I think if I were a Protestant or a Muslim I might be disturbed by this exchange but it seems to me that traditional Christianity has been thinking along these lines since the very beginning. It's very cool and refreshing that we can bridge the gap of understanding. I'm sick to death of dealing with shitty straw man conceptions I.E. flying spaghetti monsters and sky daddies
@@vngelicath1580 Perhaps non traditional Christianity would have been more clear. There are some Protestant churches out there who will hold the transcendental view of God the John is referencing.
@@Modus07 Thank you for your reply. I suppose ipsum esse can be traced all back to Exodus right? "I am that I am" is the first thread that leads us to this conception of God. I'm glad to learn that there are Islam theologians who hold this idea. My question to you is how do they square what the Quran says of God in regards to him having body parts with the ipsum esse conception? I mentioned Muslims originally because all the popular Muslim figures on the internet seemed to be asserting that God is indeed a being.
@@47StormShadow 1. The Qur'ān doesn't explicitly affirm body parts for God. Body parts are annexed to God's name in the Qur'ān but it is understood from the usage of such Arabic phrases that they don't mean the attribution of body parts to God. For example, Quran 28:88 says, "Everything will perish except His Face." Of course, a literal face is not being intended for that would mean God's other parts will perish yet God is eternal and unchanging. 2. From my studies, I would say the majoritarian conception of God in Islam is that God is a being amongst other beings who is completely different to everything apart from Himself. He has a what-ness, ie an essence, that is completely unique and simple and is other than His existence. However, there's a school within Islam that is normally dabbed as "the philosophers (in Arabic- al-Falāsifah)" represented by the likes of al-Farabi and Ibn Sina who held that God's essence is existence, in other words, the no-thingness Verveake was referring to. I believe there are mystics who had a similar understanding but I'm not certain about this. Most YT Muslim personalities would be highly critical of the Muslim figures I've referred to in this post due to their dogmatic closemindedness.
His proposition of Theism is not the Catholic position neither the Orthodox one. You have a category problem in English that we don't have in the Latin and Greek traditions, the word being in our language has two distinctions the essence of being and the essential act of being have different words for it, then existing is just being somewhere and something. The category problem John gives is maybe one of modern protestants maybe but not a problem in apostolic churches, we all know God in his essence is only known to himself because he is the cause of beings that ex-ist, so he transcends our categories, it's is through the person of Christ (God incarnate) that we get a down to earth personal revelation of that apofatic God, but God in essence is still beyond our creaturly understanding, we can only grasp what he allows us to participate in, the modes and degrees of being in which he lets us "be".
@AprendeMovimiento I’m just starting to learn about these things now, as I’ve become interested in religion via philosophy and history. And I have never really understood what people mean when they talk about God, growing up in secular, protestant Norway. But as I’ve started to read Saint Augustine’s «Confessions», he writes about this quite a bit. And I must say you seem to be correct. As Vervaeke says, the view the Classical christians had on God were very different from that of today. And is quite similar to what John describes when talking about non-theism. But from your answer, it seems like it might just be the protestant christians that have confused this. (Where I come from God is definitely viewed as a person.) All of this is very new and interesting to me, and I’m open to read more of your thoughts on the Subjects, and maybe some suggestions for relevant literature:)
@@armando1829 Well yes, traditional apostolic Christianity (Catholic and Orthodox) view God in all the different dimension, you will see the version of the "non-theist" version of Vervaeke, yet you will also see the personal God, but the 3 divine persons is not the same as human and created persons, the three divine persons are just one being who is by his own act of being, so he causes himself, in this sense God is a "being" but not as the creatures and finite entities are beings, because he causes himself to be ("I am that I am." Exodus 3:14) now that whole notion of graspability, and the type of self awareness Vervaeke usually talks about is caused by this God who is conscious and aware of himself in a threefold manner, he is the one who causes in us to have that self reflective, participatory and personal capacity. To depersonalize the analysis is simply very dangerous, because that "divine" reality is causing personal conscious beings, and we as observers are persons, so depersonalize de divine it's a dangerous move too, that's why we have Christ who is the bridge to that apophatic reality of the divine, he is the bridge to the divine darkness, and also the personal created reality.
@@LARESCIV It's not. An atheist doesn't have to be an anti-theist. Atheism just expresses a lack of belief. It doesn't tell us how or why. Doesn't say anything about your motivations.
@@hiker-uy1bi i said that antitheism is a branch of atheism, read what i wrote, there's other branches too, like atheistic satanism, secular humanism etc
@@hiker-uy1bi atheism has metaphysical implications. when we consider it at the level of worldviews, atheism does indeed make implicit and explicit positive claims. it's sort of like the relationship between the presence or absence. an absence can indeed make another thing more prominent. that other thing is not nothing.
@@hiker-uy1bi Lack of belief in what? Non-theism rejects the premise of the idea of "a God" as having any epistemological potential. The way it's construed precludes the ability of making either of the claims: "I believe it exists", "I believe it doesn't exist".
@@rayleonard1839 It can never give you brute facts, science is probability. Maybe you should stop talking about subjects, that you have so little and knowledge on.
Theists: God is an infinitely powerful entity or being who causes things to happen and imposes his will on the universe, and that God exists. Atheists: God is an infinitely powerful entity or being who causes things to happen and imposes his will on the universe, and I find no evidence for that God anywhere in the universe. Nontheist/classical theist: One side rejects the proposition, the other affirms it, but BOTH have the same conception/definition of God as a being or thing. But that being, not matter how big and powerful, cannot be the Cause of being itself, because it must be dependent on something prior to itself to receive its own being. God, therefore must, by defintion, be no type of thing and must be beyond being itself.
@@Joeonline26 First time I've come across this line of argument. Why is it necessary for a theist to suppose that God must be the cause of all Being (including the cause of 'itself'); surely all that's required is for God to be the cause of the universe? Conversely, why does a nontheist suppose that the hypothetical state of no-thing tells us anything about anything? Surely what it literally tells us is nothing? If the state of no-thing was the state of reality, aren't we entitled to conclude that EITHER God could not exist in such a state OR that the existence of God and the state of reality being no-thing render God and the idea of God as meaningless?
@@Joeonline26 With this logic, we would have stamp-collectors, a-stamp-collectors and non-stamp-collectors? Spiderman, a-spiderman and non-spiderman believers? This seems like a lot of mental masturbation to make one-self feel special. "You believe something? You don't believe that thing? Well I am super duper special category! Hah!"
@@Joeonline26 Sorry, but if you ask me wether I believe in round squares and I say no, than it is just an answer, nothing more. If I answer the god-as-a-being-claim with " I don't believe", I am not saying anything about the claim of God as a no-thing. So to me that's just a straw man to put yourself into a special place... And by the way, God as a no-thing? How could this tell me anything about the world. How could I possibly assess this claim, since I am a being which can only experience beings? That's just some mental masturbation to me...
What about that which the material/being is configured upon? If you think, with drawing, that everything is ink then what is the non-ink upon which the ink is drawn type analogy is what he seems to be describing. If you can define something from another thing is that 'which defines' (such as attention) a thing that a being has or a no-thing process that a being enacts?
@@notmyrealpseudonym6702 Time*motion for all motion, and it's directionality over space = velocity * (c). It's the directionality of motion flow in 3d space (how the knots are tied). The evolutionary trajectory is the reflection gradient (path of least resistance), and where the flow patterns are the most complex (larger amount of flow direction differentials over volume), new dynamics emerge and give rise to variations of being (complex motion equilibrium formation between motion flow patterns).
I love hearing these people come on these shows and telling everybody what atheists believe. Atheism is a non-belief. Stop telling everyone what atheists think. Because you don't know. All of these things that he's talking about here at the beginning about what an atheist believes, I don't! I'm an atheist. I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't have the beliefs he's saying atheists have. It's just a straw man over and over and over and over. Atheism is only not having a belief. That's it. While some atheists may have a belief that there isn't a god, I don't... these internet discussions are so freaking tiring.
sort of. Theists call their presuppositions "god." Empiricists (which is often espoused by atheists) call their presuppositions "objectivity." These two presuppositions are themselves expressions of their shared idea that "humans are to know what is Real." When one makes the conscious effort to avoid such presuppositions, the result is to emphasize language as an "expression of human experience" rather than as a "revealer of Truth" and it often characterized by statements that, at first, appear paradoxical or self-contradictory. Several religious, notably Eastern, traditions have reached this conclusion, as has Western Philosophy now often expressed as "post-modernism" via the "linguistic turn." The most accessible of such philosophy is Pragmatism.
Some people call God the Creator. Others might say He is the God of creation. Still others simply think that the created is god. We all decide which God ( or god) we will live under. Its who or what we ascribe to as being the most worthy of our praise that will determine that.
@@davidgood7621 Ok, but that seems to use the word "god" in such a non-standard way as to become meaningless. I think plenty of people would say humanity is most "worthy of our praise," and yet also not what we wish humanity to be. It doesn't seem particularly useful to insist such people have "humanity" as their "god," except in the rather bland and self-serving way you use the term.
It's up to us to find God. If we don't search for the true God, then Id say invariably we settle for a lesser god, be what it may. Even if it is mediocrity, or perhaps oneself, its who or what we settle on as to be acceptable as the purveyor of truth. Not that what we choose will actually be the truth, but it is what we have found that we think constitutes the truth, and that would only be to the extent of our search to find that truth. And then It's still up to us to remain vigilant about the viability of that truth. This is what confirms our faith in the truth. So if you dont believe in the being of God, then I'd say you dont really believe in the being of truth. If you dont think that truth is a being, well then what is truth? If someone exists then that person says I Am. And if its something that exists we say it is, so consequently, we must either say 'it is the truth' to be the truth or we would have to believe someone saying 'I am the truth' to hold the truth. 4:19
@@davidgood7621 you are free to choose to as you wish, but its unclear why your choice is "greater" while another's is "lesser." How did you determine that? But I agree, I don't "believe in the being of truth," in that what you call "truth" appears no more necessary, or even meaningful, than what you call "god." I don't understand why we bother with either one, except as a mechanism for social control, similar to the way you employ your gibberish deepities. Either you and I agree that we "exist" in some practical sense that we can make use of, or we don't. But either way, the "truth" would seem to have nothing to do with it.
Its in Aquinas.. Yes, God created from outside of creation. It is not only E.Orthodox but also in the Catholic understanding. He’s really thinking about the Ensof in Kabbalah, which seems to ally with Deism.
Can we all just go with "non duality" and be done with all this logical debate? I mean, from quantum physics to mystical and psychedelic experiences, the gist is all converging on a central epiphany: separation is not real. The process of thinking in language creates the illusion of separation. This is because language is the system of naming different visual phenomenon which we could call "naming forms." Learning language is not a natural process. It's artificial and imposed on the mind when we were children. We are taught as children that different forms have different names and that "we" are a form as well (the body). It's actually NOT natural at all. The process of learning language creates a false belief that there are separate things which are called, 'tree' or 'person' or 'you' or 'me' -- strip away the illusion of language and non-separation (non-duality) is realized.
