Why is this not just the argument that we have brain mechanisms built in for mystical experiences and such experiences give us sense of well-being, and therefore, let's press those buttons with our imagination and designed practices.
I am reminded of Coleridge (and therefore Barfield) and the "polar tension" between the infinite and the finite - between the transcendent and the immanent. I am and remain a Christian not because of those who domesticate "God" by their theo-logic - but because (for me) in it's loftiest expressions it maintains this "tension" in the mysteries of (above all) Trinity and incarnation - e.g. the "in and beyond" of Przywara's "Analogia Entis", to which I was wonderfully introduced in Rowan William's "Christ the Heart of Creation". Thank you John for never letting us repose into the stagnant fundamentalism of some imagined "objectified" Word - which always threatens to rob us of the living dynamism of the Logos!
PLEASE bring in some mathematicians (perhaps John Baez?) to talk about the idea of focusing on *relationships* between objects rather than the objects themselves. This is the central idea of THE unifying area of mathematics known as Category Theory. Specifically, the Yoneda Lemma says that “an object is completely determined by its web of relationships to other objects.” There are many other category theorists you could try reaching out to, but I’ll not list them here.
@ 4:27 Help me on this ... you have object, the observer and relationship of object and observer. There is a reality within the relationship. Once you realize the reality you can then break the stumbling blocks. I kinda get that ... but what is the "object"? How can we escape reality of God or God is not real as object? Mankind makes God or God makes mankind - in each case there is God or there is not God. God of faith traditions or Peterson God. Help get out of my dualism brain lock. Can anyone help me on this?
Imagine 2 points (man and god). Imagine a line between them ... both points are as much a part of the line as each other even though they are different ends and parameters of what determines the line. I suspect it is a reciphrocal relationship and either you have two dots and no relationship but as soon as the two dots 'connect' then the line emerges
@@notmyrealpseudonym6702 If God is not real then there is no point or dot. You cant bridge to something that does not exist. So, what does an atheist bridge to verses what does a non - theist bridge to in your opinion? How does the category of non-theism get at the relationship between the two points? This is way too fuzzy for my Western materialist mind.
“And the Holy Spirit, according to the Holy Scriptures, is neither of the Father alone, nor of the Son alone, but of both; and so intimates to us a mutual love, wherewith the Father and the Son reciprocally love one another" Augustine, On the Trinity XV.17.24
John, I wonder if you have read any of Eugene Gendlin's Philosophy of the Implicit, or Implicit Intricacy, or A Process Model, or Experiencing and the Creation of Meaning? He, also, developed the practice of Focusing from his work with Carl Rogers during his Columbia University era - and beyond.
The problem I'm finding with this discussion - and I'm including most of the comments in this along with the video - is that no-one seems to be taking the trouble to break down exactly what they mean in as simple a way as possible. It's like listening to random chunks of ideas thrown out at a gallop, in a language I can only vaguely interpret. I want to say 'stop, and start again from the beginning' in the hope that something more coherent will emerge. Frustrating, because I suspect there's a kernel of sense here but the signal is just too weak for me to pick it up. Or maybe it's my wonky reception!
I've been trying to find videos of people who have felt similar or like the way I've felt about gods, and while it's not common, at least I know some people seem to think like I do.
Yes, me too. John nailed. After getting through two Metanoias, I'm convinced that his definition of nontheism is the closest description of a sacred essence that homo sapiens can rationalize.
Think of nontheism as theism 101. The first question might be, "What is god?", but it skips the more fundamental question,"What is reality?". Understanding the bedrock of existence is key to understanding God, not the other way around.
Thinking of God as an object, a noun, which can be denied or accepted makes no sense. What about thinking of Divinity as action, a verb, describing a process towards integration wholeness and unity?
Nietzsche doesn't merely invert Christianity. He is not a Satanist. He supports the transvaluation of all values, he accepts neither master morality nor slave morality. The inverse of Christianity in his opinion would be master morality (as Christianity is slave morality), but he sees problems with that as well. Nietzsche prefers cleaning the ideological slate and starting from scratch based on your own intuition. He does NOT base his ideology on the inversion of Christian values, in fact he goes to great care not to do that.
Interpreting Nietzsche is notoriously difficult given his multivocality. However, he was brought up by in a religious Lutheran family. Luther’s Christianity is very Pauline. Paul proposes that in Christianity we have a new way of love that replaces an old ay of law. In that new way of love we are not bound by moral commands instead we are free to act from love. We get a new slate, we are born again. In this new birth in Christ there is no master or slave male or female Jew or gentile. Everything is being made new and a new kind of human being is being made. Is this not exactly what I you claim Nietzsche is proposing? Of course he replaces the way of agape with the will to power as that which is causing the trans valuation and creating the new kind of human being, the ubermensch. Is this not just an inversion?
