Johnathan Pageau and Jordan Peterson are having dinner together. Johnathan asks “Did you enjoy the meal?” Jordan replies “What do you mean by enjoy?” Johnathan says “Enjoy as in the coming together of purposes to close the space that once filled the void. We both encircled the perpetual abyss with the substance of an emotion that makes us happy” Jordan says “We’ll then why didn’t you just say that to begin with how is anybody supposed to understand what you mean?”
Jordan then asks Jonathan: What is a meal ? Jonathan: Johnathan Pageau leaned forward, his eyes gleaming with the promise of a revelation so profound it seemed to teeter on the brink of the ineffable. "A meal, dear Jordan, transcends its mere culinary assemblage. It is a symphonic convergence of archetypal symbols, an alchemical transmutation wherein the prosaic acts of cooking and eating ascend to the hallowed status of sacrament, embodying the quintessence of communal identity and existential coherence. Each ingredient is not merely a component but a hieroglyph, an intricate sigil that encodes the primordial whispers of the archetypes, those deep structures that undergird and shape the labyrinthine expanse of our collective unconscious." Dawkins: Eat it to survive or die.
You guys make it sound like they're being BS, but that's actually how Socrates would talk. That's how the entire field of philosophy was created. That's how the entire field of philosophy was created. (1) Someone starts by saying certain things, and (2) then someone drills you down on the MEANING of the terms you've used by asking those very questions, until you both come to a clarification of the terms you've used, and (3) then see whether the certain things that the other person had said was true or not. If you're going to say how philosophy is a BS field, you're also throwing the entire field of science away because that's where the scientific method is patterned upon-the Socratic Method: (1) Hypothesis (a statement you've made about physical reality) (2) Testing (asking those questions, by following through and poking holes to the hypothesis) (3) Conclusion (see whether the certain thing you've assumed, aka your Hypothesis, is true or not). And clarification of terms is very much important in almost all areas of discipline. e.g. If you're not clear with the meaning of legalistic terms, you're going to find yourself in a world of tyranny buddy.
@@Mobuku I don't think that's what bothers me. It's more that what Jonathan and Peterson et al. do eventually leads to a kind of equivocation. Meanings are swapped around and substituted for others. We're not digging down to a deeper meaning, we're completely changing it altogether. I don't think that is the same as the process you described.
I used to be a Christian. I backslid once I became an adult by not going to church. I always had questions too that I never asked.. Somehow I stumbled onto a debate between a Rabbi named Tovia Singer vs some Christian professor in a debate. I watched Tovia dismantle the guy and Christianity. He showed the forgeries and corruption. The Rabbi made so much more sense. He spoke Hebrew.. I started watching all the debates.. The Rabbi me down the rabbit hole and I'm no longer Christian. I listen to atheist debates vs Christians. The atheist always win but I can reconcile that you can't prove a faith based religion. Watching a Rabbi dismantle Christian scholars was far more effective for me
To anyone who like me read the comments first and felt dissuaded from watching because of all the comments by those who failed to grasp what Jonathan was saying . Ignore the comments, Alex approaches the conversation in good faith and although the they dont always seem to be quite grasping what the other is saying he does a much better job than some of his audience members at treating this subject seriously. Well worth the time spent watching.
Alex did great, but the comments aren’t wrong that Jonathan is just waffling. He constantly restates basic concepts we all already understand in grandiose or abstract terms and fails to really answer any question.
Pageau sounds good because he can phrase nonsense in a way that appeals to people who want the world to be grander than they currently perceive it to be. His early conversation about Eve being Adam's "opponent" is a great example. All he does is play with an English word that has nothing to do with the Hebrew word and pretend you can apply it backward. A first-year seminary student should know not to do that, let alone a famous religious communicator.
I think Pageau's connection of sin and death is mindblowing tbh. Describing death as the loss of unity of a multiplicity is actually the best description of death I've ever heard
Good conversation. Your conversation was about “the problem of evil”, though and that should have been named as the issue. Throw in some Augustine and Aquinas and riff off of it. Alex is a polite Luciferian intellect (thats a compliment) that puts believers like Pageau on their heels. Pageau understands things that he has difficulty articulating in the rational/materialist world. But he is growing in knowledge and wisdom and has had some brilliant insights when on biblical panels with Peterson. Keep at it guys,
@@mfoley92 'Alex is a polite Luciferian intellect (thats a compliment)' Why do you worship Lucifer...you gone mad, Bro? ' Pageau understands things that he has difficulty articulating in the rational/materialist world.' Which is exactly why i love listening to the guy... he's one of the few students who've successfully managed to circumvent the power of state indoctrination techniques and go with a more grass roots understanding of reality, and tb perfectly h that ain't an easy thing to achieve in this day & age, is it? So, long may Pageau's lumb reek, as we uncivilised Scots like to say! :P
I think one thing you Alex should do, is to talk to someone about differences between mysticism and scholastism in Christianity. I think that might be one piece that is currently missing from this bigger picture you are trying to paint and communicate to us
But also mysticism is a unification with God, is personal. Is not the same as esoterism (inner path or understandig), which is a path of knowledge about these things.
The best comment. 🏆❤️ Alex could benefit from someone teaching him how non-scholastic/ mystic worldview works; and vice versa for Jonathan! 💪❤️ It's a difficult divide to broach. 😶 To be fair; Jonathan is repeatedly having remarkable success with it, considering how hard of a divide it is. 🏆❤️ Alex is also displaying remarkable flexibility & speed of adaptation. 🏆❤️
A lot of us been trying to get people to see this forever but it's usually 2 camps. Atheist who just want to think the Bible is worthless and then fundamentalist that can't let go their personal images and relationships with the images. And the 2 propagate each other. Atheist burrow deeper into wanting to hate and reject anything in the Bible because of how much fundamentalist cling to what they do. The bible is a PROFOUND deeply spiritual book of spiritual truths that just ring true to your spirit. Lot of people make fun of Jordan Peterson when he is asked questions and he says but what do you mean by that.. because he knows people cling to their own images of their personal relationship with meaning
Ikr alex is so very good at deconstructing and calling out the contradictions and major overwhelming issues with the Bible and a lot of other religions. It's crazy how people believe this nonsense for the sake of having a feeling of a higher purpose or fear of death....
@Mamba4.8 it's not that it's worthless it's that the religion has done far far far more harm than good. And is honestly causing more problems than not even now.... 99% of all wars are over this rediculous religious bull crap......
Eve in hebew is described as: "Ezer ke-negdo". Ezer is helping, "ke-negdo" is indeed "opposite" (the "ke" means "as", that is, helper as his opposite) , which usually can be understood as eve was made to be help for Adam. But indeed, it could be understood with a deeper meaning, where the term can mean both it's positive and negative meaning, such that eve may "counter" help Adam. Interesting, never saw it like that until now...
@@hatulflezet yet everyone else is claiming its just nonsense immediately. At least somebody (you) take seriously what you hear and check the original Hebrew
@@bluebitproductions2836 I am a native Hebrew speaker 😊. "Neged" is that what opposes, on the other side, it can mean "against" but also simply like when you describe "the shore on the other, or opposing side". Context is important when using the word, to give it the full meaning.
@@egonomics352 Because it is nonsense. And what does it have to do with calling the serpent the woman?? It’s all just intellectualizing hatred of women. All these conversations are is people trying to defend how awful the Bible is.
@@BenChaverin i have to say i enjoy these kinds of conversation as philosophical inquiries, but i fail to take diehards like him seriously when they claim this is certainly real
@y0landa543 even if he wasn't claiming it's "real", he isn't a compelling speaker. He does the JP thing where he can't stay on one topic. He's a poor communicator and thinks heaven is "where air is" whatever that means, when Satan is the "prince of air" and air is very obviously on earth lol. He just says things.
@@BenChaverinhe's being metaphoric. Ultimately we live in a physical world and have to bridge a gap to the spiritual because our language only exists to describe our experiential world which is primarily physical. The ancients had an experience of air but no idea what exactly it was but they knew they certainly couldn't go without it. It was mysterious, ineffable but life-giving hence the association with spirit. If you want to be hard-nosed about these things and say that "we know that air is a gaseous solution of roughly 70% nitrogen... And we can't accept any other associations with it" then very quickly your options for communication become very limited. Take for example the word "inspiration". The ambiguity of "spirate" the substance being taken in is vitality important. Spirit being something that changes you, compels you to move towards a certain aim. Air being something external from yourself you take in. This gives a much better phenomenological account of the way inspiration is experienced than the modern idea that it's something produced by the working of our own minds. There are many such examples of everyday metaphorical language that depend on such ambiguities. If you want to nail things down to a certainty based on scientifically measurable phenomena alone you'll quickly find your language is confounded and your unable to understand others speech. Just as it happened for the people of Babel when they worshipped the technological achievements of man over the mysterious power of God which has given rise to their harmonious society in the first place. But of course the Bible is a load of old fairy stories. None of that could possibly happen in the real world ahahahaha
@BenChaverin that's not what he or his brother mean by heaven. If you read the language of creation then it's very easy to understand what Jonathan is saying. Heaven is simply the spiritual/immaterial world that informs Earth aka the material corporeal world. The problem here is many anglo atheists (especially americans) have the cards stacked against them when trying to ready the symbolic world of the scriptures.