“Classical theism of the early church looks a lot like the non-theism.” It is the modern take on theology and philosophy which is perhaps problematic for Vervaeke.
I don't understand how John imagines that God is a being from the point of view of the Christian faith when it is exactly the opposite. It's like he's rejecting a Theistic model that he imagines some believers in God possess when actually the majority don't. Surely he knows that that God is not a being from the Christian point of view? Classical or non-classical. He practically admits it at the end but places Jonathan in a category which he claims is not the norm when to Christians (Catholic and Orthodox Christians at least) it is the norm. Weird. Perhaps he's been led by the way the subject is normally approached i.e. Does God exist? However, any real Christian should answer 'No', but He can enter existence.'
He knows that. He even mentioned how classical Christianity was like that. Jonathan Pageau is not the norm, even among orthodox christians. you're not going to find many saying God is "no-thing-ness", "non-being" or "beyond being". At least, that's been my experience. Vervaeke told Jonathan that he "thinks like a ancient church father", and how that is so utterly radical and people don't realize it.
@@drooskie9525 There's a clip from Lex Freidman's interview with Bishop Barron entitled 'Who is God' - this is basic Catholic and Orthodox teaching. God is transcendent. When one says either no-thing-ness, non-being, beyond being etc these relate to what we perceive as being and God is not being as we know it but we do analogise. You cannot compare God's being with anything else as that would be a category error, His 'being' is not being in a way that is comprehensible other than by analogy. So He doesn't 'exist' but He is.
Ok, but this "theistic model" of a "non-being that is" just seems like an ad-hoc sidestep to explain the curious lack of evidence for this "god." So even if what you are saying makes sense, which is debatable, its unclear how you managed to determine it; Its unclear how I am supposed to tell the difference between what you call "transcendent" and what someone else calls "imagination."
@@ericb9804 The evidence is the fact that there has to be something to account for existence. It necessarily has to be beyond it. This world, on its own, is "not enough" and people intuitively know that. Atheism is a modern thing (at least in the form we are familiar with). Most other cultures understood this. The main problem is that, when they did acknowledge this, they also admitted that God is more or less unknowable and seemed distant and unresponsive. Which probably is accurate and thus many just worshiped created spirits (the pagan gods) but Christ changed everything by bridging that gap. Remember, we aren't talking about some being in existence, but beyond it. Because He is beyond all categories, you can't "measure" him. He quite literally doesn't exist, but not the way we typically think that means (and especially not the way atheists think they mean).
I’m glad he mentioned modern common theism is what he rejects when he rejected God as a supreme being, and he mentioned the classical understanding but unfortunately didn’t explain how he agrees with classical theism.. which is odd for how he describes himself. He’s a non-god is a being among many being - ist. Well… so am I, and I’m a Catholic. God is the sheer act of ~to be~ itself. From Exodus chapter 3: “Moses said to God: Lo, I shall go to the children of Israel, and say to them: The God of your fathers hath sent me to you. If they should say to me: What is his name? what shall I say to them? God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.
Just so you know what you are referring to is COMMON knowledge in Catholicism and the Orthodox Church and im sure many others..... what John is referring to here is NOT novel or fringe on any level. I cannot even relate to him making it seem so without identifying the form of Christianity he is referring to.
@@bankiey what John says isn't true though because he pretends this isn't common knowledge within Catholicism and the Orthodox Church and that's what I'm disputing.
Osho spoke of this in many occasions. Atheism and theist is all a belief. Do not give your power or attention to a belief. Just experience immediate experience.
The most boring argument would be that atheism is a belief - it is the opposite. It is the lack of belief in a God or Gods, as the evidence is weak, non-existing or at least not convincing.
“What then is found set in play in a negation or an affirmation of God? Not God as such, but the compatibility or incompatibility of an idol called ‘God’ with the totality of a conceptual system where the being in its being marks the age . . . Theism or atheism bear equally on an idol. They remain enemies, but brother enemies in a common and insurpassable idolatry.” - Jean-Luc Marion
Brilliant. The "right" set of "beliefs" is rife with untruth. And, "being is the ability to be" is so deep. I wish Lex would ask more questions to get underneath that. It's facinating how the most brilliant psychologists seem to embrace and merge with mystisicm etc., vs taking the dogmatic scientific POV.
"“The scientific approach to existence and the religious approach have been in the past separate and unbridgeable. The reason was the insistence of old religions on superstitions, belief systems, denial of inquiry and doubt. In fact, there is nothing unbridgeable between science and religion, and there is no separation either. But religion insisted on belief - science cannot accept that. “Belief is covering up your ignorance. It never reveals to you the truth; it only gives you certain dogmas, creeds, and you can create an illusion of knowledge through them. But that knowledge is nothing but a delusion. Anything based on belief is bogus . “Because religions insisted continuously on belief, and the basic method of science is doubt, the separation happened. And it became unbridgeable. It is unbridgeable if religion does not arise and face the challenge of doubt. “The whole responsibility of the religions has been to keep these two as two. “In my vision, there is only science, with two dimensions. One dimension approaches the outside reality, the other dimension approaches the interior reality. One is objective, the other is subjective. Their methods are not different, their conclusions are not different. Both start from doubt. “Doubt has been condemned so much that you have forgotten the beauty of it, you have forgotten the richness of it. The child is born not with any belief, but he is born with a very curious, doubting, skeptical consciousness. Doubt is natural, belief is unnatural. “Belief is imposed by the parents, society, the educational systems, religions. All these people are in the service of ignorance, and they have served ignorance for thousands of years. They have kept humanity in darkness, and there was a reason for it: if humanity is in darkness, knows nothing of reality, then it can be exploited easily, enslaved easily, deceived easily, kept poor, dependent. All these things were involved. “The old religions were not concerned with truth. They talked about it, but their concern was how to keep people away from truth. And up to now they have succeeded. But now those religions are all on their deathbed and the sooner they die the better. “Why do you need a belief in the first place? You don’t believe in a rose flower. Nobody asks you, “Do you believe in a rose flower?” You will simply laugh, you will say, “The question of belief does not arise; I know the rose flower.” Knowledge needs no belief. “But the blind man believes in light, has to; he has no eyes. You will be surprised that the blind man not only believes in light, he also believes in darkness. Ordinarily, people think that a blind man must be living in darkness. That is not true, because to see darkness you need eyes. Without eyes you can neither see light nor can you see darkness. Darkness and light are not two things, but two poles of one reality. “You can define darkness as less light, you can define light as less darkness; the difference is of degree. Our eyes have a certain capacity - very limited. All our senses are very limited. Below that limit you cannot see, above that limit you cannot see. For example, right now thousands of radio waves are passing, but you cannot hear them. You have to use a radio; a mechanism which is more sensitive than your ear can catch those sounds which you cannot catch. The same is true about all the senses. “The blind man is forced to believe in light, is forced to believe in darkness. And his belief keeps him blind. If he was not given the belief, and if he was told that he is blind and needs his eyes to be cured, that he does not need a philosophy, he needs a physician - perhaps he would be able to see. And the moment he sees light, the question of belief does not arise: he knows it. Any belief indicates your ignorance, your blindness, but gives you a false sense - as if you know."
"Nontheism" is simply another term for atheism. They are identical. They interviewee does not understand atheism and is misrepresenting a term they do not understand. An atheist is any person who is not a theist. IT is a complementary position to theism.
Modern debates between theists and atheists are frustratingly superficial and seem targeted at the uncultured masses, as both sides frequently miss the deeper nuances of religious thought. There are essentially two kinds of religion: one for the masses, who interpret religious texts literally to guide their daily lives, and another for serious theologians and philosophers, who approach these texts metaphorically, seeking deeper philosophical truths. For the majority of adherents, religion serves as a practical framework for living. These believers interpret sacred texts literally, finding clear directives for moral conduct, community organization, and personal identity. This approach is not necessarily simplistic but rather a pragmatic way to integrate religious teachings into everyday life, offering comfort, community, and a sense of purpose without the need for extensive contemplation. On the other hand, serious theologians and philosophers approach religion with a different mindset. They often do not subscribe to the idea of an anthropomorphic or personal god. Instead, they interpret religious texts metaphorically, viewing them as rich sources of symbolic meaning and profound philosophical insights. For these thinkers, religious narratives are not to be taken at face value but are seen as allegories that convey timeless truths about existence, ethics, and the human condition. In contemporary debates, both theists and atheists frequently overlook this distinction. Atheists often critique religion by attacking the literal interpretations held by the masses, without engaging with the more sophisticated, metaphorical interpretations that theologians and philosophers offer. This can lead to strawman arguments that do not address the more profound aspects of religious thought. Similarly, theists defending their faith sometimes fail to acknowledge the symbolic nature of their traditions and inadvertently reinforce the literalist perspective, further entrenching the divide. This can make religious discourse seem rigid and dogmatic, rather than dynamic and introspective.
Ok, but within the context of these "modern debates," it seems that interpreting "religious texts metaphorically, viewing them as rich sources of symbolic meaning and profound philosophical insights," as you say "serious theologians" do, just amounts to "atheism" for all practical purposes. Its unclear how what you call "serious religious thought" is different from "literary criticism," which is exactly the atheist's point. This seems obvious enough - so obvious in fact that to " fail to acknowledge the symbolic nature of their traditions" hardly seems "inadvertent" to the extent it "reinforces the literalist perspective" of the "majority of adherents." Although I think I am sympathetic to, what I think, is your point - that in order to gleam whatever value there is in historical religious traditions, we must first realize those traditions are not "literal," which, I think, is also Vervauke's point. However, I do think the "majority of religious adherents" bare the brunt of the blame for our collective inability to grasp it.
@@ericb9804 My issue with modern atheists is that they often generalize and reduce religion to its orthodox, literal interpretations, ignoring the profound aspects of philosophical religious traditions. Unlike Nietzsche, whom I truly respect for his deep understanding of religion, modern atheists tend to focus on debunking the literal myths in holy books-a task any angry teenager could undertake. Nietzsche critiqued Christianity by deconstructing its core values and understood the deep meaning of religion and the consequences of the "death of God." He recognized that our values are fundamentally rooted in religious traditions and sought solutions to the void left by religion's decline. In contrast, modern atheists mistakenly believe that values can be solely based on science, failing to acknowledge that, in a post-religion world, the intellectually lazy masses may find themselves adrift in a meaningless existence. Religion has its negative aspects, but these are more about human nature than the essence of religion itself. Any ideology, including science, can be misused. Just look at the grifters and scammers online who claim their products or ideas are backed by science. Most people don’t have the time to delve deeply into religious or scientific texts, and some will inevitably exploit these beliefs for their benefit.
@@mouradmhm3244 Fair enough, but, as you said, plenty of people think that "religion" is literally about a magic man who lives in the sky. Like...literally. Revealing the absurdity of that may be a low bar, but its still one that needs to be met. It would seem that before we can move on the more meaningful conversation about religion that you want to have, we may first need to spend some time with the "intellectually lazy masses" because its precisely those masses who say things like "modern atheists mistakenly believe that values can be solely based on science."
