in purely "secular", rationalistic language. I believe Lindsey displays a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of the role of religion in U.S. public life than Pageau gives him credit for. Lindsey is not just another Pinker or Dawkins. And he has himself spoken of the Enlightenment's "dark side" as Pageau phrased it. I understand Lindsey's concerns about Christian Nationalism to be directed at particular individuals and organizations that advocate for some sort of de facto establishment of a, Protestant, form of Christianity as a national religion.
Getting back to this conversation, I wish they had focused more on what Pageau and Lindsey actually said in their respective tweets. As it is, I'm left with the impression that Misters Pageau and Lindsey are just flailing about, throwing one another some unenlightening shade on the webs. I take it as a sign that it's time for them each to pontificate a bit less and listen a bit more. If such a thing is possible on "The X."
Well written
@@stormy3307 Thanks.
At 35:20 regarding USA run by Christian Nationalism, I also can’t see it - seems impossible under the Constitution, but maybe that could change….
Even so, I hope at least some us are aware of the notions of Dominion or Kingdom Theology. Some Americans including elected officials certainly are, and they speak and act accordingly.
Recall Rusty Bowers, the Arizona House speaker who testified at the Jan.6 inquiry, and others, who consider the Constitution and the Declaration to be divinely inspired.
Can’t see how they could take over, but they are one of the many dead or twisted branches of christianity that need to be pruned for that religion to bring about genuine social cohesion.
I love Jonathan Pageau.
Does anyone else speak anything like him?
"Does anyone else speak anything like him?" Yes. You won't find them on RUclips or Twitter, though. You'll find them in monasteries.
Seraphim Hamilton speaks q bit like him, but he is very focused on Christisn subject matter.
IF enough politicians and judges start agreeing with Christian nationalism, they will interpret the Constitution however they want. Even law is downstream from culture. For much of US history, we essentially had a quasi-Christian Nationalist ideology as the dominant ideology. It was just in the hands of mostly mainline/liberal Protestants.
Christians in charge of the mechanisms of this government would however more accurately interpret the constitutional framework built on its own value structure. Being ruled by foreigners with a variety of religious extremisms of their own, we are not likely to see our laws interpreted in such a way that they can even be judged on their own merits
The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence both directly reject Romans 13 vs 1-2. Christ did not say, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, unless you don't have representation." The American Revolution was heretical. Might have been a good thing, but it wasn't Christain.
This was absolutely brilliant, really needed to hear this as I can focus a bit to much on the non mystic side of things. Great as always from Pageau
James Lindsay is more on the same page with Jordan Peterson re. Christianity. That religious faith serves social and psychological needs that are not being met in secular society. In 'Everybody Is Wrong About God' James adopts a attitude similar to Jonathan Pageau; drop the label, drop the politics and try to talk honestly about human values and motivation.......
Religion as a tool to serve “social and psychological needs” is a dead-end assertion pushed by nihilist gen-x’ers who don’t believe in anything.
If you don’t truly believe, the religion will be worthless as a tool of social control (as modernity has shown us). If you do truly believe, religion is infinitely more than a tool of meeting material and psychological needs.
Listening here, I see considerable common ground. I see Twitter JL, joyous warrior loving a tussle and analytical podcast JL as quite different and unhelpful to conflate.
Lindsay would get stomped in a debate with Jay Dyer
@@sillygoose4472there will be no actual discussion as each of them will act as a jerkus maximus.
@@sillygoose4472true.
Well that title should work. :)
Ha, we ran it by them both before publishing.
Paul. Would you mediate their converzation?
My exact thoughts, lol.
Hi Paul
Really enjoyed this conversation. Thank you both
I don't think the divine mystery is irrational, but the human rational can't completely fathom the absolute reality of the Transcendent.
The divine mystery is rather something like supra-rational. At the same time, the non-rational part of us is more complete than the rational part (children are complete, while adults never seem to get there), making the non-rational able to better grasp the divine mystery.
That's what irrational means...