Imagine clicking on a interview asking an Orthodox Christian about the fall of Adam and Eve and being upset when he gives an Orthodox Christian account of the fall of Adam and Eve
When Alex asked, “Could Eve have done differently?”, I was sorry that Jonathan didn’t make more of the opportunity to discuss the significance of free will in the story. It’s a point that I think demands our attention.
I had the same feeling that You. It's precisely in that point Free will and Conscience and consequences of good or bad usage of them is what separating Us from rest of Creation. God made Adam and Eve by His image. He gave them purpose and direction how They should use their power to stay in union with Him. Adam should make order from chaos just like God by naming creatures and call the purpose on them. And second part of their purpose was to not eat from the fruit of knowledge of Good and Bad. God tell them that They are Created and not Creator what They should and shouldn't do in order to stay in union with Him. And then Eve met serpent who tried to inflict opposite of what God wanted. He wanted direct Eve look out of him. Serpent was below her but fruit was above both of them. Then Eve was charmed by fruit and that desire was in conflict with Conscience. She should delay gratification and control her impulses. Serpent should be getting his purpose and order from Adam because he was above serpent . But when he distract Eve by prohibited fruit he put his desire on her. In that time She should put her will to obey God first and desire to get fruit on second, step back and go for Adam for help and Adam should use power from God to put serpent in his hierarchy place and order. And when Eve come to Adam with fruit for him to eat, She was separated from Adam and God. But Adam wasn't separated from God yet. He shouldn't be deseived by Eve, but put God will first and call God for help and repent with Eve because He wasn't with Her when she met serpent. It's story about not putting Our desire first because we are creatures created in the image of God above what God is desired for Us. God bless Us. Have a great Life.
Yeah this too. But perhaps this may be the difference between Orthodox and Catholic theology that we're seeing from Jonathan Pageau. Catholics heavily emphasizes Free Will, but I'm not sure about the Orthodox position.
@@Mobuku It's just admiting that We have agency in that World, We are not a puppet. God creating Us with a tools and to make relationship. Making relationship is not a puppet property. We can see that as God created that Us in a way that is good trajectory for Us to mature and use Our tools to rule the whole world to the Glory of God. Like We Us people are invited to table for big Boys, God is a Boos ofcourse but it's the best Boss and Leader to have and it's realm of spirit, Angels and Demons and Us. All of Us are invited to the table. It's one of Meaning of the name of Israel is to wrestle with God man. God loves Us to be taught opponent but with kindness and grace. It's like on every One of Use individual and the power of relationship between Us and between Us and a God is Whole fck ing Universe is settled. I was had some really profoundly realization. Big Big. It's soo Damm scaremy but soo DAMM massive too. If u want then listen. We are called to first to rules Our self in this Earth. Like everyone in this planet it's called to be united under One God to the sake of his Glory. It's to summun resurrection not to the inviduals. But to whole planet. Jesus will come in the End of a Time in this universe will be still glimpse of hope to make anything in the name of Glory this Universe have future We are still welcome in the table for a Big Boys. But all living beings and God itself is betting to Us go mature as fast and in the so much Big scale like We can . Every living beings on this planet have One purpose. To spread the Glory of Our Father in every corner of the Universe. It's like We need to assume that We are not enchanter to this day Life from outside of Here and There. It's like one candle of Glory of God Father, Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit in the vast vast universe. Maybe They are waiting for Us to join, Or We are the only One that survived. Only becouse of Grace of Jesus Christ. Every day every Ants, Beea Cow,s Pigs, Doliński, Orks and Wheals, Bird bacterias and Viruses ars counting on Us, They are cheering o Us and aploud to Us. Becouse only We Us a human Can take Glory of God from this Earth and spread his Love to the Moon, to The Mars and to Every fcking corner of this and maybe beyound that Realm. Every One of Us need to build in Our Heart Temple / Tabernacle for the Glory of God and Jesus and Holy Spirit and in every relationship with each others We need doing for the Glory Life. And after everything od this Im staying in me room for years and I'm scared to death to pray for Life. I'm sorry My Lord Jesus Christ that I'm so sinful. Everything Hope I have in You. With out You that's no worthy. Everything in You and nothing without You. Please Help. God Bless You Jesus
@@KamilWieczorek-ns4enWhere did you get the idea that the created must obey the Creator Carte Blanche? Wrong answer. By that position you think if you create clones you can enslave them. Neither does a Creator have authority just because it created. If you want to contend so, that’s merely an argument for ‘might makes right.’ Otherwise, indeed even Creators have to obey a greater justice, and therefore should be disobeyed if they issue bad orders. For example, here’s the correct maxim for all mortals: “Always disobey orders to stay ignorant of ethics.” For otherwise you can’t even discern injustice or abuse. Gaining knowledge of good and evil is a higher purpose than dogmatism. Dogmatism is dangerous and irresponsible.
But does he, I’m at a loss for words, a truly dumb individual. I think people don’t think, just want to hear presuppositions, it’s wild, what of any sense did the man say? Cause dumb literal man can’t think I should go with that, it’s so bonkers.
My take on Adam and Eve would be that it may be metaphor for reality as a lot of religious stories are. In the beginning in terms of reality if there was unity no forces split off yet. Then the strong and weak force emerged. After some time the weak force fell and caused what is manifest. So what we are living on, what is material is the weak force. Likely the strong force would still play a role and the neutral force mitigates the forces. So Adam: strong force; Eve: weak force. The weak force has also been personalized as Satan. There is the belief that God and Satan will be reconciled and a chant that posits that. The forces reconciled one day,what that would mean scientifically is not easy to determine.
He doesn’t have proper understanding and context what the fuck are you on about? Alex the idiot atheist has NO context no understanding no history no cultural knowledge at all of Christianity and the Bible. He doesn’t care to that’s the point. He’s logically dishonest.
@@ALavin-en1kr that is a very interesting interpretation and works well as a metaphor, although retrofitting it onto the fundamental forces of the universe (something the original authors would've known nothing about) is a bit of a stretch. It's a shame it's difficult to discuss the allegorical/metaphorical significance such pivotal writings without people either treating it as fact or trying to discard them wholesale because they aren't factual.
11:26 Eve is called an עזר כנגדו a helper opposite him as in a person who helps him by being opposite him. A person who brings out his best by challenging him.
Alex I highly recommend you talk to a Chabad rabbi for understanding the Jewish Bible. If I could recommend one rabbi specifically it would probably be Rabbi Richie Moss from Nefesh Sydney
That's the only thing that sucks about the podcast format, there was no chance to really drive this home outside of jonathan doing it, and I'm positive he knows this but it's hard sometimes I'm sure when the red light is on. I was wanting to chime in on this conversation at several points like that 😅
Fascinating. Alex you are that v v rare commodity in modern life of someone who genuinely listens and attempts to understand what the other person is saying even if you are skeptical. Its brilliant. I find Jonathans insights to be v interesting.
As an Orthodox Christian myself, it's very interesting to watch Jonathan's symbolic thinking engage with Alex's analytic thinking. It really demonstrates why many modern people struggle with the way Jonathon speaks. He's not coming at it from the perspective of philosophical inquiry, but instead giving a symbolic account of reality. The symbolic thinker isn't so obsessed with getting things "correct", nor are they that interested in speculating about what could've been, but is focused on how to live given that reality is the way that it is. Both Alex and Jonathan are trying to bridge the gap between their respective approaches but it is clearly very difficult at times as they start to speak past each other (as is the case very often when analystic thinkers engage Jonathan).
I believe the issue is that atheists think that the Bible stories are arbitrary, and because of this reason they feel confident to disregard the things Jonathan say. They think that it's logical to speculate about alternative stories because the new alternative story is just as arbitrary as the original story.
@@No5TypeK Well if someone isn't willing to take the stories seriously and receive them as Christians interpret them, then there is really no point in engaging. There's nothing you can provide them that will justify the Scriptures if that is their mindset imo!
@@curtisben79 that's... sad? Because I can't imagine at any point in the future everyone being willing to humbly try to interpret the stories as Christians interpret them. So there will always be misunderstanding and division in the future. Am I missing something?
What are these comments? Thanks for the great conversation, Alex and Jonathan. Very different backgrounds and forms of thought, but I thought it was super stimulating.
@@martinallen6411kind of like a wealthy intellectual saying all poor people are stupid because of they way their off putting “ghetto” accent, right? And the intellectual would have a very hard time surviving as a poor person in a ghetto.
@@andreys1793 I'll tell you what these comments are. Jonathan has a communication problem where everybody including Alex is having trouble understanding him. And he's answering questions Jordan Peterson style.
@@andreys1793 the comments are because Jonathan was just asserting asserting. We have a method to differentiate imagination and reality. Do you? If so, how does anything jonathan said pass that test?