You paint WAY too broad a brush here. Some of the greatest theologian/philosopher/saints and a vast majority of Christians today take much of scripture literally (when its appropriate to the genre of he book) while enjoying metaphorical interpretations and using the scriptures to actually get closer to God. No educated christian must choose between these complimentary approaches.
@@ericb9804 Most people are prone to magical thinking; even if we eliminate religion, they will create new superstitions. Many who don't believe in traditional religions have already begun to embrace pseudoscientific superstitions. This tendency is, unfortunately, a fact of the human condition. I previously referred to them as intellectually lazy, but that may not be the right term. Many people simply don't have the time or luxury for deep critical thinking as they are preoccupied with survival. Modern atheists often overlook crucial questions: Can humans bear the absence of God or meaning? Can we truly create meaning without God? Or should we reform religion to be compatible with science? Essentially, can we organize our societies in the face of nihilism? These are profound questions without objective answers, but they are vital to consider in our ongoing discourse about faith and reason.
I've often viewed the creation force as the "eternal structure of existence" and is more aptly understood as an environmental force rather than a personified and anthropomorphized single being. I also view existence as a fractal proliferation of consciousness operating across taxonomies where smaller order roll up to larger orders..i.e.. self-organizing holarchic open systems (SOHO). The CTMU (Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe) is also an interesting and VERY DIFFICULT read on the subject of reality.
There must be a God, because I am in the middle of having a discussion with a Catholic, explaining him why Aquinas's "God is being itself" or "God is pure act" cannot be a claim about an ontological entity. Because Dasein has no Dasein itself. And now this video comes along, making the exact same point. But I just can't share the video, because it seems as though the claim is made, that meaning has Dasein.
@@McRingil If I drew from Heidegger, it would be coincidence. I'm German, so the term has meaning for me, without Heidegger explaining it to me. Dasein is not an ontological entity. It's a property of ontological entities. Dasein is what ontology itself is. But as a property it's contingent upon entities that have it.
Imagine that at the very heart of reality, there is a mysterious, infinite source called the "Zero Absolute." This is like the ultimate origin point from which everything else emerges. It's like the idea of God or the divine in many spiritual traditions. Now, from this Zero Absolute, the very first spark of creation happens. It's like the Zero divides itself into two parts - the "subject" (the observer) and the "object" (the observed). This is the birth of perspective and relation. These primordial "subjects" are like tiny, irreducible points of pure awareness or experience. We can call them "monads." They are the fundamental building blocks of consciousness. As these monads interact and combine with each other based on certain mathematical rules, they give rise to the physical world we observe. It's like the monads are playing a cosmic game of Lego, building up the universe piece by piece. The key idea is that everything we see in the physical world - from particles to planets to people - is ultimately made up of these monadic building blocks of consciousness. The material world is like a grand projection arising from the interplay of these mental units. Another crucial point is that, in this view, the universe is not just a single, fixed entity. Instead, it's an infinite plurality of possible worlds or perspectives, all existing simultaneously. Every monad has its own unique viewpoint on reality. So in this model, there is no absolute separation between the mental and physical realms, or between subject and object. Everything is intimately interconnected and interdependent. The unified cosmic consciousness is just the totality of all these perspectives harmonized together. By understanding reality in this way, as built up from irreducible, relational building blocks of experience, many of the deepest paradoxes and contradictions in science and philosophy may be resolved. It provides a fresh way to unite mind and matter, reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity, and bridge science with spirituality. Of course, this is a highly simplified overview of an extremely complex and abstract framework. But hopefully it gives a taste of the core ideas - the Universe as a living cosmos of consciousness, woven from the interplay of infinitesimal minds. It's a paradigm that sees existence as a unified, participatory process - a grand symphony in which we are all players, all perspectives harmonized in the great dance of creation.
Atheïsts are caught by the believe in coincedence. Theists are caught in the god-devil duality, while on the other hand they say god is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent, which is true, but it contradicts with their believe in the devil. And this is the thing, whatever you believe becomes your reality. A great eye opener if you know how and why, and a major pitfall when you dont.
Yeah, I think this guy is kind of out of the picture. He seems to be two steps behind Jonathan’s beliefs. You’ve got Being itself, now you’ve got to add some characteristics to It. If you get stuck on Being not being a being, you can’t advance in your thought.
@@crushinnihilism It's basic Word-Saladism. Theism is "Belief in X". Atheism is not being convinced of that same claim. It's logically either one or the other, not both and not neither.
No. Atheism is just the position im not convinced of any particular deity. It is a single stance on a single issue. Thats it. This is a quack take. A buddhist is an atheist.
So if will say Lex go! Visit our OWN! Lex will say Who are you? Lord thy shared "i" AM, came with sincere conversations, and thy shared Feet resting upon the OLIVE...
(^^; This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.
I think the point is : Theists think there is a deity (a being) from whom we get ultimately the fact of reality/morality. Atheists think that no deity can do this , they think instead that reality/morality doesn't require any 'grounding'. Neither of these feels quite satisfactory explanations. Why not? Imagine you ask a theist and an atheist if child murder wrong? , both will most likely agree, and so you ask why is it wrong? For the theist faith in God as creator of everything including reality and morality (not killing children) makes morality like reality part of His creation and as such a fact and most importantly - not just what people think, but the Truth. For the atheist, on the other hand, the problem doesn't arise because for them morality is simply what most everyone agrees and what most everyone abides by. The Non-theists contend that theists are right there is a problem to solve, that the fact of reality /morality is a problems that requires an explanation, it isn't that just everyone happens to agree that murdering children is wrong (so atheist are wrong). BUT assuming 'a thing' (a deity) will have the property of making reality real, or morality objective is mistaken (so atheists are wrong). So for Non-theists there is NO thing that can make reality real or morality a fact or creates the sacred. Because fundamentally things (like people, chairs, or even Gods) can't 'make' reality . Not sure what how this differs from the mystical kind of agnosticism?
Sort of. But, for the atheist, its more like, "It doesn't matter if child murder is wrong. All that matters is if you or I want to murder children." If we agree that we don't, then we can move on. If we agree that we do, then we can move on. But if one of us wants to and the other doesn't, then they have a practical problem to solve. This is all we need to say about "morality," and perseverating about what is "right" or 'wrong" doesn't serve any purpose.
@@nevilleattkins586 Ok, but why do I need a "ground" to object to the dictatorship of the majority? Can't I object to the dictatorship of the majority the same way I object to murdering children, i.e. without a "ground?" Moreover, why do you think that objecting to the dictatorship of the majority is something I am obligated to do?
Literally has not read the great 20th century Roman Catholic theologians: ‘Ancient Theism.’ Ratzinger, Wotyla, von Balthazar, de Lubac, et al: ‘Hold my beer.’
The problem with John is that he has read all of that or at least he is aware of it, but you need not look that recently either. There's just a continuous history of the same concepts being taught in Catholicism and the Orthodox Church. I'm not sure how it got otherwise in his thinking and speech here because it's just blatantly false.
watching Vervaeke explaining this concept is super cringe! Clearly he still has no clue what Jordan Peterson or Bishop Barron refer to when they mention "God". I really hope he watches this video to educate himself before he opens his mouth on these topics because it's just embarrassing - th-cam.com/video/1zMf_8hkCdc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=njKTV10vBaRy3RTO
Yes, exactly. And lack of religion is to realize that no distinction between subjective and objective needs to be made in the first place, which is why a "bridge" to connect them is superfluous.
He is entitled to his opinion. But I would say it almost 100% certain that God exists. Things like the contingency, cosmological, first cause arguments, essentiallly prove their is some sort of self existent entity. Aquinas pointed out the problems with infinite regresses and other things. Most people like in all things have a preference for what they want to be true. Many people avoid God at all costs, we dont want God to exist.
Next time you talk to him please press him on the difference between nothingness and non-thingness. Because he never actually explains this and on it's face it sounds completely absurd.
A glass is not a being. It is a thing. A being is eternal, hence the "ing" at the end of the word. An animal is a creature, not a being. Only spirits are beings. A human is a being because a human consists of a spirit in a body. Angels are beings because they are spirits. God is a being because He is a spirit.
Djeez.... What a word salad. Theism: I believe that at least 1 supernatural being exists. Atheism: I don't believe that claim. Voila. 11 minutes of your life back that you can use to do something more productive, like watch cat videos.
Read enlightenment philosophers like Kant , Hegel, Nietche, and Heidegger. And tell me those people are just idiots because they don’t explain things at a 5 year old level.
I'm not sure I can relate to anything John is saying here and think he's being sloppy. He goes on and on about how modern theism is wrong and I wait with bated breath for him to tell us what's wrong with it. But when he does he presents a straw man that no Catholic or Orthodox Christian on the planet believes... And when he tries to return us to the ancient view of God in Christian tradition, he presents us with a view that every single Catholic and Orthodox Christian on the planet was taught in basic catechism class.... I suspect the problem John has with Christianity is not actually theological unless he's talking about Protestant groups who've abandoned the church fathers, in which case he should make that clear. I think John's real problem is experiential. It bothers him that people primarily relate to God personally.... and that doesn't match his own personal experience. And that is what leads him to be unable to steel man that theistic position and it leads him to be uncharitable in his interpretation of the average person's experience with God just because they don't know philosophical words to describe it... The real problem with John at the bottom is that he just hasn't had a deeply personal connection with the ground of being or Christ or the Trinity.. And I'm sympathetic to that because it took me many years to have a profound personal connection with God. And frankly, if he doesn't want to have one, he shouldn't be pressured to, but he should at least be charitable in his interpretations and discussions of Christian theology and make sure that the average person watching his talks does not conflate his interpretation of modern theism with what's actually being taught to most Christians on the planet. I really think there are no educated Catholics or Orthodox Christians who've read really anything at all, including basic theology books who don't hold the deeper interpretations and I think that's worthy of note. But that's all philosophical in the end because when you get down to experiencing God, the approach Christianity teaches, because Jesus taught it, is to enter into that experience through a personal relationship that grows over time. So even though God transcends all categories the way Jesus taught to get intimate with that reality is through personal connection. In fact Jesus insists on this personal accessible dimension to God. He makes a little better point when he talks about right belief being held by some Christians as the way to be in right relationship with God. But unless he goes further and talks about relationship itself, he really misses the heart of Christianity completely. And I would argue that right theology, which is something he is similarly arguing for in his own way is not just prescriptive but it's more descriptive. A Christian knows that Christian theology is true because they enter into relationship with Christ and it transforms them in a very specific way through very specific means and those means can be very difficult to identify along the way. If a Christian has come sufficiently far on the path and then begins to read theology, they will find to their astonishment that it describes perfectly what is already happening in their lives as they enter relationship... So theology is primarily descriptive and not only prescriptive. And in fact that gets to the heart of how theology came about, which is that it is a description of our mystical experience with Christ and with the trinity.