I don’t see Christianity coming close to the transcendental. Have you been to church lately? It’s just liberal BS.
Heidegger shows how the mystery is being as such, and more primary to theology and any worldview or ideology, and that we achieve the highest kind of spirituality if we relate to it questioningly, together, ongoing, preserving that space of questioning.
U got it Heidegger holds the key and is overlooked! moving forward!
I too am halfway through 'The matter with things' and a disciple of McGilchrist. Each page is a meditation and potentially life changing. Wonderful to learn you have purchased a copy for each member of your faculty, and are working through it.
It's a brilliant book!
I think one of the major stumbling blocks in these conversations is the lack of a clear demarcation of the political vs the cultural spheres of influence.
Obviously these spheres influence each other, but I would argue that it is also not necessary for the Vatican to have direct control over the political levers of a society for a rejuvenated Catholic or more broadly Christian culture to implement policy that is fundamentally pro human in a way that a secular humanist would appreciate.
I was just introduced to the writings of Esther Lightcap Meek. I'm hearing echoes of the same from you. Helpful to me and my understanding of Reality
Loved it!
Mind blowing interview, gentlemen! 👍
A wonderful discussion. The main problem that hovers in the background, perhaps beyond this chat to cover, is how moderns who accede all these points make the "faith leap" if they cannot subscribe in good existential faith the ontological claims of Christianity, or for that matter the moral dogma of Hell.
Even if one grants how salutary a force Christianity has been and remains, it is not so easy to make the Jungian-utilitarian or even mystery-mythos leap.
If you don't see the Christian edifice at 3 in the morning, then you don't see it. That's a very deep problem.
Thanks for contributing.
Yeah, I'd agree this is the crux (no pun intended) of the issue. It really seems like this is Dr. Peterson's sticking point, too. When someone has dedicated their entire life to only believing things unless and until they can prove them wrong, it's hard to make the shift to saying, "This is the Truth by which all other truths are illuminated."
Also, out of curiosity, did you pick 3 am just because it's in the wee hours of the morning, or specifically because it's the witching hour?
@@daniellucas2968
I suppose both (subconsciously). Ray Bradbury talks about the utter desolation of 3 AM. I think it's when the bleakest existential questions can intrude.
I do think there's some interesting work being done of the larger teleological argument from design for a Deist take, re which I find the Anthropic Argument very interesting about the immensely improbable statistical radius of 6 or so fundamental constants in permitting life. But this doesn't conduce to Christianity, just to some more general lattice of intellection. (Stephen C. Meyer has done some impressive work on this, and while I don't think all his arguments hold water, the Anthropic fine-tuning seems one very strong case.)
I try to stay up with other expositors of this argument, like Edward Feser. But I still find First Mover (not in the time sequence but rather the sustained-existence sense) as failing before the quantum foam from QM, from which we (at least allegedly) know that things can be potentiated without an actualizer.
This is mind blowing
My issue with this hypothesis is that mystification is not the same as religion
Reason is not the problem. Read Thomas Aquinas. Lots of reason there. The problem is the rejection of metaphysical reasoning that took place at the end of the 16th century, when the rational investigation of physical reality, and the technological application of physical knowledge, increasingly became over the next few centuries, the only fully legitimate fields of intellectual endeavor.
Yes I reject the description of the Enlightenment as 'the age of reason'.
I don’t believe in virgin births & neither does Johnathan here. But he pretends to which I see as dishonest.
They’re all just saying “most people are sheep & need to be herded”. Fine, how about a better religion based in honoring our very real ancestors rather than King of the Jews? I don’t descend from King David.
Jonathan is my brother in Christ, but he has a unique ability to make my head spin.
what is missing is the self reflection of JUNG! AND his dire warning of collective neurosis!!
26:45 "enlointenment noy" 😂😂 love the episode! really good questions and even better answers!
Best accent in the world mate.
Heidegger dasein is a key overlooked Being in time -
Authenticity as the true understanding of humanity
and is brilliant Hostility to technological world view
"The monster is intercategorical"
So Pageau's criticism of D&D's "Monster Manual" would be not so much that it depicted demons, but that it is an incoherent attempt to categorize monsters?