Excellent conversation. Alex facilitates the elusive style of Pageau such that it becomes more grounded as the conversation goes on and the ideas begin to solidify
@@authenticallysuperficial9874 towards the end it becomes clear that he sees genesis as a condensed retelling of an event that happened "the fall" which explains the state we find ourselves in spiritually. He explains why gnostic interpretations fail at helping us to reconcile this and will leave us in a worse position.
Jonathan was talking about the stickiness of superstitions and phrases like bless you and presenting their “stickiness” as something mysterious when in fact there is nothing mysterious or divine about why they happen to persist. They are also not always universally applicable and they do not contain some divinely ordained Truth or meaning within them. Just social facts. Which of course, is where religions come from. Read: “Denial of Death” by Ernest Becker. No religion has a monopoly on a basic biological function like sneezing, breathing, life or death. Etiquette rules surrounding bodily functions, appearances and other social, economic and physical markers have routinely been used throughout history as a way to differentiate upper classes from lower social classes. In many cultures, displays of “unrefined” bodily functions were seen as uncivilized, and thus associated with the lower classes. The rich, powerful and snobby (and those that aspire to be like them) use this as a way to demonstrate their superior status and create a distinction between classes thereby reinforcing class hierarchies. It’s not a cosmic mystery. So why try to present it as one? They persist because of the stigmas around not following them. Not for some spiritual, or cosmic reason.
@@jacobschmidt Once you stop and think about it, it’s not that hard to see that sneezing, burping or farting would all be leveraged in similar ways to set the wealthy classes apart from the lower classes over the course of history-through ridicule and the enforcement of certain social norms. Over history, the wealthy upper classes (or those aspiring to be like them) have used various social, economic and physical markers to distinguish themselves from lower classes, in order to build and then reinforce their status and privilege while shaming, ridiculing and stigmatizing lower classes. Other examples of social, economic and physical markers: - Hygiene: Cleanliness (access to soap, clean water and clean clothes, access to toiletries) which the poor could not afford. This has been (and still is) associated with wealth and status. You can add any “undesirable or so-called embarrassing bodily functions” like sneezing, burping or farting, to that list. - Posture and body language: “Shoulders back!, head up!”, nose in the air!. “Good posture” was established as a sign of refinement. See how much good posture you can maintain, when you’re going through some serious heartbreak and hardship. Jolly good! - Table manners: Talking with food in your mouth. Loud noises while eating. I say! - Body size: in many cultures over history, being overweight has been seen as a sign of wealth and status. Goodness gracious! - Smells: Perfumes and colognes to cover up their body odor. Something poor people could not afford nor be privileged enough to care about. These days we still have people looking down on homeless people for some of these reasons, without realizing that they simply don’t have access to showers or even to clean running water. Good heavens! - Hair: Trimmed hair, regular fresh haircuts. The poor cannot afford that but are looked down at for not maintaining. “Bally well done!” - Skin color: Throughout Asia, even to this day, dark skinned people are looked down upon and seen as belonging to lower castes and as undesirable. Skin lightening products are popular there. You ought to already know about the horrors of skin based segregation, slavery and Jim Crow. “Beastly weather isn’t it?” Let’s see. What other social, cultural or economic markers could the rich upper classes leverage as a distinguishing marker of status? - Well, going to the Opera, of course: In the past, only the rich and privileged could afford to do indulge in Opera culture all dressed up like the monopoly guy from Ace Ventura. Lol. I do declare! - “Refined” Language: In England, certain regional English accents and mannerisms are still seen as less proper and less refined and used to distinguish the refined “posh” upper classes from the lower classes. Hence the veneration of the “Queen’s English” in England. “One mustn’t grumble dear.”!
This has been my favorite episode so far, and I think you guys are properly discussing an issue that is at the heart of the atheist / Christian divide. I'd love to see another episode. Thank you for this one!
Christian makes up anything he damn well pleases to interpret it to make sense to himself. Alex reads and interprets what the words are actually saying.
This kind of babytalk philosophy, way below the level that Alex O.Connoer can operate at, is your idea of a great direction? Babytalk Christianist moralizing and Bible torture.
@@ryanfristik5683How do you know what words in an ancient, half-forgotten and then artificially resurrected, not widely known language mean? Out of a wider context of the body of scriptures and ancient Hebrew culture you have little exposure to. 😂Is maybe that you rely on the interpretations of others who/ which may or may not be trustworthy? Your whole idea that you understand the words is all based on faith, buddy. Oh, the irony😂
It appears that to "understand" these texts, you must begin with the predetermined conclusion that everything originating from these gods, or themselves are inherently good. However, the moment you do this, you become oblivious to what these texts might truly be conveying.
You could do the same thing in reverse by assuming that the text has jack-shit to say, and just presuppose that the author is a moron because he lived a long time ago.
well the text itself says the thing is good and he based what "good" means off the texts and off what the "patterns" of good exists into most mythical stories. He also entertained the idea of everything being evil (gnostic) and he think it doesn't work.
Not really. For example, there are plenty of scholars of scripture who have captured what these texts might be “truly conveying” while also acknowledging the theological aspect of it. Some examples are John Meier and Raymond Brown But yeah you’re right, your metaphysics do play a role in how you read a text, just as they’d play a role in anything else you interpret in life. We’re fundamentally story telling creatures. Your insight isn’t that profound
I'd put it that you need to presuppose that there is a truth value to be found in the text. Which itself presupposes the univocality of the texts, which is really where the whole thing falls apart. We know that these texts as we have them today are the result of centuries of redaction and that even their earliest material is the result of multiple authors writing in different contexts with different ideas about how things work and what things mean.
I'm trying to understand how Pageau describes a hierarchy of being where the problem with the serpent tempting Eve was that it came from a being of lower station trying to reach above its place and disrespecting the divine order, and then on the other hand saying that NOT thinking this way leads to caste systems. Usually i can follow arguments and see where the intuition comes from, but to me this sounds like saying "if we don't respect the caste system, we'll be more likely to create a caste system, and we all agree that caste systems are bad"
@@brbrofsvl I think he is attempting to explain that the potentiality for disorder in the nature of things is explained in the most coherent way in the genesis story, by the snake embodying that potential towards chaos. Therefore, by him proclaming this vision of the fall of man to be the most coherent, he makes the argument that a return to proper order has to follow this same model. Don’t hesitate to tell me if it answers your question.
Alex, you truly are my most respected Secular thinker. Thanks for sharpening my understanding through having meaningful conversations with religious thinkers 🙏🏻
@@Alexander_Isen yes he could, I can tell you right now that Jonathan does not know the story of genesis that well (and he doesnt care about it) because he would say stuff that were not written in the bible in order to make sense of it. I have done intense research thru all the genesis translations and i can tell you that for a person who claims he knows the symbolism of genesis he doesnt know KEY info about the story. He has not done proper research. I simply cannot trust a person like this. The same way Jonathan created symbolisms for the story of genesis i can create similar symbolism about everything and anything..I could argue that the devil is actually the good guy in the story and God the bad guy. This is how people end up with theories like the earth is flat. Because without proper research, evidence and logic you can create any world view you want, but it will have nothing to do with reality. Jonathan is living in his own imaginations, his own world because he is afraid of reality.
@@seand9805 Well I think he also prefaced this or may have said later that we have a disconnect between how we understand the word "evil" now and how it would have been understood back then, which is why it's easier for us to grasp what was really meant by it when we use the word "bad" instead. So he isn't choosing the word "bad" because it fits better in his worldview, that is just how it was originally intended to be understood. Your analogy does loosely work, but in the reverse. And I say loosely because the meaning or definition of a number doesn't evolve the same way the meaning or definition of a word does over time. Especially through translations, words tend to get aberrated. So, we are looking at 1+1=4 and saying, no no, that doesn't align with reality. Maybe we've misunderstood what 1 means, and it was originally intended to be 2. A better analogy would be: say I am making a toolbox out of wood and the instructions say I need to build the box to be 8 wide, 5 tall and 15 deep. So I grab my metric ruler and start to mark out the pieces to fit that dimension and I realize this will be a tiny toolbox. I could barely even fit my hammer in a 15cm deep box. So then I go back to the instructions and see that it was an American company that made these instructions so I was meant to use imperial, which not only fits the worldview of a properly sized toolbox but also makes sense given its origin. So then I convert all the imperial measurements to metric and I carry making my toolbox. Hopefully, this second analogy helps you understand that he is not (at least in the timestamp you showed) trying to change the definitions of words to fit his worldview, but instead hearkening back to their original intention and using our language to relay that comprehensively.
@ClimbingtoFreedom sure that may work, but you are missing the point. He starts with defining death and says it is when you stop moving toward your purpose. But then glosses over how this fits the ideas of "dying on that day" that he is trying to get around in the first place. Humans' purpose was to multiply then, and it still is now. Or if you believe it is a god. It was to worship God then, and it still is now. So, his weird definition of death does not even work on his terms regardless of the purpose. He then goes on to say that it is good and bad, not good and evil, as you said. This is also odd, given he can not site anywhere the validity of that claim, but only that his brother came up with the idea. But worse is he says that a table would make a bad car or something like using a parrot for a spoon. So is he saying that Adam and Eve were so dumb that they would try to eat rocks before they ate of the tree of knowledge? Next, how is being naked bad? That is the tip off to god in the story. Naked is not bad but shameful. Adam was not protecting his naughty bits from the elements. His good/bad idea is silly and does not work in his own little world, but Alex is too gracious of a host to tear him apart. There is far more wrong with this guys reasoning, but it is not worth my time. There is enough here to damn his position. If you want to walk down his crooked road of nonsense, be my guest, but don't pretend to others that it actually works in context or even logically, for that matter. Thanks for the conversion.