Ok, heres the "problem" with modern theism - it makes claims that are non-demonstrable and then uses those claims as justification for overt social manipulation. No one cares about your "relationship" with your "god," but when you start to insist that I can't buy beer on Sunday because of what god wants, then we have a practical problem.
Evidence provides knowledge of something. If one sees no evidence of God, one has no knowledge of God. In Greek, the word Agnostic means A = Without, Gnosis = Knowledge, therefore one who has no knowledge of God is an Agnostic. In Greek, the word Atheist means A = Without, Theos = God. If one is without God, one goes a step further than no knowledge of God by placing his faith in the belief that there is No God. Hence, Atheism is a Religion with its own set of presuppositions, with evangelical adherents of Atheism as evidenced in the likes of Richard Dawkins, Matt Dillahunty, and Aaron Ra who have committed their lives in attempting to destroy other people's Faith. They do not live humbly in the realm of simply not knowing if a God exists (Agnosticism). They actively promote the destruction of people's faith. A true Agnostic understands he has no knowledge of God, but can still leave open the possibility that there is a God, an intelligent creator of existence and arbiter of morals, the right way of living and facing one's death. Be blessed on your journey.
After listening to this video and trying to be as charitable as possible, my disagreement with Mr. Vervaeke is that he seems to be using the philosophical definition of Atheism and not how Atheism is currently being used. Atheism is not the positive belief that no Gods exist. Atheism is the answer to one specific question: do you believe the claim that a God or Gods exist? If the answer is yes, then you are a Theist. If the answer is no, then you are an Atheist. I am an Atheist because so far no one has presented a God or Gods claim that meets its burden of proof. I have considered each claim based on its own merit, not because I already think "sacredness is to be understood as a personal being, that in some sense is the supreme being" as Mr. Vervaeke stated.
But you missed his followup sentence, specifically "and that the right relationship is to have the right set of beliefs". You've already shown your beliefs by your comment about "burdens of proof" etc. This is a belief. It's too much to get into but the fact that you beleive in anything demonstrates your conditioning and the "sacredness" to which you hold your personal being. Sounds like a word salad but again, it's too much to get into on a youtube post. Either you understand the truth, and seek it, or you do not. I think Nikola Tesla put it best with "The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence."
There is a small minority of people who do take Atheism to mean positive belief that there is no God. Vervaeke most likely discusses these ideas with people who are trying to argue their own point of view. Under your second definition of Atheism it is difficult to have a means for debate so I think he is speaking to his experience of what a philosophical arguing Atheist might be.
Some people call this “Lack-theism” .. that you don’t positively assert that there is no god but rather you simply lack belief in a god… to me this position is better encapsulated by agnosticism. Atheism is generally, belief there is no god which does bear burden of proof.
@@crushinnihilismI don't know how lack of belief can be practically distinguished from not knowing. We sometimes know things we have to believe in but we don't. Like knowing it's good to eat less sugar yet we don't do it. Just because one expresses belief or non-belief in something it doesn't follow that knowledge and belief can practically be separated. Sure, in theory we can make a distinction but often they intermingle in our lives. People who say they know God exists will often become atheists when crossing the road. Behavior has to be accounted for otherwise we're just analyzing things without considering real life implications.
Theist - I believe and assert a God exists, Atheist - I do not accept that assertion Anti-Theist - I assert that no god exists, but I can not prove it Skeptic - I do not believe that assertion either...
I realize this is just a clip so maybe I’ve missed something but he’s not making any sense to me. I never got past his first premise because it made no sense.
Yeah but John. You have no account for telos In your system. Platonism is a broken worldview. It’s a causal emanationist system. There’s no explanation for oughts. Oughts are non-sensical. The Neoplatonic encouragement for henosis is completely nonsensical within the system since they cannot account for ‘why’ one ‘ought’ to unify with the good. I’ve argued with platonist about this before and all their answers have been unsatisfying. They’ve said ‘well telos is a universal’ which is a complete contradiction with an unconscious causal first principle and therefor illogical. They’ve also said ‘telos is the way we perceive metaphysical laws ‘guidance’ of the physical world’. Notice the use of the word guidance. Again ascribing agency to the first principle. Whereas in a theistic claim telos is easily accounted for. You say creation is the willful act of a conscious first agent. Voila. The purposiveness that shines through everything is a reflection of the purposeful act sustaining all things. Problem solved. Much more logically I might add then any platonist or pseudo gnostic retroactive patch job solutions for obviously logical loopholes in the system ‘a demiurgic sub force is also an obviously ugly ‘solution’ to problems within platonic systems. It’s also once again a complete contradiction with an unconscious causal first principle.’ Also without going into it fully here- the idea of a temporal and local reality emanating from an eternal non-local source is a complete contradiction if that source is just a causal process. A timeless River will flow timelessly eternally, changing into another completely separate and closed temporal system is a complete change of state and implies intervention rather than flow. While I appreciate you And your curiosity John I must admit alot of your stuff smacks of pride.
Mainly the platonic dialogues themselves as well as the enneads and commentary’s by other platonic philosophical Hera like porphyry and proclus. All the translations are very readable. Then basically the interplay between Neoplatonic criticisms of the Gnostics and theism and the counter claims//apologetics by theists. I started very much in the platonist camp but, apart from the obvious holes in the system, it is definitely a vanity trap which is probably why I react negatively to some of the verveke stuff. Like even in this “based on experiences and my own experimentation”. He’s making himself his own standard. It’s prideful and illogical. But anyway yeah. I’d say if you want a well rounded view just read the platonists themselves as well as patristic texts. Straight from the horses mouth ya know?
All the intellectual atheists essentially that's what this guy seems to be there's your Sam Harris, and etc. etc. Dawkins.. All of them claim to know so much about scripture, but if they try to talk about scripture, they know like one verse maybe not even the full context and nor did they know historicity, and the culture and things if it's applicable to the poignancy of the many layers of the /wisdom truth within... But not only that that the truth was very specific not only for the time for the time to come say 50 or 100 years and still applicable and prophetic throughout future years even in current times. but setting that incredible coincidence of prophecy that's evident all over the Bible and thousands of verses, from then, until now: that aside these atheists who argue by their own logic, that God can't exist, or if God does exist at all, why do innocent people, die, etc.... only proves that they don't have any kind of spiritual wisdom. They don't actually understand the Bible they argue as if they do understand the Bible Sam Harris is a perfect example, or they deflect where they're mocking gaslight. And the humble equally, if not smarter men who doubted the existence of Jesus, when you see them, say that they've been touched by Jesus and they'll never be the same and they're breaking down in tears there's no lying there there's nothing to hide behind yet here's this incredibly successful, smart Man. Or brilliant woman who's had this experience that they're sharing for their courage as a Christian as their duty because of what Jesus did for them, but anyways go on to your regular programming😅
f(^_^) The universe was created in 1976. It is too hot to make a universe at the time of the big bang. It can be created at anytime. God is slow and easy. A human can do a lot with their lifespan. I got the hunk. God got the chunk. Everyone else can have the rest. That is song spirit of '76 by The Alarm.
The closest thing to a thing that we know that it inside everything, is the Trinity of the neuron electron and proton. Of those three the electron is exactly identical everywhere all at once That is the thing that you might could call a sort of a god but it is still part of a Trinity
Many atheists (and even antithesists) will have there own sense of the numinous or transcendent... The terms seem too rigidly defined. But if I haven't been convinced that a god or gods exists, I'm an atheist until such a time as that changes. Show me the ambrosia baby and I'm all of a sudden a theist. For normal human relations all that matters is what actions you take a consequence of the contents of your belief or lack thereof.
I think if I were a Protestant or a Muslim I might be disturbed by this exchange but it seems to me that traditional Christianity has been thinking along these lines since the very beginning. It's very cool and refreshing that we can bridge the gap of understanding. I'm sick to death of dealing with shitty straw man conceptions I.E. flying spaghetti monsters and sky daddies
What do you mean by Protestant? Vervaeke is deeply influenced by Paul Tillich.
@@vngelicath1580 Perhaps non traditional Christianity would have been more clear. There are some Protestant churches out there who will hold the transcendental view of God the John is referencing.
@@Modus07 Thank you for your reply. I suppose ipsum esse can be traced all back to Exodus right? "I am that I am" is the first thread that leads us to this conception of God.
I'm glad to learn that there are Islam theologians who hold this idea.
My question to you is how do they square what the Quran says of God in regards to him having body parts with the ipsum esse conception?
I mentioned Muslims originally because all the popular Muslim figures on the internet seemed to be asserting that God is indeed a being.
@@47StormShadow 1. The Qur'ān doesn't explicitly affirm body parts for God. Body parts are annexed to God's name in the Qur'ān but it is understood from the usage of such Arabic phrases that they don't mean the attribution of body parts to God. For example, Quran 28:88 says, "Everything will perish except His Face." Of course, a literal face is not being intended for that would mean God's other parts will perish yet God is eternal and unchanging.
2. From my studies, I would say the majoritarian conception of God in Islam is that God is a being amongst other beings who is completely different to everything apart from Himself. He has a what-ness, ie an essence, that is completely unique and simple and is other than His existence. However, there's a school within Islam that is normally dabbed as "the philosophers (in Arabic- al-Falāsifah)" represented by the likes of al-Farabi and Ibn Sina who held that God's essence is existence, in other words, the no-thingness Verveake was referring to. I believe there are mystics who had a similar understanding but I'm not certain about this. Most YT Muslim personalities would be highly critical of the Muslim figures I've referred to in this post due to their dogmatic closemindedness.
His proposition of Theism is not the Catholic position neither the Orthodox one. You have a category problem in English that we don't have in the Latin and Greek traditions, the word being in our language has two distinctions the essence of being and the essential act of being have different words for it, then existing is just being somewhere and something. The category problem John gives is maybe one of modern protestants maybe but not a problem in apostolic churches, we all know God in his essence is only known to himself because he is the cause of beings that ex-ist, so he transcends our categories, it's is through the person of Christ (God incarnate) that we get a down to earth personal revelation of that apofatic God, but God in essence is still beyond our creaturly understanding, we can only grasp what he allows us to participate in, the modes and degrees of being in which he lets us "be".
Bingo
No true Scotsman
Did you actually say that
@AprendeMovimiento
I’m just starting to learn about these things now, as I’ve become interested in religion via philosophy and history. And I have never really understood what people mean when they talk about God, growing up in secular, protestant Norway.
But as I’ve started to read Saint Augustine’s «Confessions», he writes about this quite a bit. And I must say you seem to be correct.
As Vervaeke says, the view the Classical christians had on God were very different from that of today. And is quite similar to what John describes when talking about non-theism. But from your answer, it seems like it might just be the protestant christians that have confused this. (Where I come from God is definitely viewed as a person.)