I've been playing with a very Foucault like position in viewing theism and atheism as identities.. where I think from time to time I might find myself in any of these places, but that it's very much besides the point. Like Foucault saying he's not gay because homosexuality is an behavior and not an identity. I feel the arguments folks have is something that emerges out of identifying with a position. It reminds me of this notion that the difference between a psychotic and a mystic is that the psychotic is stuck in the water the mystic swims in.. and you get stuck by falling into an identification with, instead of a relationship with, the archetype. It's like which identity you pick is more to do with politics then reality.. or maybe you get sorta possessed by a reality.. Idk, still playing around with it.
whatever is the most fundamental and enduring reality is God. thus both atheism and theism both make claims about what God is like and since we can't escape from an ultimate reality, since it is the syntax of everything, non-theism is also giving an answer of some sort as to what God is. the general notion is that what is objective is of great value and what is subjective is of very small value. in the spirit people make a decision based on some of the things in the objective universe + their own perceptions, they decide to conform to those kinds of spirits associated with the perceptions of the universe that they accept as truth. they decide for themselves that what is objective is vastly more true than their own subjectivity, than their own mind and personality. they are aided in this by the sheer force of this body and universe they experience, it forces them to believe in it. an exciting game.
A Kairotic moment! What about "Transtheistic"? (Tillich) This descriptor urgently needs to be honed to bring peripheral people of goodwill together, to rise to the next level in cooperation and unity. Great intuitive post!
Like that Transtheistic idea. Some branches of Transhumanism considers God not the cause, but the result of our collective effort through science and technology to evolve beyond the human condition. In that way God is not meant to be worshiped but engineered, like in DEVS TV series. But anyway, i think we should treat the universe and life with reverence at same time we intend to create new things to improve the world. We need to become artists with cosmic humility and reverence to the whole.
This misses. To see this, just analogically compare gods to other beings that may exist: martian microbes. The position of nonbelief; of "I'm not compelled to believe either way" is totally rational. If the theist admits that God is not a being, atheism wins.
A good reframe for expressing our current impasse might be transtheism. Or metatheism. The level that God exists at is in achieving tangible individual transformation. I am currently living that transformation. It seems to provide the meta-transformational requirements you keep attempting to configure repetitively. I would be happy to discuss this with you. ~Anna
You nailed John. After getting through two Metanoias, I'm convinced that your definition of nontheism is the closest description of a sacred essence that homo sapiens can rationalize.
This may be a novel concept in today's Western society, but non-theism is taken as given in many forms of Hinduism (Advaita Vedanta), and for that matter some forms of ancient Western religion and philosophy as well - notably, Platonism and Neo-Platonism.
This is Albert Einstein.. speaking about..... "The religion of the future".... (I remixed his quotes from throughout his life.. to make it flow more smoothly.} "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - this is a somewhat new kind of religion." "I have only two rules which I regard as principles of conduct. The first is: Have no rules. The second is: Be independent of the opinion of others." Einstein said.. "Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a Spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a Spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble." "The more I study science, the more I believe in God." "That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a Superior Reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God." "The more I learn of physics, the more I am drawn to metaphysics." "Body and soul are not two different things, but only two different ways of perceiving the same thing. Similarly, physics and psychology are only different attempts to link our experiences together by way of systematic thought." "Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter." - "I like to experience the universe as one harmonious whole. Every cell has life. Matter, too, has life; it is energy solidified." "Matter is spirit reduced to point of visibility." - "It is entirely possible that behind the perception of our senses, worlds are hidden of which we are unaware." "Matter is Energy ... Energy is Light ... We are all Light Beings "We are slowed down sound and light waves, a walking bundle of frequencies tuned into the cosmos. We are souls dressed up in sacred biochemical garments and our bodies are the instruments through which our souls play their music." The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description." "I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a Subtle Spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this Illimitable Superior Spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds." "To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of TRUE religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious men." "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed. The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." - Albert Einstein
This is a brilliant idea, guys! Making short videos from Voices with Vervaeke is just brilliant. Love it.
Why is this not just the argument that we have brain mechanisms built in for mystical experiences and such experiences give us sense of well-being, and therefore, let's press those buttons with our imagination and designed practices.
great comment / question, which echoes what I take away from Jonathan Haidt's writing about sacredness . I hope you will get a response!
I am reminded of Coleridge (and therefore Barfield) and the "polar tension" between the infinite and the finite - between the transcendent and the immanent.