@@seand9805 But what's more important is THAT NONE OF THIS MATTERS. That's exactly why neither Matthieu (Pageau) nor Jonathan are citing bible translators for you. Matthieu gives you a coherent system of interpretation which you can check yourself. If it's completely coherent and never fails who cares about citations?
Have been watching these discussions for a while, and this is by far and way one of the best ones, if not THE BEST. Interesting top and a good/honest conversation. Should 100% have Jonathan back.
The way he presents quite lofty ideas with such assurance rubs me the wrong way. He presents points in a way where it seems like they should be so obvious but they are some of the wildest interpretations I've heard.
Because he's thinking more like a ancient, rather than modern reductionist materialist. Of course it's going to seem wild, it's a totally different framework. Most people in the West aren't going to get it, at least not immediately. Can't read the bible as a set of forensic historical physical facts.
What if everything means something other than what any person with any perspective for or against, believing or doubting, ever thought the thing meant? But that's what it was always about! Because it's way cooler and solves some issues with the standard framing! @@TacoTuesday4
@@brianbrennan5600 a good way to challenge his ideas is to have many people try to find their own honest interpretation of a particular symbol he talks about. Ideally we should pick one that he is strongly confident about. And if too much of these interpretation does not connect to his own then that is a good argument to challenge him, his brother, and jordan peterson.
Lol, I’ve never heard that one before, but I get it because I’m realllllllllly lost myself. I understand what Alex is saying, and everything after that I’m either dumb or just plain stupid…..
Been listening to Pageau for 2 years now, and what he says is just now starting to click. This was imo the best Pageau I’ve heard. And I thought his explanation of the Bible was top notch and easily the best explanation of genesis I’ve heard. But I also think if I hadn’t been listening to him for years now I wouldn’t have understood this video. The final part regarding original sin, i understand what Alex is pointing at, and i think it’s a good objection, but I dont think I yet fully understand Pageaus response, but I’m hopeful I’m close to understanding it
@ButConsiderThis I think you are misunderstanding. When I say it took me 2 years to understand, I am trying to highlight that the way Pageau thinks and talks is VERY different from the way I normally think and talk. I would compare it to learning to speak in a different language. So it has taken time before things start to make sense. I really think I understand what you mean, and I think it is fair in some cases. For example, I don't really care much about what he had to say about sneezing. But really I think your criticism is akin to listening to someone speak in Spanish and criticizing the speech for being terrible English. You aren't speaking the same language and you would have to learn Spanish before you can offer a real criticism. Also, Jordan Peterson helped bridge me to Pageau, because Peterson often talks like Pageau, but is even closer to the way I normally think (like a reductionist materialist). Side note, this is why Alex is so great to listen to and interesting, because he is a TOP NOTCH reductionist materialist (or at least a top notch representative (seems like he is becoming more of a non-materialist atheist lately)). So he can speak clearly to us who have lived most of life with a reductionist-materialist worldview. And also mad respect to Alex for honestly trying to engage with Peterson and Pageau, because he doesn't make comments like yours (no offense) he is actually trying to figure out what they mean and at least is willing to consider there might be something valuable behind their ideas. To extend my earlier analogy, listening to Alex is like listening to a masterful English speaker giving a speech and appreciating the English, whereas listening to Pageau is like listening to someone speak Spanish. At least Alex is trying to translate it into English, and learn the Spanish where no direct translation exists.
@@echinaceapurpurea1234 Well, I understood Alex's questioning on original sin to be something like "If I step into the Christian worldview, I think original sin is a logical inconsistency. Am I wrong?" and I don't understand Pageau's answer yet
@ButConsiderThis You have to symbolize everything because everything in the Bible has a deeper symbolic meaning. Unless you're saying you're a biblical literalist, which is frankly its own can of worms.
@@parkercoelho9036He doesn’t have one. He can’t admit he thinks there’s value in suffering. If he acknowledged that, he’d feel like he lost the argument. But it’s the only way his views make sense. God chose suffering. Jonathan just can’t admit that’s at the core of his beliefs.
If God wants to enter into a relationship with us, why would we even need somebody like Jonathan to help educate us about the true meaning of the text? Why can’t we just take the words at face value? If everything Jonathan says is true, we must accept that God intended on sending a confusing message that everybody will misunderstand, and for some they’ll pay the price in eternity because they misunderstood the true meaning of the text and dismissed the book as mythology.
Jonathans worldview is common knowledge and taken for granted in Orthodox communities and is in many ways just explaining what people intuit about the text naturally. Now unfortunately for those of us who have to step into a foreign worldview to understand these ancient texts, it takes effort to do so, but is nonetheless worth the effort in the end. I strongly encourage you give a complete effort to understand his position and the lens that he sees it through.
@@immortalityprjct Jonathan himself said it is like a puzzle. So God sent a Puzzling message? So much so that the one's who wrote Genisis belonged to a different religion and Judasim still doesn't get it? How many Christian denominations are there who take a different reading? Too many to name. What is Johnathons heavily symbolic reading good for? Any sophist can spin a meaning out of a story. To claim that spin as *Truth* is jumping the shark. Fair enough if that's his view but he seems to speak as if his view is the case.
@@jhunt5578The easiest conclusion to draw for a holistic interpretation of Christianity is that God views suffering as a good that creates meaning in behaving without sin. If that’s accepted, everything slots together. The moment you try to argue suffering is bad, the whole thing falls apart. That’s an indictment of the religion, but at least it would be cohesive.
if nature is so self evident, then why we need science and scientist's perspective to describe the world for us? why do we need things such as microscopes, rules, logical systems, etc? why isn't everything just engraven in your brains when we born? why can we move your fingers when we want to, but don't know how exactly how our bodies do it? why can't we just take everything at face value? You need someone like Joanthan to explain the Scriptures for you for the same reason you need Einstein to explain Physics to you. Those things are not self evident, there is no such thing as "pure empirical experience", you don't experience gravity, you only experience objects falling to the ground. You also don't see all 4 cube's facets at the same time, you can only see 3, and you will have to spin it to see the other one, nor you know the exact size and quantity of atoms there is. Both nature and human knowlage is contingent. Its simply how everything that is phyisical is, there is no reason for the metaphysical/spiritual to be different. And it is like this because its good, you cannot argue otherwise.
I'd love to read a single negative comment toward Jonathan here that actually brings up the things he says instead of just spamming 'word salad' which just reveals you don't understand what he's saying. You guys should be more like Alex himself, who at least is able to repeat back to Jonathan what he is saying before he attempts to argue against it. (p.s, just because another language uses a phrase that doesn't say the word 'bless' in it, doesn't mean you aren't 'blessing' a person when you respond to a sneeze. That is just the word-concept fallacy.)
I recognize a lot of people are having a hard time engaging in a certain style of thinking that Jonathan is proposing. I see Alex providing helpful push back to demonstrate the side literal thinking against Jonathan’s symbolic thinking. There is a bridge needed. And that a perspective of practical, experiential psychology. For example, the hottest buttons in this conversation are 1) what if the fall didn’t happen, 2) why are we (humanity) confined to experience the bad decisions of someone before us. The fall was a spiritual opportunity for Adam and Eve to exercise their free will; a free will that is required for us to have a harmonious and loving RELATIONSHIP with God. Relationship requires a two way interaction. On a practical level, I will not truly know if I can trust someone’s commitment to me until it is tested. Their response to the challenge or test says more about the person than their words or self-proclaimed belief system ever would. This is, how I see, the fall playing into the relationship establishment of God and Adam / Eve. It is less about it being the origin of all sin, and more of a demonstration on the opportunity WE ALL HAVE within our relationship with God. It happens in our lives, now. This idea also feeds into hot button #2 that I stated: why are we suffering because of someone else’s decision. Unfortunately we are carrying the weight of generational patterns and tendencies. You see this in family dynamics. Parenting styles pass down, communication styles pass down, belief systems pass down. Why? Influence of environment matters. So we can choose to break out of that in our own personal lives, but sometimes it takes some work to even see those patterns and how they consume us unconsciously…. This is also a spiritual opportunity. Do we rest in bitterness and resentment over what is, or do we allow ourselves to step through the doorway of opportunity that arises in the face of challenge? The Christian calling promises that the step through that doorway is actually a step into ultimate purpose. Pain is a great teacher, a wonderful propulsion forward. Arguably, unparalleled. Hope this brings insight to at least one person. I feel like these ideas needed to be addressed more deeply but the styles of thinking were like oil and water haha extremely enjoyable to traverse through with Alex and Jonathan 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼👏🏼
@@TheRealShrike that’s kind of the insane experience of applying the Christian meta-narrative. You actually experience a relationship with God. Pretty wild! Highly recommend!