Yes. They can not be categorized and contained. If they do, they stop being monsters.
I have seen a few prominent internet intellectuals/authors/commentators express an inclination toward a "cultural Christianity" in preference to "wokism" or Islamism. But what is Christianity without faith? Do they want Jesus as a worldly saviour?
It's a good question. I discuss this in some episodes in relation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali's conversion.
Choice between Sharing a mystery or sharing Death and Taxes
There's no turning back in life, only moving forqard. Many people want an easy splution by adopting systems from the past, but I think we're going to have to do better than that if we want real solutions.
When pageau says « Christianity is our best bet » he is in fact speaking and thinking in the manner of the Enlightenment, as if religions are merely tools which can be selected rationally on the basis of their practical advantages.
But the question is, not which religion is our best bet, but which one is actually true.
Jonathan needs to interview Gary DeMar.
The part about encyclopedic enlightenment reminds me of the Judge in Blood Meridian
Not only is James Lindsay wrong, so is Arch atheist creator Peter Boghossian. Thank you Jonathan Pageau for taking the Cross of Christ to demolish the stupidity put forth by these men.
Our episode with Peter here: ruclips.net/video/ETqcorGm0IU/видео.htmlsi=Xoi46T9IvOLByt0V
They’re both Jewish.Its a natural knee jerk reaction. I don’t think that will ever change. The loudest voices against Christianity are usually.
I really wish it weren’t this way.
Such Atheism is nothing but liberal Christianity without the holidays. Nothing unique about it, which is the whole problem. I reject human equality. Interview a real atheist about that fact of nature.
Categories are how things are ordered towards the Final Cause .. the end or purpose of all.. LOVE .. the Person. Why we are moved by beauty and truth and goodness. Aquinas.
Going to be a true return to Christ and also a much larger corporate version
Christianity leaves room for secularism, but secularism doesn’t leave room for Christianity. True Christianity isn’t about force but an invitation.
Bullshit. I respectfully bow my head when my family prays, they freaked out when I asked them to not pray.
You are lying. You are dull.
You guys cry when the church of satan gets the same rights as you.
Also, your sect is not in charge.
It all comes down to secularists wanting to protect LGB rights while wanting Christian influence to fight against the Q and T. The problem is they can't articulate why LGB is ok but Q and T is too far. Christians have a framework of one man and one woman that provides a solid foundation. Once you break that and advocate for LGB then there's no framework or foundation to prevent us from moving to Q and T. If you want to pushback then you have to go all the way and restore the Christian framework because it is the guardrails of liberalism. What we have today is liberalism without Christian guardrails.
Brilliant conversation, exactly along the lines of what I've been tripping on lately, sailing within the guardrails of Roman Catholic tradition... Bernardo Kastrup might be a good guest to have on. I really like him, though he's coming from a non-Christian analytical angle that I don't quite subscribe to. Subscribed here, though, thank you and God bless.
I agree that Christianity is the underlying bedrock of Western values and culture. That a secularism that seeks to be free from religion is essentially 'cutting off the branch' upon which we sit. That said,
Encyclopedia Britannica: "It was thought during the Enlightenment that human reasoning could discover truths about the world, religion, and politics and could be used to improve the lives of humankind."
Does Mr Pageau reject the proposition that reason can be used to discover much truth? Does he disagree that enlightenment ideals have improved the world?
"Religious tolerance and the idea that individuals should be free from coercion in their personal lives and consciences were also Enlightenment ideas."
What about the above proposition "doesn't work"?
I would argue that it is the separation of enlightenment ideals from their Christian Roots which is why they appear to him to not be working.
good stuff
For some reason the audio of Jonathan was pretty bad. Dunno if it’s on your or his side, he normally has great audio
Thanks for the feedback. We use riverside fm. Records locally. So not our side.