I am and remain a Christian not because of those who domesticate "God" by their theo-logic - but because (for me) in it's loftiest expressions it maintains this "tension" in the mysteries of (above all) Trinity and incarnation - e.g. the "in and beyond" of Przywara's "Analogia Entis", to which I was wonderfully introduced in Rowan William's "Christ the Heart of Creation".
Thank you John for never letting us repose into the stagnant fundamentalism of some imagined "objectified" Word - which always threatens to rob us of the living dynamism of the Logos!
PLEASE bring in some mathematicians (perhaps John Baez?) to talk about the idea of focusing on *relationships* between objects rather than the objects themselves. This is the central idea of THE unifying area of mathematics known as Category Theory.
Specifically, the Yoneda Lemma says that “an object is completely determined by its web of relationships to other objects.”
There are many other category theorists you could try reaching out to, but I’ll not list them here.
Thanks John. Great idea of cutting your discussions into short clips!
@ 4:27 Help me on this ... you have object, the observer and relationship of object and observer. There is a reality within the relationship. Once you realize the reality you can then break the stumbling blocks. I kinda get that ... but what is the "object"? How can we escape reality of God or God is not real as object? Mankind makes God or God makes mankind - in each case there is God or there is not God. God of faith traditions or Peterson God. Help get out of my dualism brain lock. Can anyone help me on this?
Imagine 2 points (man and god). Imagine a line between them ... both points are as much a part of the line as each other even though they are different ends and parameters of what determines the line.
I suspect it is a reciphrocal relationship and either you have two dots and no relationship but as soon as the two dots 'connect' then the line emerges
@@notmyrealpseudonym6702 If God is not real then there is no point or dot. You cant bridge to something that does not exist. So, what does an atheist bridge to verses what does a non - theist bridge to in your opinion? How does the category of non-theism get at the relationship between the two points? This is way too fuzzy for my Western materialist mind.
“And the Holy Spirit, according to the Holy Scriptures, is neither of the Father alone, nor of the Son alone, but of both; and so intimates to us a mutual love, wherewith the Father and the Son reciprocally love one another" Augustine, On the Trinity XV.17.24
John, I wonder if you have read any of Eugene Gendlin's Philosophy of the Implicit, or Implicit Intricacy, or A Process Model, or Experiencing and the Creation of Meaning? He, also, developed the practice of Focusing from his work with Carl Rogers during his Columbia University era - and beyond.
I'd say he would have. Experiencing and the Creation of Meaning is aligned with John's work, as far as I can tell.
The problem I'm finding with this discussion - and I'm including most of the comments in this along with the video - is that no-one seems to be taking the trouble to break down exactly what they mean in as simple a way as possible. It's like listening to random chunks of ideas thrown out at a gallop, in a language I can only vaguely interpret. I want to say 'stop, and start again from the beginning' in the hope that something more coherent will emerge. Frustrating, because I suspect there's a kernel of sense here but the signal is just too weak for me to pick it up. Or maybe it's my wonky reception!
I've been trying to find videos of people who have felt similar or like the way I've felt about gods, and while it's not common, at least I know some people seem to think like I do.
Yes, me too. John nailed. After getting through two Metanoias, I'm convinced that his definition of nontheism is the closest description of a sacred essence that homo sapiens can rationalize.
Pretending that God exists so as to get the benefits of belief without actually believing?
Nah, it's disagreeing that believing is the right way to approach the divine
Think of nontheism as theism 101. The first question might be, "What is god?", but it skips the more fundamental question,"What is reality?". Understanding the bedrock of existence is key to understanding God, not the other way around.
Thinking of God as an object, a noun, which can be denied or accepted makes no sense. What about thinking of Divinity as action, a verb, describing a process towards integration wholeness and unity?
Wow, a video under an hour!
But seriously, this is a good idea. Shorter videos are the way to get more people interested!
Nietzsche doesn't merely invert Christianity. He is not a Satanist. He supports the transvaluation of all values, he accepts neither master morality nor slave morality. The inverse of Christianity in his opinion would be master morality (as Christianity is slave morality), but he sees problems with that as well. Nietzsche prefers cleaning the ideological slate and starting from scratch based on your own intuition. He does NOT base his ideology on the inversion of Christian values, in fact he goes to great care not to do that.