@@SacredSight you can experience falling while lying in your bed half asleep. that doesn't mean you're actually falling. you can experience fake things. People do all the time.
Alex, thank you very much for being such honest and such genuine sceptic! I found your channel shortly after I converted to Christianity. Your witty questions and your opennes to have discussions with people like Jonathan, JBP or Ben Shapiro help me so much in understanding faith. I had doubting Christianity for the same reasons you usually raise, but you formulate them so much better than I ever did. Thank you Jonathan for your energetic and inspiring answers! The way you see the the world seems truer than I ever saw it, thank you for sharing this. If any of you would make a podcast happen with N. T. Wright, it would be amazing!
Logical Inconsistencies and the Infinite Regress of Sin One of the primary criticisms, as articulated by Alex O'Connor, is the logical inconsistency inherent in the narrative. The story posits that Adam and Eve, prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, lacked the knowledge of good and evil. This raises the question of how Eve could be tempted by the serpent if she did not understand the concept of evil. Alex points out that this implies an inherent potential for sin within Eve, suggesting that the capacity for sin was present even before the fateful act, leading to an infinite regress. If Eve's ability to sin was preordained, the origin of sin cannot be solely attributed to the act of eating the fruit, but must lie within the divine design itself, thus complicating the narrative's internal logic.
Knowledge of good and evil is the experiential knowledge of good and evil. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they had no experience of evil. They only had experience of good. Sinning gave them an experience of evil. After, sinning, they now have knowledge of good and evil. So eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil conveys the idea of committing a sin which leads to death.
From my reading it doesn’t say she was tempted. It says she was deceived. And it was after her “eyes were opened”. Like did she know at the time she was being deceived? Probably not. That’s the whole thing about deception. .. She didn’t have to have knowledge to listen to someone other than God. God told them not to do something (whether they know it’s good or bad), they do it (whether they know is good or bad) it’s separates them from God (sin). They realize in that moment it’s bad (their eyes are opened). Therefore concluding that God is good and anything that separates is bad. Then maybe also rationalized it later that she was deceived
Man always has had choice by design. When Samael fell he brought the temptation of sin aka Evil to Eve and she had a choice. She didn’t understand the consequence of this choice because previously man had not experienced evil but it was the nature of free will and choice that allowed man to experience both.
Fr man its bullseye after bullseye. The skeptic types in the comments just dont have context for engaging with the stuff he talks about, not to mention the bias towards reductionism being a real blinder
The problem I think it's that both Alex and Jonathan are approaching the Fall narrative at an allegorical level but forget about it when tacking Alex's question "But why God did it that way an not the other way?" Alex's question would be to answer something like what it would mean if the universe didn't have gravity in it. The answer is always "you wouldn't be here to ask the question". If God did it differently we'd not be here to wonder about "what if". And that is the same answer on both allegorical and literal levels. So the scientific narrative as well as the biblical narratives are maps of the place not the place, a way to understand the world around from perspectives that apply to different domains: the literal scientific narrative is about how things are, while the biblical narrative is about how to be. Hence these narrative are orthogonal not parallel competing with each other.
Then the question just becomes "Why did God make my being here conditional on contrasts like the presence of evil against good?" and "How can we trust that God didn't do it differently because this was the best way?"
@@KonoGufo your question is also moving away from allegory. It's like asking why did the universe made you conditional on the existence of oxygen, which is a literal understanding. On top of that you may think of God too literally as a flesh and blood being rather than the more appropriate definition which is the ineffable (just beyond the ability of the mind to capture into comprehension).
@@DaFunkLab I think this might be a framing problem because I don't understand how Heaven can be thought of as an alternative. The coherent way I understand Heaven is that it is a goal, a different state of existence, not a retreat or an escape.
@@Adaerus maybe it's better to refer to it as an afterlife. If there is an afterlife is it possible to sin and "fall" there? If not, why didn't God create that world and we live there? Is there something about this world that makes the next possible?
@@HIIIBEAR While I don't think Pageau is always very articulate and has a hard time getting his feet in conversations like this, I'm just glad to see someone from the Eastern Orthodox perspective talking with Alex. That said, Pageau brings a pretty heavy mystical presentation and it might be better for him to talk to someone like Stephen de Young or Nathan Jacobs who are Orthodox scholars. Alex has talked to a lot of Thomists and stuff in the past but Id be interested to see him discuss Palamite theology with someone. In any case, it's just nice to see someone with an Eastern Christian perspective instead of more apologetics stuff.
Idk if it's becsuse I'm getting a kind of "distant uncle repeating something he read on Whatsapp" energy from the origin of "Bless You" explanation, but I'm having a hard time believing it.
Not to mention, he literally uses it as a conversational cudgel...he knows Alex doesn't appreciate it, and continues regardless. It's condescending browbeating.
The part I thought was interesting was, "I don't like you" ... Like a 2-year old says when you punish him. You don't like me? Well now, isn't that hurtful and oppressive. I'll have to reassess the way I'm treating you.
@@bobgarrett7134 have always found the phrase "actively dislike" quite hilarious. As opposed to what: I dislike you Alex, but its an inactive dislike. Its sleeping on the couch atm, but when it wakes up you are in trouble.
@@blumousey is it meaningless though? Apologists say the choice is the expression of free will that rendered the fall necessary. If there is no conceivable reality where the choice was different, then free will can't be the factor it's purported to be.
It isn’t word salad, but I believe Johnathan’s interpretation is simply untethered speculation. There are literally infinite possible interpretations that make sense. Why should I care about this one? I see no novel testable hypothesis that can arise from this. No reason to think Johnathan isn’t reading way too much into this.
@@thoughtsuponatime847 because his point of view applies to every single Bible book, fairy tale, society, etc. it works coherently throughout the narratives humans have done for thousands of years. That must be something
@@robertodelgado2542 applying to lots of things is nice, but lots of interpretive frameworks do that. You could interpret any book from a Marxist perspective. Or a feminist one. Libertarian, liberal, pastafarian. . . What new testable thing does this interpretation predict? How would you disprove his theory? A good theory should be falsifiable. What method would you use to tell if this sort of speculation is being done properly? These are serious epistemological problems I see with interpretations. They need to be tethered to reality, else you can’t know if it is just imaginary.
@@thoughtsuponatime847the same Bible states that you cannot test God. I do not think it is possible to create a theory on why all exists instead of nothing that it is falseable. Or a theory about consciense that it is not subjective.
Well the snake is the agent of change in the story - to write a story where nothing changes, where there is no interesting turn of events say, is to not write a story at all.
@@giv123buckle up boys, this is a long one: This is actually quite funny in an ironic way. The snake represents the part of the garden you can't account for. Or perhaps you haven't yet accounted for. Or you did account for but then it shifted, it shed its skin. Hense the mystery in a way. So alex asked why did God put a snake in the garden if it's just going to trick Eve and cause the fall. As though this was a description of an almost arbitrary series of event that could have happened differently. "Couldnt God have avoided this?" Jonathan was perplexed by this as he views the story as a description of reality, not some sort of recorded series of events. He thinks its obvious why the snake is in the garden, for several reasons: - Adam sometimes misnames the animals, he misses certain facts in his theory. And those details he misses are like snakes in a walled garden. Those mistakes may form the grounds for a better name later, if the snake is handled properly. Or perhaps Adam has encountered something that cant be named, becasue its always changing. or, its to complex to be fully encapsulate by order... - when God separated the dry land (order) from the deep waters (choas), he doesn't get rid of the waters, he leaves it around the edge of the land. Snakes and chaotic waters are associated by their waving behaviour. Hence leviathan and other sea snake mythology. You don't get rid of the snakes/choas, you put it in its proper place - outside or at the border. Also, you need the water to fertilise the land, to renew it when it becomes baron, not too much though, or the land becomes flooded and unliveable. - snakes are associated with circles and time (the auroboris) - because we experience time as cycles and time brings change, and change is a source of chaos and so are snakes. Why circles? Circles are irrational, if you try to divide a circle Into segments based on its radius you get 6 equal segments and a 7th slither of a segment that contains the irrational remainder. That remainder is the snake in the walled garden (again). we live in a universe created with irrationality and remainders, it's baked into maths and physics. What do you do with the remainder/chaos/snakes? You put them in their proper place and use them for your benefit. To renew yourself. And that's why the ancient Hebrews invented the 7 day week. 6 days of orderly work, keeping the garden clear of snakes and 1 day of chaotic rest where you allow the snakes to come back in slightly. Thus restoring balance to the cosmos, and giving your sons something to wrestle with. You dont want them to become Dodo's after all. What happens when you kill all the wolves In Yellowstone national Park? The deer populatiom grows out of control and messes up the whole ecosystem. Put the wolves back in, the park is renewed. This is biblical cosmology. The purpose of the snake is to be difficult to understand. Why did God make a universe that changes and is difficult to understand? Becasue thats what makes life interesting. He created a universe even he cant fully predict and control (at least from the hebrew perspective). The snake is the thing you know you dont know. You know? And when you're theorising about the cosmic order of the universe, you need to leave a space for what you dont fully understand, whilst understanding the effect that it can have on you when you encounter it.