All of this is very new and interesting to me, and I’m open to read more of your thoughts on the Subjects, and maybe some suggestions for relevant literature:)
@@armando1829 Well yes, traditional apostolic Christianity (Catholic and Orthodox) view God in all the different dimension, you will see the version of the "non-theist" version of Vervaeke, yet you will also see the personal God, but the 3 divine persons is not the same as human and created persons, the three divine persons are just one being who is by his own act of being, so he causes himself, in this sense God is a "being" but not as the creatures and finite entities are beings, because he causes himself to be ("I am that I am." Exodus 3:14) now that whole notion of graspability, and the type of self awareness Vervaeke usually talks about is caused by this God who is conscious and aware of himself in a threefold manner, he is the one who causes in us to have that self reflective, participatory and personal capacity. To depersonalize the analysis is simply very dangerous, because that "divine" reality is causing personal conscious beings, and we as observers are persons, so depersonalize de divine it's a dangerous move too, that's why we have Christ who is the bridge to that apophatic reality of the divine, he is the bridge to the divine darkness, and also the personal created reality.
Atheism is not a truth claim.
it is in it's branches, like anti-theism most infamously
@@LARESCIV It's not. An atheist doesn't have to be an anti-theist. Atheism just expresses a lack of belief. It doesn't tell us how or why. Doesn't say anything about your motivations.
@@hiker-uy1bi i said that antitheism is a branch of atheism, read what i wrote, there's other branches too, like atheistic satanism, secular humanism etc
@@hiker-uy1bi atheism has metaphysical implications. when we consider it at the level of worldviews, atheism does indeed make implicit and explicit positive claims.
it's sort of like the relationship between the presence or absence. an absence can indeed make another thing more prominent. that other thing is not nothing.
@@hiker-uy1bi Lack of belief in what? Non-theism rejects the premise of the idea of "a God" as having any epistemological potential. The way it's construed precludes the ability of making either of the claims: "I believe it exists", "I believe it doesn't exist".
Teaching, learning, and sharing do not need to be sporting events.
I'm an atheist, and tbh, science has a better understanding of what life is already
Typic scientism. It doesn't actually have a better explanation.
@@kornelszecsi6512 where's your proof? Many things can be replicated through many different types of science
@@kornelszecsi6512 maybe you should stop talking when you don't understand a subject
@@rayleonard1839 It can never give you brute facts, science is probability. Maybe you should stop talking about subjects, that you have so little and knowledge on.
You're trolling right?
To quote XKCD comics, "Congratulations, now you found a way to feel superior to both"
I don't get it... Atheism is the rejection of a claim. By his logic, every time I give an answer to a proposal I share the same presuppositions...
Yes the argument definitely needs fleshing out a bit more.
Theists: God is an infinitely powerful entity or being who causes things to happen and imposes his will on the universe, and that God exists.
Atheists: God is an infinitely powerful entity or being who causes things to happen and imposes his will on the universe, and I find no evidence for that God anywhere in the universe.
Nontheist/classical theist: One side rejects the proposition, the other affirms it, but BOTH have the same conception/definition of God as a being or thing. But that being, not matter how big and powerful, cannot be the Cause of being itself, because it must be dependent on something prior to itself to receive its own being. God, therefore must, by defintion, be no type of thing and must be beyond being itself.
@@Joeonline26 First time I've come across this line of argument. Why is it necessary for a theist to suppose that God must be the cause of all Being (including the cause of 'itself'); surely all that's required is for God to be the cause of the universe? Conversely, why does a nontheist suppose that the hypothetical state of no-thing tells us anything about anything? Surely what it literally tells us is nothing? If the state of no-thing was the state of reality, aren't we entitled to conclude that EITHER God could not exist in such a state OR that the existence of God and the state of reality being no-thing render God and the idea of God as meaningless?
@@Joeonline26 With this logic, we would have stamp-collectors, a-stamp-collectors and non-stamp-collectors?
Spiderman, a-spiderman and non-spiderman believers?
This seems like a lot of mental masturbation to make one-self feel special.
"You believe something? You don't believe that thing? Well I am super duper special category! Hah!"
@@Joeonline26 Sorry, but if you ask me wether I believe in round squares and I say no, than it is just an answer, nothing more. If I answer the god-as-a-being-claim with " I don't believe", I am not saying anything about the claim of God as a no-thing. So to me that's just a straw man to put yourself into a special place...
And by the way, God as a no-thing? How could this tell me anything about the world. How could I possibly assess this claim, since I am a being which can only experience beings? That's just some mental masturbation to me...
I don't think that code runs. No being = No being. It can't be in the world and not have being (that doesn't make sense).
What about that which the material/being is configured upon? If you think, with drawing, that everything is ink then what is the non-ink upon which the ink is drawn type analogy is what he seems to be describing. If you can define something from another thing is that 'which defines' (such as attention) a thing that a being has or a no-thing process that a being enacts?
@@notmyrealpseudonym6702 Time*motion for all motion, and it's directionality over space = velocity * (c). It's the directionality of motion flow in 3d space (how the knots are tied). The evolutionary trajectory is the reflection gradient (path of least resistance), and where the flow patterns are the most complex (larger amount of flow direction differentials over volume), new dynamics emerge and give rise to variations of being (complex motion equilibrium formation between motion flow patterns).
I love hearing these people come on these shows and telling everybody what atheists believe. Atheism is a non-belief. Stop telling everyone what atheists think. Because you don't know. All of these things that he's talking about here at the beginning about what an atheist believes, I don't! I'm an atheist. I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't have the beliefs he's saying atheists have. It's just a straw man over and over and over and over. Atheism is only not having a belief. That's it. While some atheists may have a belief that there isn't a god, I don't... these internet discussions are so freaking tiring.
Bingo. There's a certain hint of disingenuous "understanding " of what atheism means... or maybe self-deception?
sort of. Theists call their presuppositions "god." Empiricists (which is often espoused by atheists) call their presuppositions "objectivity." These two presuppositions are themselves expressions of their shared idea that "humans are to know what is Real." When one makes the conscious effort to avoid such presuppositions, the result is to emphasize language as an "expression of human experience" rather than as a "revealer of Truth" and it often characterized by statements that, at first, appear paradoxical or self-contradictory. Several religious, notably Eastern, traditions have reached this conclusion, as has Western Philosophy now often expressed as "post-modernism" via the "linguistic turn." The most accessible of such philosophy is Pragmatism.
Some people call God the Creator. Others might say He is the God of creation. Still others simply think that the created is god. We all decide which God ( or god) we will live under. Its who or what we ascribe to as being the most worthy of our praise that will determine that.
@@davidgood7621 Ok, but that seems to use the word "god" in such a non-standard way as to become meaningless. I think plenty of people would say humanity is most "worthy of our praise," and yet also not what we wish humanity to be. It doesn't seem particularly useful to insist such people have "humanity" as their "god," except in the rather bland and self-serving way you use the term.
It's up to us to find God. If we don't search for the true God, then Id say invariably we settle for a lesser god, be what it may. Even if it is mediocrity, or perhaps oneself, its who or what we settle on as to be acceptable as the purveyor of truth. Not that what we choose will actually be the truth, but it is what we have found that we think constitutes the truth, and that would only be to the extent of our search to find that truth. And then It's still up to us to remain vigilant about the viability of that truth. This is what confirms our faith in the truth. So if you dont believe in the being of God, then I'd say you dont really believe in the being of truth. If you dont think that truth is a being, well then what is truth? If someone exists then that person says I Am. And if its something that exists we say it is, so consequently, we must either say 'it is the truth' to be the truth or we would have to believe someone saying 'I am the truth' to hold the truth. 4:19
@@davidgood7621 you are free to choose to as you wish, but its unclear why your choice is "greater" while another's is "lesser." How did you determine that? But I agree, I don't "believe in the being of truth," in that what you call "truth" appears no more necessary, or even meaningful, than what you call "god." I don't understand why we bother with either one, except as a mechanism for social control, similar to the way you employ your gibberish deepities. Either you and I agree that we "exist" in some practical sense that we can make use of, or we don't. But either way, the "truth" would seem to have nothing to do with it.
This is not the position of most people who call themself atheist, including myself have.
Please have *Alex O Connor* in the show.
"Atheism is dead." ~Jordan Peterson
You’d think public intellectuals would agree on terms easier.
in theology its known as Ex-Nihilo.
Its in Aquinas..
Yes, God created from outside of creation. It is not only E.Orthodox but also in the Catholic understanding. He’s really thinking about the Ensof in Kabbalah, which seems to ally with Deism.
Can we all just go with "non duality" and be done with all this logical debate? I mean, from quantum physics to mystical and psychedelic experiences, the gist is all converging on a central epiphany: separation is not real.
The process of thinking in language creates the illusion of separation. This is because language is the system of naming different visual phenomenon which we could call "naming forms." Learning language is not a natural process. It's artificial and imposed on the mind when we were children. We are taught as children that different forms have different names and that "we" are a form as well (the body). It's actually NOT natural at all. The process of learning language creates a false belief that there are separate things which are called, 'tree' or 'person' or 'you' or 'me' -- strip away the illusion of language and non-separation (non-duality) is realized.
You are either convinced that god(s) exists or not. There is no middle ground & this fellow doesn’t seem to know this.
“Classical theism of the early church looks a lot like the non-theism.” It is the modern take on theology and philosophy which is perhaps problematic for Vervaeke.
I don't understand how John imagines that God is a being from the point of view of the Christian faith when it is exactly the opposite. It's like he's rejecting a Theistic model that he imagines some believers in God possess when actually the majority don't. Surely he knows that that God is not a being from the Christian point of view? Classical or non-classical. He practically admits it at the end but places Jonathan in a category which he claims is not the norm when to Christians (Catholic and Orthodox Christians at least) it is the norm. Weird.
Perhaps he's been led by the way the subject is normally approached i.e. Does God exist? However, any real Christian should answer 'No', but He can enter existence.'
He knows that. He even mentioned how classical Christianity was like that. Jonathan Pageau is not the norm, even among orthodox christians. you're not going to find many saying God is "no-thing-ness", "non-being" or "beyond being". At least, that's been my experience.
Vervaeke told Jonathan that he "thinks like a ancient church father", and how that is so utterly radical and people don't realize it.
@@drooskie9525 There's a clip from Lex Freidman's interview with Bishop Barron entitled 'Who is God' - this is basic Catholic and Orthodox teaching. God is transcendent. When one says either no-thing-ness, non-being, beyond being etc these relate to what we perceive as being and God is not being as we know it but we do analogise. You cannot compare God's being with anything else as that would be a category error, His 'being' is not being in a way that is comprehensible other than by analogy. So He doesn't 'exist' but He is.
Ok, but this "theistic model" of a "non-being that is" just seems like an ad-hoc sidestep to explain the curious lack of evidence for this "god." So even if what you are saying makes sense, which is debatable, its unclear how you managed to determine it; Its unclear how I am supposed to tell the difference between what you call "transcendent" and what someone else calls "imagination."
By your understanding, when God inters existence can he tinker around? By which I mean make a miracle happen.
@@ericb9804 The evidence is the fact that there has to be something to account for existence. It necessarily has to be beyond it. This world, on its own, is "not enough" and people intuitively know that. Atheism is a modern thing (at least in the form we are familiar with).