@@creedandculture Gotcha, thanks for looking into it :)
The classical trinity of ethos/pathos/logos was knocked out of balance in the Middle Ages with aquinas and the nominalists.
I hope they talk one day. James agrees more than you'd think. He's explicitly said that the enlightenment, liberalism and science need theology to keep things sane.
He's afraid of Christian Nationalism when it starts to walk and talk like the Woke - that is, he is NOT opposed to Christianity. He's opposed to the corrupted Christianity that is marketed as Christian Nationalism.
But Christian Nationalism is currently in the early Nick Fuentes phase where they don't talk clearly, and thus the casual onlooker can easily make excuses.
Casual onlookers will in effect build their Motte, which obscures their real intentions of the Bailey.
Christian Nationalism isn't just being a good Christian and voting accordingly. That's been done before and without incident. CN wants more, but you have to look at their Bailey.
(Look up the Motte and Bailey doctrine that Schackel formulated if you don't get the reference)
I don't think Joan of arc actually said that she was beyond category, beyond man and woman, "I am". That was the invention of the playwrght.
The enlightenment has failed. Miserably so. It was devoid of Christ and has led directly to this modern hellscape. Christ is King ☦ not human reason.
What are the enlightenment ideals, and how have they failed?
Here are some of the faulty ideas of the Enlightenment
1. The Dark Ages vs the Rebirth (Renessance) and the Light (Enlightenment) "The past is dark, we are the light- bringers."
Problematic consequence:
This denies any history for it is immediately labeled as "dark". Leads to no self-consistency as you need to deny and reject the dark and corrupt yourself 2 years ago. Recently, this has become very obvious.
2. "If only humans relied on Reason! We could build a paradise on Earth"
Problem: humans cannot do that. Period. It's like regretting humans don't have scales or exoskeleton.
3. "Religion is stifling (correct). Therefore, if universal freedom is allowed, people will use it well, serving the Good, no God needed (incorrect)"
Problem: logical fallacy, faulty basic assumptions or what is called the pre-ontological.
The pride of reason, or intelllectual arrogance, does seem to be a big problem, so to really exercise intellectual humility I think Jonathan should qualify his beliefs more (e.g., "this is what it seems like to me", "one theory/ argument is...")
James has a lot of knowledge, but Jonathan has knowledge and wisdom.
James is off the rails. Hes right about progressives as he is one. He doesn't understand the right because he's in essence still a progressive
Finally a Christian that agrees we should not weaponize religion! Jesus didn't mingle with political powers,yet the powers had to acknowledge the movement.
At about 15:20 I had to pause and shout out that I dont see Lindsey as relying entirely on reason, nor trying out a "new" and improved Marxism. If anything, Lindsey has been quite vocal in exposing the Marxism of "what can be, unburdened by what has been." Just a few minutes into any of Lindsey's le tures on the dialectic and/or Gnostic Hermeticum will prove this one sided cynicism quite uninformed. Lindsey might, like Peterson, not embrace yet a faith as distinct as Pageau's, but I definately dont get from Lindsey that he has rejected faith pole, line and sinker in favor of a purely secularized reason de'etre now somehow found in the fundamentalist literalism of the Christian evangelicals. William Blake reminds that "to generalize is to be an idiot; to particularize is alone a distinction of merit." While "All broad and general principles belong to benevolence who protects minute particulars."
We are dealing with a spiritual problem READ JUNG!
James Lindsey is right on the diagnosis of and the immediate consequences of the current social crisis, he is wrong his prescription for it; at least in my opinion.
Where the dreams of reason produces monsters, the inquisitions of faith produce athiests is what Lindsey and McGilchrist argue is the incidence where faith and reason meet as checks upon each other. I don't think I've ever heard Lindsey say that it's all reason and no faith or vice versa. It's not an either/or reality and to believe that it is is to synthesize away the mediation of the two in the Logos as Christ both now and always, in the coming together of All in all. After all, this is Pageau's whole premise behind symbolism without dissolving the particulars to begin with...is it not?
According to these guys, what IS the proper way to deconstruct these "categories?"