I might be one of the few, but i really like how Jonathan layed out the possible Inspirations of the Fall of Adam & Eve, the underlying structure of our World & the rules that are in the chaos of earth, and simple humans trying to make sense of it, passing on their theories in a story like this. I recently studied a lot of darwinistic Theories, you can definitly tell that many of these stories try to make sense of darwinistic principles, how they apply to humans, to our families, societies, civilsations, nations & us as a whole. I think the whole picture is beyond any human understanding, but we can learn enough, like its obvious that sin constitutes a moral degeneracy, that applies to greater society over time. At the end of this road lays distruction, like the annhilation of Sodom & Gomorah. We like to think we are above all those earthly rules, the chaos etc. But it is sins that bind us to this chaos, the very thing that seperates us from God. Sins that dont really exist in them, until they eat the fruit of knowledge. I will need to study further the relationship of darwinism & religion, but this helps tremendously. Christianity does something very different then the other Religions, its like it understood something that later Religions like Islam cleary missed. I also think you are spot on with your Interpretation of God, god often doesnt really punish, altough i until now perceived it as such, he even warns you before and just tells you what happens when you act a certain way. He is merciful in a way, as you often can turn around, repent & avoid the destruction & survive & create, change or turn around communities into thriving ones by acting good & moral. But for that you need to know the difference between whats good & whats bad. Thank you, Jonathan Pageau, your interpretations certainly brought me more understanding in some ways, like seeing those stories like a puzzle, that abstracts a bigger picture.
Jonathan is amazing. What I love about him is that he takes the Bible as a whole and doesn't dissect it like the literalists and fundamentalists. It is true the Bible is a library and has different genres, but everything starts to click when you read it contextually -- in light of the whole. The Biblical story is different from other creation stories where gods are competing with other gods and also with humans. The God of Abraham is a noncompetitive God. To be omnipotent, all knowing, and eternal means to always live in the present now. Thus, God knew about the fall for all of eternity. To be just, merciful, and allow free-will, it had to be that way. To allow free-will means God will never force anyone to love him, so with free-will, there are choses. To choose good, then there must be a flip side to that.
This conversation is absolutely COOKED! Over-analysis is certainly a thing, and scripture has been its primary victim, robbing it of its profound simplicity.
I like Jonathan as a person, but it's just and endless list of pieces that never come together in synthesis. Vague references of possible intrest. Any ball you throw at him perfectly fits in with what he's already juggling. I think he's been a horrible influence on Jordan who is prone to mysticism and depth without a bottom.
Nothing mystical about coming back to the primary human experience. He's just treating reality at the most fundamental phenomenological level. For example, if you don't understand that people drink water, but not H2O and that water can be warm and refreshing but H2O can't, then you've got a problem. An unimaginably large amount of H2O molecules makes water, but I don't have any experience of those molecules, only the higher identity.
The approach Jonathan is taking is a mixture of tradionalisme, symbolism, metaphysical and platonic thinking. It is not a scientifically approach strictly speaking although science is a way of determining patterns. He says this again and again. You have to see these stories as puzzles. Christianity is not by all means a homogen religion. He has his way of looking at the world. It is more phenomenological. How are we experiencing the world and how to make sense of it all. Stories are tools to comprehend the world that surrounds us. That is also basically what symbolism is. I ones heard from a professor that metaphysics is not something that is grasp right a way at times but it needs great pondering and reflection. For some it is the reductionistic way of looking at the world that are making meaning in their lives. People like Jonathan, JP and Carl Jung back in the day critique is that this world view is not enough to make a meaningful life but rather to explore and see Logos in all things roughly speaking . It is very platonic in that what we are striving for is the good, the beautiful and the truth. Sorry for my English ✌️🙇♂️ hope that you guys understand it better now 😄
The Hebrew phrase עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ (ezer kenegdo), if translated more literally, carries an intriguing meaning. Eve is described in oppositional terms, as “a helper who is against him”.
This was a fascinating performance by Pageau, because it shines a light on how he goes about making his case. This is not about atheism; it's about intellectual approaches to debate. Compare this discussion with, say, Alex's most recent discussion with William Lane Craig. They're _wildly_ different. Alex and Bill Craig both belief in rational engagement with ideas, and they engage closely and well. They both have clear arguments; they tease out implications together and demonstrate their values and their underlying beliefs. We'll all have views about which of those underlying beliefs are useful or true, but both people are committed to useful engagement. And it shows. In contrast, Alex and Jonathan Pageau are running quite different styles of discourse. Alex is asking rational questions in an attempt to tease out what the (arguably morally incoherent) Genesis story actually means. Pageau is doing something else completely, I think: he's using a style that erects a sort of barrier against inquiry. He certainly does it with great commitment and a measure of enthusiasm, and with a sizeable helping of the lowest-value ancient Greek notions about the nature of the world. An example from Pageau of imposing meaning (at 57:20): _"There is no other way for the world to exist besides the relationship between unity and multiplicity, because it is the very core of how identities function. And so ... the one of the identity, is made up of the multiple of its parts, and that's actually the very source of how something exists. And so, to give a story that gives .... really, it's giving a metaphysics, it's giving a manner in which the world exists, the relationship between between unity and name and meaning and spirit, all of these things, and the relationship between multiplicity and death and chaos, variation, change. That's what the story is talking about. And so it isn't an arbitrary God that just arbitrarily decides the world functions that way. There is no other world you can conceive of besides the world that is being described in Genesis - like, I'd like to hear of another world that is not made up of the joining of unity and multiplicity, in which, if multiplicity is given free reign, then it will annul the unity."_ Pageau takes the idea of unity and multiplicity, and simply riffs on them without coming close to dealing with the problem that Alex wants to deal with. (Pageau here is actually using a pair of concepts with a rich philosophical history going back to Plotinus, but without explaining with any clarity how these concepts relate to the issue at hand, let alone how they're helpful.) A shorter example of imposed meaning from Pageau: _Alex: "Why is it the birds represent order, and the fish are chaos?"_ _Jonathan: "Because the birds are in the light, and the fish are in the darkness!"_ Mostly Pageau's style of discourse seems a tribute to the power of complex and strange narratives to have all sorts of meanings placed on them, even when those meanings are not remotely useful. I suspect a critic might respond that I simply fail to understand that Pageau is here addressing a different level of perception. I don't think that's it. If Pageau were to say "you can understand that question in two ways, and here's what they are, and one of them is the one I usually use", that might well be instructive. But Pageau barely gives any sign of wanting to respond to Alex. He just has his own collection of concepts and phrases, and that's what he's going to use, come what may. And sometimes he's just going to answer a question with an extemporised response: "the fish are in the darkness!" What's comforting about this for people who get into it is that this technique inoculates you against argument. The problem is that it also inoculates you against being able to test its alignment with reality. If you just want to bathe in that feeling of invulnerability, it's clearly very pleasant. But it cuts you off from the search for truth. There comes a point (at 1:44:45) where Alex really seems to get frustrated about this, and Pageau just seems to try harder to distract him from the question (with an altar-call, of all thing). I do appreciate Alex letting this guy run. And Alex's interview technique _is_ a very underrated and worthwhile one. It lets people expose their intellectual style.
I think you're right that Pageau is not interested in the non-theist perspective, and that he genuinely believes Alex O'Connor can't present a theory of identity that differs meaningfully from his own. Of course Alex never tries.
A lot of you are wickedly straw manning the dude and think that your intelligence supercedes his. If you listen properly from the beginning he clearly started with a premise about the nature of creation. Unity and Multiplicity and everything else his whole point about the Genesis story followed from that. I understood it perfectly. How do you not? He gave examples that clearly iterated his point. Infact Alex followed through the whole conversation their only point of disagreement was if it could have happened any other way and wether the gnostic interpretation is equally plausible. Y'all don't listen you simply want to refute.
The real difference is that Alex has a certain understanding of what sort of information the Bible is trying to convey and what it means, and this is the one he learned it from very smart professors at Oxford. It's understandable that he is convinced strongly it is the correct one, or at least no less correct than any other. But it is nevertheless not the one ancient Christians had. And Alex is always posing questions that would make no sense to an ancient Christian, even if they make perfect sense to a modernist like WLC who will attempt (badly) to defend the Bible within a modernist frame. This means, for someone like Jonathan, the modernist assumptions underlying the question itself have to be dismantled before you can even begin to address the thing being asked about. Jonathan is never going to be able to justify why the snake could talk or how plants grew before the sun existed or how Noah collected all the bazillion species of insects and got them on a boat, simply because none of those things are what the story is about even though atheists want to act like they are.
It means a whole bunch of things at once, of course. But one very succinct meaning is "don't reach and grab for the shiny thing." Humans do this all the time, the most obvious example today being AI, another being nuclear weapons (it's a genuine miracle that we survived the latter half of the 20th century) And it's not just the reaching that was the problem, it was engaging with the voice that said to reach. It is not safe to have conversations with the devil, he is a lot smarter than you are.