Most other cultures understood this. The main problem is that, when they did acknowledge this, they also admitted that God is more or less unknowable and seemed distant and unresponsive. Which probably is accurate and thus many just worshiped created spirits (the pagan gods) but Christ changed everything by bridging that gap.
Remember, we aren't talking about some being in existence, but beyond it. Because He is beyond all categories, you can't "measure" him. He quite literally doesn't exist, but not the way we typically think that means (and especially not the way atheists think they mean).
I’m glad he mentioned modern common theism is what he rejects when he rejected God as a supreme being, and he mentioned the classical understanding but unfortunately didn’t explain how he agrees with classical theism.. which is odd for how he describes himself. He’s a non-god is a being among many being - ist. Well… so am I, and I’m a Catholic. God is the sheer act of ~to be~ itself. From Exodus chapter 3:
“Moses said to God: Lo, I shall go to the children of Israel, and say to them: The God of your fathers hath sent me to you. If they should say to me: What is his name? what shall I say to them? God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.
Vervaeke is the bomb. You wont find a much better expert on the classical philosophers.
It sounds like John Vervaeke is rediscoveing Thomistic philosophy. Is he aware of this?
Define words the way you want them to be understood. Use those words to show that something is true. Simple.
Dam, this is hitting right on my beliefs here... 03:00 *there's something underneath it all* that's indescribable, that the describable arises out of.
Just so you know what you are referring to is COMMON knowledge in Catholicism and the Orthodox Church and im sure many others..... what John is referring to here is NOT novel or fringe on any level. I cannot even relate to him making it seem so without identifying the form of Christianity he is referring to.
@@thecenter672 it’s true, Catholic or not
It's been said philosophically for a very very long time what you're saying here or hearing here why are you so surprised?
In my opinion, it's because John pretends otherwise....@@grosbeak6130
@@bankiey what John says isn't true though because he pretends this isn't common knowledge within Catholicism and the Orthodox Church and that's what I'm disputing.
Osho spoke of this in many occasions. Atheism and theist is all a belief. Do not give your power or attention to a belief. Just experience immediate experience.
No, atheism is at It simplest, a lack of a belief.
Osho also poisoned over 700 people.
The most boring argument would be that atheism is a belief - it is the opposite. It is the lack of belief in a God or Gods, as the evidence is weak, non-existing or at least not convincing.
Somebody who doesn't play tennis isn't a kind of tennis player.
@@carlsagan5189Not true.
“What then is found set in play in a
negation or an affirmation of God? Not God as such, but the compatibility
or incompatibility of an idol called ‘God’ with the totality of
a conceptual system where the being in its being marks the
age . . . Theism or atheism bear equally on an idol. They remain enemies,
but brother enemies in a common and insurpassable idolatry.”
- Jean-Luc Marion
Brilliant. The "right" set of "beliefs" is rife with untruth. And, "being is the ability to be" is so deep. I wish Lex would ask more questions to get underneath that. It's facinating how the most brilliant psychologists seem to embrace and merge with mystisicm etc., vs taking the dogmatic scientific POV.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us, means a lot!
Nothing said here is deep
I just like that his name is @Pimpjizz 😄
@@cheyennealvis8284 😄 🤣
"“The scientific approach to existence and the religious approach have been in the past separate and unbridgeable. The reason was the insistence of old religions on superstitions, belief systems, denial of inquiry and doubt. In fact, there is nothing unbridgeable between science and religion, and there is no separation either. But religion insisted on belief - science cannot accept that.
“Belief is covering up your ignorance. It never reveals to you the truth; it only gives you certain dogmas, creeds, and you can create an illusion of knowledge through them. But that knowledge is nothing but a delusion.
Anything based on belief is bogus
.
“Because religions insisted continuously on belief, and the basic method of science is doubt, the separation happened. And it became unbridgeable. It is unbridgeable if religion does not arise and face the challenge of doubt.
“The whole responsibility of the religions has been to keep these two as two.
“In my vision, there is only science, with two dimensions. One dimension approaches the outside reality, the other dimension approaches the interior reality. One is objective, the other is subjective. Their methods are not different, their conclusions are not different. Both start from doubt.
“Doubt has been condemned so much that you have forgotten the beauty of it, you have forgotten the richness of it.
The child is born not with any belief, but he is born with a very curious, doubting, skeptical consciousness.
Doubt is natural, belief is unnatural.
“Belief is imposed by the parents, society, the educational systems, religions. All these people are in the service of ignorance, and they have served ignorance for thousands of years. They have kept humanity in darkness, and there was a reason for it: if humanity is in darkness, knows nothing of reality, then it can be exploited easily, enslaved easily, deceived easily, kept poor, dependent. All these things were involved.
“The old religions were not concerned with truth. They talked about it, but their concern was how to keep people away from truth. And up to now they have succeeded. But now those religions are all on their deathbed and the sooner they die the better.
“Why do you need a belief in the first place? You don’t believe in a rose flower. Nobody asks you, “Do you believe in a rose flower?” You will simply laugh, you will say, “The question of belief does not arise; I know the rose flower.”
Knowledge needs no belief.
“But the blind man believes in light, has to; he has no eyes. You will be surprised that the blind man not only believes in light, he also believes in darkness. Ordinarily, people think that a blind man must be living in darkness. That is not true, because to see darkness you need eyes. Without eyes you can neither see light nor can you see darkness. Darkness and light are not two things, but two poles of one reality.
“You can define darkness as less light, you can define light as less darkness; the difference is of degree. Our eyes have a certain capacity - very limited. All our senses are very limited. Below that limit you cannot see, above that limit you cannot see. For example, right now thousands of radio waves are passing, but you cannot hear them. You have to use a radio; a mechanism which is more sensitive than your ear can catch those sounds which you cannot catch. The same is true about all the senses.
“The blind man is forced to believe in light, is forced to believe in darkness. And his belief keeps him blind. If he was not given the belief, and if he was told that he is blind and needs his eyes to be cured, that he does not need a philosophy, he needs a physician - perhaps he would be able to see. And the moment he sees light, the question of belief does not arise: he knows it.
Any belief indicates your ignorance, your blindness, but gives you a false sense - as if you know."
"Nontheism" is simply another term for atheism. They are identical. They interviewee does not understand atheism and is misrepresenting a term they do not understand. An atheist is any person who is not a theist. IT is a complementary position to theism.
Theism is a belief in god/gods, atheism is the lack of a belief in god/gods. There is not middle ground.
Modern debates between theists and atheists are frustratingly superficial and seem targeted at the uncultured masses, as both sides frequently miss the deeper nuances of religious thought. There are essentially two kinds of religion: one for the masses, who interpret religious texts literally to guide their daily lives, and another for serious theologians and philosophers, who approach these texts metaphorically, seeking deeper philosophical truths.
For the majority of adherents, religion serves as a practical framework for living. These believers interpret sacred texts literally, finding clear directives for moral conduct, community organization, and personal identity. This approach is not necessarily simplistic but rather a pragmatic way to integrate religious teachings into everyday life, offering comfort, community, and a sense of purpose without the need for extensive contemplation.
On the other hand, serious theologians and philosophers approach religion with a different mindset. They often do not subscribe to the idea of an anthropomorphic or personal god. Instead, they interpret religious texts metaphorically, viewing them as rich sources of symbolic meaning and profound philosophical insights. For these thinkers, religious narratives are not to be taken at face value but are seen as allegories that convey timeless truths about existence, ethics, and the human condition.
In contemporary debates, both theists and atheists frequently overlook this distinction. Atheists often critique religion by attacking the literal interpretations held by the masses, without engaging with the more sophisticated, metaphorical interpretations that theologians and philosophers offer. This can lead to strawman arguments that do not address the more profound aspects of religious thought.
Similarly, theists defending their faith sometimes fail to acknowledge the symbolic nature of their traditions and inadvertently reinforce the literalist perspective, further entrenching the divide. This can make religious discourse seem rigid and dogmatic, rather than dynamic and introspective.
Ok, but within the context of these "modern debates," it seems that interpreting "religious texts metaphorically, viewing them as rich sources of symbolic meaning and profound philosophical insights," as you say "serious theologians" do, just amounts to "atheism" for all practical purposes. Its unclear how what you call "serious religious thought" is different from "literary criticism," which is exactly the atheist's point.
This seems obvious enough - so obvious in fact that to " fail to acknowledge the symbolic nature of their traditions" hardly seems "inadvertent" to the extent it "reinforces the literalist perspective" of the "majority of adherents."
Although I think I am sympathetic to, what I think, is your point - that in order to gleam whatever value there is in historical religious traditions, we must first realize those traditions are not "literal," which, I think, is also Vervauke's point. However, I do think the "majority of religious adherents" bare the brunt of the blame for our collective inability to grasp it.
@@ericb9804 My issue with modern atheists is that they often generalize and reduce religion to its orthodox, literal interpretations, ignoring the profound aspects of philosophical religious traditions. Unlike Nietzsche, whom I truly respect for his deep understanding of religion, modern atheists tend to focus on debunking the literal myths in holy books-a task any angry teenager could undertake. Nietzsche critiqued Christianity by deconstructing its core values and understood the deep meaning of religion and the consequences of the "death of God." He recognized that our values are fundamentally rooted in religious traditions and sought solutions to the void left by religion's decline.
In contrast, modern atheists mistakenly believe that values can be solely based on science, failing to acknowledge that, in a post-religion world, the intellectually lazy masses may find themselves adrift in a meaningless existence. Religion has its negative aspects, but these are more about human nature than the essence of religion itself. Any ideology, including science, can be misused. Just look at the grifters and scammers online who claim their products or ideas are backed by science. Most people don’t have the time to delve deeply into religious or scientific texts, and some will inevitably exploit these beliefs for their benefit.
@@mouradmhm3244 Fair enough, but, as you said, plenty of people think that "religion" is literally about a magic man who lives in the sky. Like...literally. Revealing the absurdity of that may be a low bar, but its still one that needs to be met.
It would seem that before we can move on the more meaningful conversation about religion that you want to have, we may first need to spend some time with the "intellectually lazy masses" because its precisely those masses who say things like "modern atheists mistakenly believe that values can be solely based on science."
You paint WAY too broad a brush here. Some of the greatest theologian/philosopher/saints and a vast majority of Christians today take much of scripture literally (when its appropriate to the genre of he book) while enjoying metaphorical interpretations and using the scriptures to actually get closer to God.
No educated christian must choose between these complimentary approaches.
@@ericb9804 Most people are prone to magical thinking; even if we eliminate religion, they will create new superstitions. Many who don't believe in traditional religions have already begun to embrace pseudoscientific superstitions. This tendency is, unfortunately, a fact of the human condition. I previously referred to them as intellectually lazy, but that may not be the right term. Many people simply don't have the time or luxury for deep critical thinking as they are preoccupied with survival.
Modern atheists often overlook crucial questions: Can humans bear the absence of God or meaning? Can we truly create meaning without God? Or should we reform religion to be compatible with science? Essentially, can we organize our societies in the face of nihilism? These are profound questions without objective answers, but they are vital to consider in our ongoing discourse about faith and reason.