Are they sacred and beyond question?
Why can't we critically analyse history and reevaluate the invention of the categories and what motivated them?
which guys? Pageau and Lindsay? Others?
Lindsay's answer might sound like, "I have been busy deconstructing deconstructionism and critiquing critical theory for a few years now." Pageau's might sound like, "the disorder is found not in the transcendence of boundaries but in starting from (or teaching youngsters to start from) a boundless place of transcendence. You have to learn the rules before you can learn when or how to break them."
I heard a priest recently who said, "the Church is intolerant in principle and tolerant in practice. The World is tolerant in principle and intolerant in practice." He was saying that the Church starts from the boundaries of good justice and then tolerates (forgives) the transgressions of those boundaries in good mercy, while the World starts from a disordered understanding of mercy that that does factor in justice in the first place and ends up unjustly punishing people who do not conform to whatever is the most hip, fashionable, current, up-to-date definitions of this indefinite space. The World is absurd because it defines the indefinable and constantly updates these boundaries, it binds the boundless and then punishes you for crossing these amorphous definitions; whereas the Church starts from the boundaries of hierarchy derived from right reason and then forgives you for crossing those boundaries in a mercy derived from that same right reason.
@@BalthasarCarduelis Which is insane because the Church is part of the world and as flawed in implementing its principles as anything else. Defining clear opposition between a supposedly unified 'the world' and a unified 'the' church is absurd and this priest is just projecting when he calls the world's boundries absurd.
Societies police arbitrary taboos and the community of Christian believers (which is all the New Testment letters mean when they refer to the Church) live in societies like everyone else.
@@AC-dk4fp okay, worldling.
@@BalthasarCarduelis Fair enough. 🙂
@@AC-dk4fpif Church is entirely in the world, it fails just like the world. Luckily, it isn't entirely engulfed by the world and therefore keeps defying death. "The gates of hell shall not prevail over it," as Christ stated.
I would have wished that the interviewer and Mr Pageau here had been more specific about the Enlightenment and the philosophes who propagated its ideals.
Counting Newton, who along with his contemporary Boyle was an enthusiastic practitioner of alchemy, as a member of the Enlightenment, is akin to putting John Adams in the same category as Maximilien Robespierre.
Newton and Boyle were devout Christians; and even Spinoza was a firm believer in the existence and power of God (the Geometer). Only with Voltaire and Rousseau, and the cult of fighting the heritage of tradition, do we establish the elevation of Reason as the sole arbiter of Reality.
If we are to discuss how things Went Too Far, then we have to examine with whom and how, they exceeded the bounds of harmony with the world. We lose focus by having no specifics to our historical view.
Weird click bait thumbnail. I am perfectly happy to watch an interview with Jonathan Pageau without targeting James Lindsay. Nobody is more right more often than Mr. Lindsay. He has the biggest brain in America. Having said that, I would love to see people like James, Jordan Peterson and Carl Benjamin embrace Christianity. I was tottering on the brink for decades before taking the leap in 2020. I am born again and proud of it. Looking back on the leap I will say this, it was a step, a small, simple step. But it looks like a leap before you take it! Godspeed to all viewers of Creed and Culture.
Thanks, though we weren't targeting Lindsay. We've had him on the show and we ran the thumbnail by him before publishing. Their disagreement is philosophical, not personal.
James Lindsay's worldview is deeply flawed, and dangerous to boot.
Would you say you took the leap too late and should've better done it earlier? Or was it the right time?
James is a smart man, but saying he has the biggest brain in the country is a bit of an exaggeration. Also, Alex Jones has been more right more often than him, but it’s hard to beat Jones’ record without being a literal prophet.
Ayii, I appreciate critique of ideals ahnd the like, buht making dramatic headlines for getting people to click on the video is in poor taste. Video ahnd conversation were greait though 🤘🤘
Psiké is the mad from the house. I don't know how it says in English. La razón es la loca de la casa.
Thanks for this meeting. It's like to be in the dinning room of home.