This was incredible, I learned so much! Love what you’re doing Alex, I follow Jonathan closely and this helped me a lot to understand my faith a little deeper. Great discussion!
Alex looked up the word עֵזֶר (ēzer), which means helper. However, the next word is what describes Eve as Adam’s opposite or adversary which כְּנֶגְדּוֹ [cənegdo], often translated “a suitable helper” but is better rendered “a helper as his opposite.”
I would like this part to be a sneeze world replies section ;) In Poland it is "na zdrowie" ( literary "for your health") no matter how many times one sneeze. In Zizek style when someone sneeze you can jokingly tell "sto lat ciężkich robót" ( "one hundread years of hard labour" :) ) One hundread years - this part suggest long life but it goes in a different direction in the second part as cheeky slav does ;):)
A good discussion! Many of the other commenters don't seem to appreciate it much. The world view Jonathan advocates for is very alien to the modern mind but I find it very fruitful to contemplate.
1:49:16 This question that Alex has is pretty much the exact theme in Job. “There is a way that world is that I would prefer that it was not.” - that’s it right there, a perfect example of a good starting point. And, like in the Job story, the “friends” never can give a satisfactory answer. It is a question that has to be posed to the divine itself, and the satisfactory state at the end of Job is not in the form of an answer, but in something else, which is well documented by many, including Blasé Pascal, who Alex was speaking about earlier, as some kind of an encounter with the ground of all being. Look how it happens in all of these different stories: In Abraham it takes the form of a negotiation In Jacob it is pictured in a wrestling match that goes on all night
Thanks for the edifying comments at the end of the podcast Alex. Jon’s observation (and your response) is the reason why Christians like me stay glued to your channel. The world is too full of opinionated conversations which ends up not being constructive. You’re doing your bit in the universal search for truth ❤
Even from a materialistic point of view Scripture interpreting Scripture makes the most sense if your goal is honest inquiry into the truth because logically there must be a reason that this body of texts has stuck together for so long in so many different times, places, and cultures. The real kicker is when you realize that they stuck together because they point to Christ, in whom all things hold together.
@@aaronh8095 Which body of texts? Because you know the biblical cannon took centuries to form, and even today different denominations differ on what should or shouldn't be in it. But even if the cannon were more stable than it is, there's no way to get from "there must be a reason" to "that reason must be that it's all true." There are plenty of historical explanations for whatever degree of stability the biblical cannon has, most notably the massive, centralized institutions that have defined and maintained it for most of its existence.
I know I'm talking to a millennial, so allow me to explain it to you with Harry Potter. In order to understand why Harry's touch was deadly to Voldemort, you need to refer to the later text within the same series. That's the way you do it, you interpret one part of the text by using the other. It maybe novel to you, but that's in fact how pretty much all stories work.
@@BuddhaMonkey7it doesn't matter how many people wrote (or rather compiled) it. The canon is put together the way that it is because it made sense to people compiling it, the story follows within itself and is internally coherent. In that way it's no different than any other story. Your original remark was you putting your foot in your mouth. Now you're just suckling on it.
58 mins in and This is deep 🔥. Jonathan really gracious in giving this info for free. I think part of the fundamental problem here is that Alex doesnt believe in free will, and so the idea of chaos and order being necessary for change or the great dance of life as Lewis might have described seems unnecessary.
Being a materialist, literalist, and fundamentalist hampers his ability to understand. I can see from his other videos, it literally blinds him from ascending to truth. He tries to grasp God in his head which is impossible. Since belief is based on faith and reason, there is also a supernatural component to which he does not believe.
@occultislux if you hold this as a truth you shouldn't be here now but already expired by your own hand. Everyone who preaches meaninglessness but then shudders at practising what they preach is by definition a hypocrite. The very fact you are alive commenting that at all is a contradiction of your comment. For obviously, your life has enough meaning to engage in this type of conversation. Beliefs unlived are lies, and the belief that nothing matters can only be died in, not lived in. To hold death worshipping ideas and to be alive yourself is a hypocrtical contradiction. I literally cant give you the 3 letter acryonym that would be the TL;DR of this otherwise youtube autodeletes it. But you get the idea.
@@Reiman33 I'm not in the nihilist camp but I wouldn't say believing everything is meaningless is "death worship". Wouldn't someone who believes such think death is meaningless as well?
@@Mr_M1dnight you are correct in theory, but in practice there is no reason a real human individual would turn to nihilism other than the desire to tear down the high I mean I'm not gonna make claims, maybe there are some weirdos who don't follow that pattern, but it's certainly the main driver of nihilism
@Alex O'Connor, just a helpful little tip: if you press your tounge strongly against your upper palate the urge to sneeze will go away very quickly. I use this whenever I have to speak publicly.
I really enjoyed the talk, but it took an odd turn when Alex asked Jonathan why God placed the snake in the Garden of Eden in the first place. It was unclear whether Jonathan misunderstood Alex's intention or if he deliberately avoided the topic, but his response felt evasive. At its core, Alex was asking: Why did God create an imperfect universe? Why did He make humanity flawed, requiring us to overcome our imperfections to become like Him? Why didn't God create a perfectly harmonious existence for all eternity? This is a profound question for those who believe in a loving God, and an easy one for those who don't. I've pondered this question many times throughout my life, especially during periods of suffering. Each time I overcame a challenge and grew from it, I still wondered: "Why was this suffering necessary in the first place?" There's a yogic idea suggesting that suffering is a blessing, pushing the unconscious to grow and expand by creating a necessity to escape the unpleasantness. Fully conscious beings, like angels, do not suffer because they no longer need it for their development. As Pageau mentioned, in this worldview, the purpose of life is to expand until we achieve absolute unity with God. Since God is all-encompassing, everything in existence must reach this full expansion and unity together to become God itself. One can conceptualize this process as a big breath in and out. Initially, there was God as a singularity. God "exploded" into all creation, maintaining perfect unity since God is in everything. To the individual parts, however, it appears as if they are just that-separate parts. This is the difference between absolute reality, where God exists with full consciousness of everything, and relative reality, our perception where everything seems separated. This is the "breathing out" phase, where God bursts forth in endless creativity. As parts move further apart, they become less conscious of themselves and the universe. Eventually, there's a turning point marking the beginning of the "breathing in" phase, where everything evolves and is naturally drawn to reunite. Everything strives to expand and encapsulate everything else, folding back together until it becomes one again. What comes after that? Perhaps another cycle of breathing out. It remains unknown. Yet, the original question persists: Why? I suppose we won't know until we are reunited with everything else. Ironically, at that point, it will be us making the decision, for we will be God. There's an intriguing thought hidden in that: Why did we do this to ourselves the last time we were united as God?
The entire _interview_ felt evasive to me; the man is so bent on his overly-complex, sometimes senseless "explanations" he just avoids the questions he has no answer to with a lot of... well, it's not _word_ salad, but ... _philosophical_ salad.
I like your reasoning and Christian’s would call this new age theology, everything is god and all is separate yet one like the waves of the ocean being individual yet one with the ocean. God experiencing itself thru everything.
@@MrFireman164 What a lot of useless pap that is. I'm sure it would feel good to pretend life was some kind of neo-hippie, transcendental journey into "energy realms" and "wave conjugations," but it's not actually explaining anything or making any useful differences to actual lives. First world white people philosophical masturbation.
i think if eve didn't eat the fruit, then genesis would describe a state of equilibrium. the story would end, there would be no time. so maybe the answer is: if you hypothesize that there is no serpent, then you get a static universe
I think he blew it on the sneezing bit. Jonathan: “Sneezing is non-deliberate and thus is akin to things that bring you away from meaning.” (Paraphrasing) Alex (in another less polite universe): “Our bodies do many things automatically, without our conscious control. Your heartbeat is non-deliberate. Does your heartbeat bring you away from meaning? What about breathing itself?” How about: -Pupillary dilation? -The blush response? -Sweating? -Producing tears? - Digestion? - Being startled? - Blinking? - Immune response? - Healing? Our bodies automatically heal wounds and repair damaged tissues. - Hormone regulation? - Body temp regulation? Our bodies adjust our temperature to maintain a consistent internal environment. Felt like Jonathan was eagerly waiting to bring up this symbolic wisdom regarding sneezing from the word go, but it fell a bit short, tbh. It’s hard to drive your point home, when a sneeze throws you off course.
Air / Spirit escaping the body accidentally is why it is followed by a bless you. Emptying is responded to by filling. It's not due to an accidental function on its own.