I've often viewed the creation force as the "eternal structure of existence" and is more aptly understood as an environmental force rather than a personified and anthropomorphized single being. I also view existence as a fractal proliferation of consciousness operating across taxonomies where smaller order roll up to larger orders..i.e.. self-organizing holarchic open systems (SOHO). The CTMU (Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe) is also an interesting and VERY DIFFICULT read on the subject of reality.
This is the problem with people who never open up a single book on Metaphysics.
This... absolutely!
That statement qualifies as a deepity.
Atheism is not being convinced of one thing; the god proposition.
Thusly the foundation of atheism isn’t false or true
The-O - the wholeness & the hollowness of all is wholly holy & within & without form.
There must be a God, because I am in the middle of having a discussion with a Catholic, explaining him why Aquinas's "God is being itself" or "God is pure act" cannot be a claim about an ontological entity. Because Dasein has no Dasein itself. And now this video comes along, making the exact same point.
But I just can't share the video, because it seems as though the claim is made, that meaning has Dasein.
Can you elaborate why Dasein has no Dasein? I’m steeped im Aquinas but not in Heidegger
@@McRingil If I drew from Heidegger, it would be coincidence. I'm German, so the term has meaning for me, without Heidegger explaining it to me.
Dasein is not an ontological entity. It's a property of ontological entities. Dasein is what ontology itself is. But as a property it's contingent upon entities that have it.
The ground of Being is likely to be a field of pure potency. Being could be described as something like a quantum fluctuation.
So may know can grow!
Imagine that at the very heart of reality, there is a mysterious, infinite source called the "Zero Absolute." This is like the ultimate origin point from which everything else emerges. It's like the idea of God or the divine in many spiritual traditions.
Now, from this Zero Absolute, the very first spark of creation happens. It's like the Zero divides itself into two parts - the "subject" (the observer) and the "object" (the observed). This is the birth of perspective and relation.
These primordial "subjects" are like tiny, irreducible points of pure awareness or experience. We can call them "monads." They are the fundamental building blocks of consciousness.
As these monads interact and combine with each other based on certain mathematical rules, they give rise to the physical world we observe. It's like the monads are playing a cosmic game of Lego, building up the universe piece by piece.
The key idea is that everything we see in the physical world - from particles to planets to people - is ultimately made up of these monadic building blocks of consciousness. The material world is like a grand projection arising from the interplay of these mental units.
Another crucial point is that, in this view, the universe is not just a single, fixed entity. Instead, it's an infinite plurality of possible worlds or perspectives, all existing simultaneously. Every monad has its own unique viewpoint on reality.
So in this model, there is no absolute separation between the mental and physical realms, or between subject and object. Everything is intimately interconnected and interdependent. The unified cosmic consciousness is just the totality of all these perspectives harmonized together.
By understanding reality in this way, as built up from irreducible, relational building blocks of experience, many of the deepest paradoxes and contradictions in science and philosophy may be resolved. It provides a fresh way to unite mind and matter, reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity, and bridge science with spirituality.
Of course, this is a highly simplified overview of an extremely complex and abstract framework. But hopefully it gives a taste of the core ideas - the Universe as a living cosmos of consciousness, woven from the interplay of infinitesimal minds. It's a paradigm that sees existence as a unified, participatory process - a grand symphony in which we are all players, all perspectives harmonized in the great dance of creation.
Nothing can be discovered or invented, unless it already exists.
I don’t know what it is exactly but I feel like Lex always misses the point and goes into random details with his questions. 🤔
The Unseen showed up according to a few historic accounts
John, when will the AftMC book be released?
Atheïsts are caught by the believe in coincedence. Theists are caught in the god-devil duality, while on the other hand they say god is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent, which is true, but it contradicts with their believe in the devil.
And this is the thing, whatever you believe becomes your reality. A great eye opener if you know how and why, and a major pitfall when you dont.
Yeah, I think this guy is kind of out of the picture. He seems to be two steps behind Jonathan’s beliefs. You’ve got Being itself, now you’ve got to add some characteristics to It. If you get stuck on Being not being a being, you can’t advance in your thought.
Atheism isn't a truth position, it is the denial of a truth position.
Theist: There is a god.
Atheist: I don't believe you.
Interesting perspective
troublesome if not just another word play with a selective preference for word definitions and esoteric interpretations influenced by religion(s).
Word Salad. He believes in religious non-theism and rejects theism and atheism? Don't do drugs, kids.
It's basic Taoism..
@@crushinnihilism It's basic Word-Saladism.
Theism is "Belief in X". Atheism is not being convinced of that same claim. It's logically either one or the other, not both and not neither.
@@crushinnihilismnow you're conflating Taoism. Go back to sleep. Don't throw the word taoism around.
@@grosbeak6130 vervaeke is a Taoist...
@eugenkeller it's Taoism. It seems like word salad because you're intellectually stunted.
Simple question to this guy: is the universe eternal, i.e., uncreated?
I smell solipsism... As it is the only option when matter in motion is the only explanatory sphere.
No. Atheism is just the position im not convinced of any particular deity. It is a single stance on a single issue. Thats it. This is a quack take. A buddhist is an atheist.
So if will say Lex go! Visit our OWN! Lex will say Who are you? Lord thy shared "i" AM, came with sincere conversations, and thy shared Feet resting upon the OLIVE...
(^^; This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.
I think the point is :
Theists think there is a deity (a being) from whom we get ultimately the fact of reality/morality. Atheists think that no deity can do this , they think instead that reality/morality doesn't require any 'grounding'. Neither of these feels quite satisfactory explanations. Why not?
Imagine you ask a theist and an atheist if child murder wrong? , both will most likely agree, and so you ask why is it wrong? For the theist faith in God as creator of everything including reality and morality (not killing children) makes morality like reality part of His creation and as such a fact and most importantly - not just what people think, but the Truth. For the atheist, on the other hand, the problem doesn't arise because for them morality is simply what most everyone agrees and what most everyone abides by.
The Non-theists contend that theists are right there is a problem to solve, that the fact of reality /morality is a problems that requires an explanation, it isn't that just everyone happens to agree that murdering children is wrong (so atheist are wrong). BUT assuming 'a thing' (a deity) will have the property of making reality real, or morality objective is mistaken (so atheists are wrong). So for Non-theists there is NO thing that can make reality real or morality a fact or creates the sacred. Because fundamentally things (like people, chairs, or even Gods) can't 'make' reality .
Not sure what how this differs from the mystical kind of agnosticism?
Sort of. But, for the atheist, its more like, "It doesn't matter if child murder is wrong. All that matters is if you or I want to murder children." If we agree that we don't, then we can move on. If we agree that we do, then we can move on. But if one of us wants to and the other doesn't, then they have a practical problem to solve. This is all we need to say about "morality," and perseverating about what is "right" or 'wrong" doesn't serve any purpose.
@@ericb9804 don’t agree sorry - by your reasoning you’ve no ground to object to the dictatorship of the majority.
@@nevilleattkins586 Ok, but why do I need a "ground" to object to the dictatorship of the majority? Can't I object to the dictatorship of the majority the same way I object to murdering children, i.e. without a "ground?" Moreover, why do you think that objecting to the dictatorship of the majority is something I am obligated to do?
@@ericb9804 you don't - its not about you - the truth does.
@@nevilleattkins586 Ok, but why? Why does "the truth" need a "ground" and how do you know what it is?
Literally has not read the great 20th century Roman Catholic theologians: ‘Ancient Theism.’
Ratzinger, Wotyla, von Balthazar, de Lubac, et al: ‘Hold my beer.’
The problem with John is that he has read all of that or at least he is aware of it, but you need not look that recently either. There's just a continuous history of the same concepts being taught in Catholicism and the Orthodox Church. I'm not sure how it got otherwise in his thinking and speech here because it's just blatantly false.
And Bulgakov from the E.Orthodox side
@@fegeleindux3471
Or anything from Vladimir lossky from the Orthodox Church... Basically jihn is talking straight out of his ass on this one.
God is outside of space and time.😊
Agreed. God doesn't exist.
How do you know that?????
Well maybe, maybe not. But where does that assertion get us, exactly?
I think David Bentley Hart would just call this Classical Theism.
A silly equivocation. In order to get close to the “truth” u must be honest with what is… & not fill the gaps in with made up stories
God is not "a being". That's not what Christians think
I reject your definition of Atheist.
He sounds fairly Heideggerian.
watching Vervaeke explaining this concept is super cringe! Clearly he still has no clue what Jordan Peterson or Bishop Barron refer to when they mention "God". I really hope he watches this video to educate himself before he opens his mouth on these topics because it's just embarrassing - th-cam.com/video/1zMf_8hkCdc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=njKTV10vBaRy3RTO
He sounds smart, but doesn't make much sense at the end of the day - it's just layers of words hidden behind other words.
This sounds like the religious who cannot understand non belief so they project their way of thinking and belief on others.
What is the craic, sure its bloody obvious. Religion gives the foundation stone for a bridge between the subjective and the objective.
Yes, exactly. And lack of religion is to realize that no distinction between subjective and objective needs to be made in the first place, which is why a "bridge" to connect them is superfluous.
He is entitled to his opinion. But I would say it almost 100% certain that God exists. Things like the contingency, cosmological, first cause arguments, essentiallly prove their is some sort of self existent entity. Aquinas pointed out the problems with infinite regresses and other things. Most people like in all things have a preference for what they want to be true. Many people avoid God at all costs, we dont want God to exist.
Next time you talk to him please press him on the difference between nothingness and non-thingness. Because he never actually explains this and on it's face it sounds completely absurd.
A glass is not a being. It is a thing.
A being is eternal, hence the "ing" at the end of the word.
An animal is a creature, not a being. Only spirits are beings. A human is a being because a human consists of a spirit in a body. Angels are beings because they are spirits. God is a being because He is a spirit.
This guy is loose and fast with his terminology. The chair is not a “being”. It is not even “being.” It exists.
Djeez.... What a word salad.
Theism: I believe that at least 1 supernatural being exists.
Atheism: I don't believe that claim.
Voila. 11 minutes of your life back that you can use to do something more productive, like watch cat videos.
NONSENSE.... gross misconduct of ego based in a void of well, voidness
but you're correct
What's he on about? Word salad
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" attributed to Albert Einstein.
Read enlightenment philosophers like Kant , Hegel, Nietche, and Heidegger. And tell me those people are just idiots because they don’t explain things at a 5 year old level.
Blinkered binary thinking is literally the narrowest way to look at the world .
Everything is discovered.
Who is that little child "i" sitteth upon the Clouds?
Pure Word play to please ego.😂
YEP.
A non-theist is an athiest.
A Buddhist
nothing but his opinion
I'm not sure I can relate to anything John is saying here and think he's being sloppy.
He goes on and on about how modern theism is wrong and I wait with bated breath for him to tell us what's wrong with it. But when he does he presents a straw man that no Catholic or Orthodox Christian on the planet believes...