I don’t really use Twitter because it seems like it is just a platform for pointless arguments. But after listening to James’ lectures and interviews for hundreds of hours I don’t recognise James from this interview.
"inflict their views" Someone's views are being inflicted, just a question of whose.
A key point. There's no value-neutral.
John and James are both right in their respective fields, they don’t clash, twitter just makes it seem like they do. Cut the click bait shiz.
I suggest listening much more closely to what they're saying.
You have ideals, and I have ideals, and Jonathan has ideals, but the enlightenment does not have ideals.
People need to separate the actions of a practicer and the practice itself.
In all honesty, what I see Pageau accusing Lindsay of is more accurately attributable to what Jordan Peterson is doing and is also the basis of Christian fundamentalist's frustrations with him over the past few years.
Peterson just doesn’t have the guts to admit it’s all fake. There are way better ideals than liberalism which is what all these nerds are peddling; from Sam Harris to the Pope they all share the same comfort seeking frame. Humanism sucks.
09:45 I don’t understand what he means about identities here.
For everyone here praising James Lindsay, I suggest you actually read the primary sources he’s citing. He’s wrong about most of the conclusions he comes to, once you honestly dig in.
He builds these expansive phylogenetic trees of philosophies and theories, with his own post hoc obfuscations of said philosophy’s intent, completely castrating them from their own critique and context. There’s a lot more to that which he’s on about. Plus, he blocks and namecalls everyone who slightly challenges any of his assumptions with the offer of friendly discourse.
Thinkers and philosophers in the discourse sphere distance themselves from him for a reason. Much like the woke will call you an ableist or a transphobe, Lindsay will call you a Gnostic or Wizard; a libertarian-ish sort of intersectionality.
You attempt to equate the woke communist assumptions with James's word choices--
not much of an equation there.
13:50 took me out lol. I get it
McGhilChrist has a huge clue as well read Master and his emissary!
The criticisms of the Enlightenment (and more so of Post-Modernism) are worth considering, but one shouldn't forget that one of the Enlightenment's sources was a repugnance against the wars of religion and such savagery as the _auto da fe_ .
James is right. It would be the same if we wanted to bring Sharia law. Freedom of Religion is a fundamental core of our documents. Anything we allow now, later Islam will want. Be very careful on what you wish for.
"Christianity is our best bet".
I don't care what's the most useful for upholding enlightenment ideals, i want to know what's true.
We need to create a polity that is traditionally oriented, but can just as easily accommodate non-Christians as Christians. I am not a Christian, so the Christian solution is not open to me.
James Lindsay has always seemed so close to connecting the last dot but just won't do it. Same with Jordan Peterson. These guys just want to rewind the tape a scene or 2 but willing to go back any further.
Just remember JP is an influencer, not a Theologian.
christian fascism is not possible because they are contradictory concepts
I guess you don’t know much about Christian history & the inquisition then. In the 1980s the Supreme Court had to ban creationism from public school sciences, good. These fundamentalists right now are championing a nuclear war with Iran to bring about the rapture & “second coming”. People are crazy & im not interested in pretending these beliefs are benign.
Jonathan is correct
Catholicism is what the words sanity and truth mean.
Category are, if and only if they have lasting duration. Pluto a planet, is now not. Shift isn't going to suffice for calling trans existence as anathema to typical construction of those typical traditional things. The category belongs in between the useful and user.
Yes, that is correct. James Lindsay is wrong.
11:56
Monster: cannot be categorized .
The “t” movement is all about creating monsters.
Oh James isn't just wrong he's a hack.
Jonathan Pageau vs Ammon Hillman let’s make it happen
Doesn't matter; he's the only one willing to read enough woke literature to truly battle it.
Back him, even if he questions your gnosticism (artist's curse).
How about the truth of how christianity gave people a frame work to hold back the chaos
An interesting thought.
@@creedandculture how could it be anything else my friend
@@ejenkins4711
What chaos? Why is it (allegedly) the only method for doing this?