Interpreting Nietzsche is notoriously difficult given his multivocality. However, he was brought up by in a religious Lutheran family. Luther’s Christianity is very Pauline. Paul proposes that in Christianity we have a new way of love that replaces an old ay of law. In that new way of love we are not bound by moral commands instead we are free to act from love. We get a new slate, we are born again. In this new birth in Christ there is no master or slave male or female Jew or gentile. Everything is being made new and a new kind of human being is being made. Is this not exactly what I you claim Nietzsche is proposing? Of course he replaces the way of agape with the will to power as that which is causing the trans valuation and creating the new kind of human being, the ubermensch.
Is this not just an inversion?
I've been playing with a very Foucault like position in viewing theism and atheism as identities.. where I think from time to time I might find myself in any of these places, but that it's very much besides the point. Like Foucault saying he's not gay because homosexuality is an behavior and not an identity. I feel the arguments folks have is something that emerges out of identifying with a position. It reminds me of this notion that the difference between a psychotic and a mystic is that the psychotic is stuck in the water the mystic swims in.. and you get stuck by falling into an identification with, instead of a relationship with, the archetype. It's like which identity you pick is more to do with politics then reality.. or maybe you get sorta possessed by a reality..
Idk, still playing around with it.
whatever is the most fundamental and enduring reality is God. thus both atheism and theism both make claims about what God is like and since we can't escape from an ultimate reality, since it is the syntax of everything, non-theism is also giving an answer of some sort as to what God is.
the general notion is that what is objective is of great value and what is subjective is of very small value. in the spirit people make a decision based on some of the things in the objective universe + their own perceptions, they decide to conform to those kinds of spirits associated with the perceptions of the universe that they accept as truth. they decide for themselves that what is objective is vastly more true than their own subjectivity, than their own mind and personality. they are aided in this by the sheer force of this body and universe they experience, it forces them to believe in it. an exciting game.
Such a hopeful idea to go beyond interfaith beliefs
A Kairotic moment! What about "Transtheistic"? (Tillich) This descriptor urgently needs to be honed to bring peripheral people of goodwill together, to rise to the next level in cooperation and unity. Great intuitive post!
Like that Transtheistic idea. Some branches of Transhumanism considers God not the cause, but the result of our collective effort through science and technology to evolve beyond the human condition. In that way God is not meant to be worshiped but engineered, like in DEVS TV series. But anyway, i think we should treat the universe and life with reverence at same time we intend to create new things to improve the world. We need to become artists with cosmic humility and reverence to the whole.
God Bless John Vervaeke!
This is brilliant.
Thanks Zevi. I hope you are well.
@@johnvervaeke Thank you John. I hope so too ☺️
Fantastic discussion. Thank you
This misses. To see this, just analogically compare gods to other beings that may exist: martian microbes. The position of nonbelief; of "I'm not compelled to believe either way" is totally rational. If the theist admits that God is not a being, atheism wins.
A good reframe for expressing our current impasse might be transtheism. Or metatheism.
The level that God exists at is in achieving tangible individual transformation. I am currently living that transformation. It seems to provide the meta-transformational requirements you keep attempting to configure repetitively.
I would be happy to discuss this with you.
~Anna
You nailed John. After getting through two Metanoias, I'm convinced that your definition of nontheism is the closest description of a sacred essence that homo sapiens can rationalize.
"breaks thorugh (sp) the theism/atheism deadlock."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
This may be a novel concept in today's Western society, but non-theism is taken as given in many forms of Hinduism (Advaita Vedanta), and for that matter some forms of ancient Western religion and philosophy as well - notably, Platonism and Neo-Platonism.
This is Albert Einstein.. speaking about..... "The religion of the future".... (I remixed his quotes from throughout his life.. to make it flow more smoothly.}
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - this is a somewhat new kind of religion."
"I have only two rules which I regard as principles of conduct. The first is: Have no rules. The second is: Be independent of the opinion of others."
Einstein said.. "Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a Spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a Spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God."
"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a Superior Reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
"The more I learn of physics, the more I am drawn to metaphysics."
"Body and soul are not two different things, but only two different ways of perceiving the same thing. Similarly, physics and psychology are only different attempts to link our experiences together by way of systematic thought."
"Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter." - "I like to experience the universe as one harmonious whole.
Every cell has life.
Matter, too, has life; it is energy solidified."
"Matter is spirit reduced to point of visibility." - "It is entirely possible that behind the perception of our senses, worlds are hidden of which we are unaware."
"Matter is Energy ... Energy is Light ... We are all Light Beings
"We are slowed down sound and light waves, a walking bundle of frequencies tuned into the cosmos. We are souls dressed up in sacred biochemical garments and our bodies are the instruments through which our souls play their music."
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description."
"I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a Subtle Spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this Illimitable Superior Spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds."
"To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of TRUE religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious men."
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed. The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." - Albert Einstein