And when he tries to return us to the ancient view of God in Christian tradition, he presents us with a view that every single Catholic and Orthodox Christian on the planet was taught in basic catechism class....
I suspect the problem John has with Christianity is not actually theological unless he's talking about Protestant groups who've abandoned the church fathers, in which case he should make that clear. I think John's real problem is experiential. It bothers him that people primarily relate to God personally.... and that doesn't match his own personal experience. And that is what leads him to be unable to steel man that theistic position and it leads him to be uncharitable in his interpretation of the average person's experience with God just because they don't know philosophical words to describe it...
The real problem with John at the bottom is that he just hasn't had a deeply personal connection with the ground of being or Christ or the Trinity.. And I'm sympathetic to that because it took me many years to have a profound personal connection with God.
And frankly, if he doesn't want to have one, he shouldn't be pressured to, but he should at least be charitable in his interpretations and discussions of Christian theology and make sure that the average person watching his talks does not conflate his interpretation of modern theism with what's actually being taught to most Christians on the planet.
I really think there are no educated Catholics or Orthodox Christians who've read really anything at all, including basic theology books who don't hold the deeper interpretations and I think that's worthy of note.
But that's all philosophical in the end because when you get down to experiencing God, the approach Christianity teaches, because Jesus taught it, is to enter into that experience through a personal relationship that grows over time. So even though God transcends all categories the way Jesus taught to get intimate with that reality is through personal connection. In fact Jesus insists on this personal accessible dimension to God.
He makes a little better point when he talks about right belief being held by some Christians as the way to be in right relationship with God. But unless he goes further and talks about relationship itself, he really misses the heart of Christianity completely. And I would argue that right theology, which is something he is similarly arguing for in his own way is not just prescriptive but it's more descriptive. A Christian knows that Christian theology is true because they enter into relationship with Christ and it transforms them in a very specific way through very specific means and those means can be very difficult to identify along the way.
If a Christian has come sufficiently far on the path and then begins to read theology, they will find to their astonishment that it describes perfectly what is already happening in their lives as they enter relationship... So theology is primarily descriptive and not only prescriptive.
And in fact that gets to the heart of how theology came about, which is that it is a description of our mystical experience with Christ and with the trinity.
Ok, heres the "problem" with modern theism - it makes claims that are non-demonstrable and then uses those claims as justification for overt social manipulation. No one cares about your "relationship" with your "god," but when you start to insist that I can't buy beer on Sunday because of what god wants, then we have a practical problem.
Nonsense
He doesn't even know what he's talking about.
No concept of God.
Totally bs
TLDR: this dude is a just a cringe boomer Buddhist
this guy is talking jibberish. Get someone like William Lane Craig on. The stuff this guy was saying didnt even make sense.
Come on. You can suggest better than Low Bar Bill.
@@funkatron101 Found an internet atheist. The cult is strong with you guys.
@@gsp3428 I'm not an atheist.
@@funkatron101 Chances of that, 0%
@@gsp3428Non-Christian does not mean Atheist.
Sacredness is .. a woo woo BS.
Nonsensical explanation of atheism.
Your guest is talking nonsense.he shouldn't be listened to.jed out of it
😂😂😂
Evidence provides knowledge of something.
If one sees no evidence of God, one has no knowledge of God.
In Greek, the word Agnostic means A = Without, Gnosis = Knowledge, therefore one who has no knowledge of God is an Agnostic.
In Greek, the word Atheist means A = Without, Theos = God. If one is without God, one goes a step further than no knowledge of God by placing his faith in the belief that there is No God. Hence, Atheism is a Religion with its own set of presuppositions, with evangelical adherents of Atheism as evidenced in the likes of Richard Dawkins, Matt Dillahunty, and Aaron Ra who have committed their lives in attempting to destroy other people's Faith. They do not live humbly in the realm of simply not knowing if a God exists (Agnosticism). They actively promote the destruction of people's faith.
A true Agnostic understands he has no knowledge of God, but can still leave open the possibility that there is a God, an intelligent creator of existence and arbiter of morals, the right way of living and facing one's death.
Be blessed on your journey.
want more ?Get a,Wesley Wildman. book or you tube
After listening to this video and trying to be as charitable as possible, my disagreement with Mr. Vervaeke is that he seems to be using the philosophical definition of Atheism and not how Atheism is currently being used. Atheism is not the positive belief that no Gods exist. Atheism is the answer to one specific question: do you believe the claim that a God or Gods exist? If the answer is yes, then you are a Theist. If the answer is no, then you are an Atheist. I am an Atheist because so far no one has presented a God or Gods claim that meets its burden of proof. I have considered each claim based on its own merit, not because I already think "sacredness is to be understood as a personal being, that in some sense is the supreme being" as Mr. Vervaeke stated.
But you missed his followup sentence, specifically "and that the right relationship is to have the right set of beliefs". You've already shown your beliefs by your comment about "burdens of proof" etc. This is a belief. It's too much to get into but the fact that you beleive in anything demonstrates your conditioning and the "sacredness" to which you hold your personal being.
Sounds like a word salad but again, it's too much to get into on a youtube post. Either you understand the truth, and seek it, or you do not. I think Nikola Tesla put it best with "The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence."
There is a small minority of people who do take Atheism to mean positive belief that there is no God. Vervaeke most likely discusses these ideas with people who are trying to argue their own point of view. Under your second definition of Atheism it is difficult to have a means for debate so I think he is speaking to his experience of what a philosophical arguing Atheist might be.
Some people call this “Lack-theism” .. that you don’t positively assert that there is no god but rather you simply lack belief in a god… to me this position is better encapsulated by agnosticism.
Atheism is generally, belief there is no god which does bear burden of proof.
@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lplacking a belief is to not believe. This word salad thing is bullshit. Just own not believeing.
@@crushinnihilismI don't know how lack of belief can be practically distinguished from not knowing. We sometimes know things we have to believe in but we don't. Like knowing it's good to eat less sugar yet we don't do it. Just because one expresses belief or non-belief in something it doesn't follow that knowledge and belief can practically be separated. Sure, in theory we can make a distinction but often they intermingle in our lives. People who say they know God exists will often become atheists when crossing the road. Behavior has to be accounted for otherwise we're just analyzing things without considering real life implications.
The Ground of Being can also manifest as a Being: Jesus Christ.
How does that work, exactly?
Yes, and that ground of being is “Nothingness”. Which means Jesus never existed. The god you ought to follow is Knull.
Theist - I believe and assert a God exists,
Atheist - I do not accept that assertion
Anti-Theist - I assert that no god exists, but I can not prove it
Skeptic - I do not believe that assertion either...
I realize this is just a clip so maybe I’ve missed something but he’s not making any sense to me. I never got past his first premise because it made no sense.
I reject his presupposition of what an atheist is....
Yeah but John. You have no account for telos In your system. Platonism is a broken worldview. It’s a causal emanationist system. There’s no explanation for oughts. Oughts are non-sensical.
The Neoplatonic encouragement for henosis is completely nonsensical within the system since they cannot account for ‘why’ one ‘ought’ to unify with the good.
I’ve argued with platonist about this before and all their answers have been unsatisfying. They’ve said ‘well telos is a universal’ which is a complete contradiction with an unconscious causal first principle and therefor illogical.
They’ve also said ‘telos is the way we perceive metaphysical laws ‘guidance’ of the physical world’. Notice the use of the word guidance. Again ascribing agency to the first principle.
Whereas in a theistic claim telos is easily accounted for. You say creation is the willful act of a conscious first agent. Voila. The purposiveness that shines through everything is a reflection of the purposeful act sustaining all things. Problem solved. Much more logically I might add then any platonist or pseudo gnostic retroactive patch job solutions for obviously logical loopholes in the system ‘a demiurgic sub force is also an obviously ugly ‘solution’ to problems within platonic systems. It’s also once again a complete contradiction with an unconscious causal first principle.’
Also without going into it fully here- the idea of a temporal and local reality emanating from an eternal non-local source is a complete contradiction if that source is just a causal process. A timeless River will flow timelessly eternally, changing into another completely separate and closed temporal system is a complete change of state and implies intervention rather than flow.
While I appreciate you And your curiosity John I must admit alot of your stuff smacks of pride.
Do you have any books that informed your view on platonism? I found your explication here very cohesive.
Mainly the platonic dialogues themselves as well as the enneads and commentary’s by other platonic philosophical Hera like porphyry and proclus. All the translations are very readable. Then basically the interplay between Neoplatonic criticisms of the Gnostics and theism and the counter claims//apologetics by theists.
I started very much in the platonist camp but, apart from the obvious holes in the system, it is definitely a vanity trap which is probably why I react negatively to some of the verveke stuff. Like even in this “based on experiences and my own experimentation”. He’s making himself his own standard. It’s prideful and illogical.
But anyway yeah. I’d say if you want a well rounded view just read the platonists themselves as well as patristic texts. Straight from the horses mouth ya know?
A-theist = not theist. He is not a theist, therefore he is an atheist.
He could be agonstic.
@@gsp3428 agnosticism is a subset of atheism
All the intellectual atheists essentially that's what this guy seems to be there's your Sam Harris, and etc. etc. Dawkins.. All of them claim to know so much about scripture, but if they try to talk about scripture, they know like one verse maybe not even the full context and nor did they know historicity, and the culture and things if it's applicable to the poignancy of the many layers of the /wisdom truth within... But not only that that the truth was very specific not only for the time for the time to come say 50 or 100 years and still applicable and prophetic throughout future years even in current times. but setting that incredible coincidence of prophecy that's evident all over the Bible and thousands of verses, from then, until now: that aside these atheists who argue by their own logic, that God can't exist, or if God does exist at all, why do innocent people, die, etc.... only proves that they don't have any kind of spiritual wisdom. They don't actually understand the Bible they argue as if they do understand the Bible Sam Harris is a perfect example, or they deflect where they're mocking gaslight. And the humble equally, if not smarter men who doubted the existence of Jesus, when you see them, say that they've been touched by Jesus and they'll never be the same and they're breaking down in tears there's no lying there there's nothing to hide behind yet here's this incredibly successful, smart Man. Or brilliant woman who's had this experience that they're sharing for their courage as a Christian as their duty because of what Jesus did for them, but anyways go on to your regular programming😅
f(^_^) The universe was created in 1976. It is too hot to make a universe at the time of the big bang. It can be created at anytime. God is slow and easy. A human can do a lot with their lifespan. I got the hunk. God got the chunk. Everyone else can have the rest. That is song spirit of '76 by The Alarm.
The closest thing to a thing that we know that it inside everything, is the Trinity of the neuron electron and proton. Of those three the electron is exactly identical everywhere all at once That is the thing that you might could call a sort of a god but it is still part of a Trinity
You got the pro the no and the neutral
Many atheists (and even antithesists) will have there own sense of the numinous or transcendent... The terms seem too rigidly defined. But if I haven't been convinced that a god or gods exists, I'm an atheist until such a time as that changes. Show me the ambrosia baby and I'm all of a sudden a theist. For normal human relations all that matters is what actions you take a consequence of the contents of your belief or lack thereof.