I think Jonathan doesnt have the confidence to follow his argument to its fullest conclusion. He talks about the Benedict Option and families and communities living on Christian principles, but doesnt seem to think it is either possible or desirable to have whole nations run on those principles. From a Catholic perspective, there is lots of warrant for this. In 1925 Pope Pius XI wrote the encyclical Quas Primas , on the social reign of Christ the King, which summarised the teachings of the Church, that Christ must be the Head. Catholics enthrone the Sacred Heart image in their homes in honour of Christ's headship, and many Catholics long for the restoration of the Sacred Heart as a flag of the nation. Catholic integralists argue that the Two Swords principle of Church and State as mutually interpenetrating , but with ultimate authority residing in the Church, is the best way for a Christian society. And the prophecies of many Catholic mystics point to a future time when a Catholic monarch will rule over a resurrected Christendom.
Thanks. You might enjoy our discussion with Professor Oliver O'Donovan (few episodes before this one).
No the Christian nation is libertarian
“Liberty is where the spirit of the LORD is”
We don’t need a human monarch when we have a living king. Since the Old Testament God warned the people that a human king will be bad and is unnecessary
First they wanted a human king like the pagans had then they wanted human judges
Four comments. Three opinions. I am with the Ghibellines on this; Christendom requires an Emperor with ultimate temporal authority including adjudicating Church councils. The history of the Papacy shows that temporal power destroys theological legitimacy and authority. The history of Protestantism shows that sola scriptura leads to doctrinal anarchy and social dissolution.
The answer rests in the first 1000 years. The Pope must come back to the Church Council, renounce his supremacism and reunite the Apostolic Church. We can then proceed with autocephalous election within Western Europe amongst the nations and the United council will anoint a new Emperor. The nations can then support and or rally to him as they see fit and things will turn around fast.
@@NorthernObserver so a pagan emperor
Expect rampant polygyny and extreme violence
@@NorthernObserver I like this solution. Valentin Tomberg wrote "Europe is haunted by the shadow of the Emperor. One senses his absence just as vividly as in former times one sensed his presence." Tomberg goes on to show that Napoleon and Hitler attempted to take on this mantle, but by trying to rule with the sword they did not succeed. The Emperor rules by use of the sceptre. Symbol of hierarchy, with the cross of Spirit placed over the sphere of the World. Sacred order is only established through submission to the ultimate authority of God.
Out of the many things I might or might not believe in; an enlightenment utopia is last on the list 🤣🤪
100/100
This, as you say, is one of the best reasons to pretend to be religious, to keep continuity with your cultural heritage, lest you fall prey to new Woke religion, or other more robust religions. Woke vs Islam, who wins? But I still cannot believe in the Supernatural. So.. I want continuity.. but without the supernatural.. but how to do it?
Why are you opposed to belief in the supernatural? What's the nature of your objection?
@@creedandculture It is not reasonable t o believe in faith and the supernatural, ie I object to it because there is no evidence.
@@druharper Gotcha. I recommend you have a look at the work of Dr William Lane Craig and Professor Richard Swinburne. The latter is coming on the show next month.
Replacing the divine with something human.
Christ is King
There is something, but I think that some fear on Lindsay side, is, how maybe, in U.S, there are some optics, about, like Mega churches, leader's type, that is even me, from Europe, a strange optic, but yes, we Christian's, can be strange, but a different force, but force of good, but those around are playing with our patience & tolerance, that's the problem, because, i will never abandon our traditions & values, and this people, who arrived here, embrace the wrong way, from communism/marksism to radical islam & don't understand what are they poking around, so there is problem's in horizon, question is, are they sure 🧐
why aren't christian ideals considered not working, haven't they been around for longer and remain pretty prominent?
Pageau likes the Christian ideals. It's the enlightenment ideals he thinks aren't working.
@@creedandculture But if the christian ideals are working, why does anyone think they need to come up with new ones
@@Barfdargle He thinks the Christian ideals have been abandoned for enlightenment ideals.
@@creedandculture yeah, i mean, all the Christians are evidence of that 🤡 🤡