@@Bodofooko - Okay but how is sneezing not productive? Is it necessarily accidental? It is productive in its own way, just like many of the other bodily functions are, in their own respective ways. - Many customs persist for thousands of years for a whole host of non-mysterious, non-spiritual, reasons. - Since we’re largely talking about people’s learned reactions to it, it’s worth mentioning that the rich, powerful and snobby will routinely used their adherence to strict manners as a way to demonstrate their superior status and education over “The (so-called) Poors”. The reaction to sneezing is basically socially mandated, but not based on any actual mysterious, spiritual or cosmic purpose. - Sneezing could be seen as accidental or intentional. It could be productive when it is clearing out irritants like dust, pollen, etc. from nasal passages. But it can also be non-productive and be caused by a tickle or even a stray hair in the nose. It’s not always a sign of illness. It could be seen as accidental to some degree, but it could also be seen as being deliberate from the perspective of the body’s needs. Both can work. - Putting sneezing in its own special category and tacking on additional layers of cosmic meaning to it, just comes off as a bit forced when it’s not that distinct from many other bodily functions. Saying something like “bless you” is merely a social colloquialism of the kind that can and has been used as a way to differentiate social classes. In many cultures, displays of “unrefined” bodily functions were and are seen as uncivilized or uneducated, and thus associated with the lower classes. People react across cultures react to sneezes in various ways. Yes, the snobbier aspects of society will see it as an inherently negative thing. That much is true. - Then there are some people that may be compelled to voluntarily sneeze (by looking at a bright light, for example, or by tickling their own noses.) Others may have picked up ways to suppress sneezes. Both are true. - There’s nothing especially mysterious about sneezing, but if you want to force special cosmic meaning onto it, then fine but it doesn’t really work. I’m looking for something deeper that truly resonates on some cosmic level. Sneezing and farting ain’t it. Sorry. - Saying sneezing or farting brings someone “away from meaning”, rings hollow. Give me something more than that.
'A tree is an image of order, an image of structure. It's a fractal structure. Then you have a snake. It's an image of change. It changes its skin, it can be in two places at the same time, it's shifty, it's shrewd, its an image of chaos. The idea that a snake is an image of chaos, I hope you can see that this is pretty universal. Like in every culture this giant sea serpent, this Leviathan, slithering thing, that kind of moves and shifts and coils itself and is an image of chaos or strangeness of being. I do not see this reasoning. Snakes shed and change their skin, but trees also lose and change their leaves. A fractal is a repeating pattern, but so is a coil. Why would slithering and moving be chaos? Earlier, Jonathan says that the sky represents order because the stars don't move, but he meant that they don't move relative to each other in the sky (on a human time scale). They do move over the hours. The moon moves. If feels arbitrary to classify these things this way, yet these classifications are load bearing to the entire argument. If this is how the author intended the passages to be interpreted by their readers, do we see this understanding in ancient Hebrew texts? Perhaps I am ignorant, but I have not read that anywhere. This type of classification seems unfalsifiable and, because of that, I feel it is very weak to base so much reasoning on.
Yeah, so many times I felt he was just running away with the metaphors that could easily be applied either way, or interpreted entirely differently - then he says "This is the world we live in, I don't see how it could be any other way"... I found that a bit arrogant, perhaps it's not his intent to seem as if he's presenting this indisputable portrayal of reality - but it comes across like that at times.
Dunno if this will help, but the difference between the tree vs the snake = difference between the house vs. The whirlpool. One is sturdy, lasting, a place you can count on - the other is mobile, quick, and destructive. Hope this helps discern between the two.
@@JacobSmaby you can belabour a metaphor to mean practically anything: the tree represents change and impermanence as it transforms during the seasons whereas the snake represents patience and solidity as it defends the eggs in its nest etc. Ultimately this symbolic world can be mapped on to absolutely anything in any which way you want to frame it, and then it becomes a rather blunt instrument.
@Vrailly There are myths of trees that hold up / structure the world in many, many cultural myths. There are sneaky / deceptive / chaotic snakes in many many cultures. These were not pulled out of John's butt, these are symbols that have been used for millenia untold to describe the word.
I don't understand how Pageau doesn't grasp the question Alex is asking about why the serpent was there in the first place. Both Peterson and Pageau have developed a worldview in which atheism is inconceivable. With a text as vague yet rich as the Biblical corpus, almost anything is conceivable, just as the authors did with the Gospels. Each Gospel represents an author's attempt to integrate Jesus into the overarching narrative in their own unique manner, and there are multiple ways to achieve this. However, to misquote what Bart Ehrman often says, 'with enough imagination, any two contradictions can be reconciled.' The mere fact that two dots can be connected does not imply that a connection actually exists between them. Both Peterson and Pageau are expert apophenics; they perceive patterns where none exist.
Not grasping is his only way out though. To admit the possibility of an alternative immediately begs the question of God's infallibility. For all the nuanced tiptoeing they did, the question was still, "If God is all powerful and all-knowing, why did he let/make this happen?" The only way to dodge it is to not even field the possibility.
any axiomatic system generates a statement that is true but unprovable. alternatively you can have a complete system that is inconsistent (not logical, breaks it's axiomatic presuppositions in the achievement of an all encompassing explanation). there ya go. there is always a snake, no coherent body of knowledge is without a snake.
@@sugakukata As I understand it, for Pageau, the Bible maps reality directly. Specifically, the reality of what human beings are like, what errors they make, and what they ought to do to live optimally. If the Bible is such a mapping of reality, then asking what it would be like if there were no serpent is akin to asking a phycisist what the world would be like if there were no gravity; it just doesn't really make sense. The laws of the universe would then be so fundamentally different to what they are that the role of phycisist itself would need complete restructuring, assuming such a universe even supports life. Similarly, humans are the way they are, the Bible attempts to describe this being, so to ask what it would be if the serpent weren't there or if Eve didn't eat the apple or if God didn't punish Adam and Eve, well, that's just asking what humans might be like if we were fundamentally different to what we actually are - it is perhaps a curious exercise, but ultimately not all that meaningful.
@@alaron5698 Your gravity example is not the same thing. Gravity isn't a moral agent with freedom of choice. God is. So what is being ask is "why did god choose to to set things up this way?" If you say he didn't choose to, then what's the point of god?
Great conversation. I learned a lot from both speakers. I want to give some summary about the conversation. Jonathan told us about : - How we should read the Bible. In which through metaphor and as something happened in our reality. - Explaining the creation of Adam from the dust and the Spirit as the one uniting Adam and Eve in the garden. Dust is multiplicity and something low, which is placed on the ground level. Where spirit is something giving life to the beings which will give purpose and unity. - Adam is one from the above describing all the animals and things hierarchically. Where serpant is the cunning animal and give something worth considering from Eve point of view. This is a lot of things to unpack. Alex told us about : - The story is arbitrary and doesn't seem fit into our reality. Why would God create such a world in the first place? - Some stories from thomas and apocrypa Gospel. (I knew the Gospel, but this is the first time I heard it.) - How to make a good argument against metaphorical explanation of the gospel. I got an impression that the story doesn't matter at all for us human society to be a good person. I think the question of the conversation, "Why did God create this world the way it is?" Is not answered yet. This is similar to the Problem of Evil question. I think I know how to answer it. People who don't listen and are just waiting for their turn to talk. it's the greatest sin in a good conversation.
After slogging through Jonathon’s rambling I can honestly say I am more of an atheist than I was before. He’s better at counter apologetics than C.S. Lewis who also made me more skeptical.
I doubt his objective was to convert anyone to theism. Hes an interesting guy with an interesting perspective that most people find hard to follow. I’m Christian and I like Johnathon and find his work fascinating and he looses me a lot. I just appreciate what I do understand from him.
Thank you, Jonathan, and thank you, Alex, for this great conversation. As an Orthodox Christian, Jonathan's words spoke to my heart. Also, I'm very greatful to Alex for asking all these challenging questions, which allowed Jonathan to deliver the symbolic world and all it's meanings in a thrurhfull manner. Also, I feel like the answer to Alex's question on "why the world was created like this? why Eve had to fall to the lies and temptations of the serpent?" can be discussed and elaborated farther on. I'm not a theology expert, or anything like that, but maybe the answer to these question is that humans were not created as slaves, as pre-programmed AI-machines, who were designed to be imperatively good. Maybe the path towards God can not be artificially, prerequisitely layed out. May that be that humans can reach the ultimate unity with God by conscious choice between devine order and the way of chaos? Anywas, I'm from orthodox country of Georgia and I want to bless both of you in my own language. Thank you. მადლობა ორივეს, დაე, არ მოგკლებოდეთ ღვთიური მადლი, დაგლოცოთ ორივე უფალმა, და დაგიფაროთ ბოროტისგან. უფალო, შეგვიწყალენ.
I think people who are very close to the bible often lose perspective about what the bible actually says in it's raw words. They fail to notice how they have constructed their own complex story around the words to make them sound more interesting, deeper, more sensical, less awful - take your pick! When JP is describing the "death" of Adam and Eve upon eating from the tree, he seems to have constructed an incredibly thoughtful, complex, meaningful and subtle sub-text that just isn't there in the original text. It's that "lean not on your own understanding" thing again: Anyone can talk around the words and create a new story from the bible, but it'll just be a set of assumptions, guesses, justifications. As someone who is NOT too close to the bible, who HAS read it but is NOT a believer yet is open to truth, it's just a crazy, fascinating old book with a messy history and an extremely dubious morality.
After listening to most of this on a drive, it seems the central thought Alex got stuck on was “…but why couldn’t god just NOT create the snake?” That snake is an embodiment of a chaos that cannot be avoided for our world to exist at all. Part of reality must be allowed to be chaotic because absolute order would leave no room for change or growth in the world. Yes, god could’ve made it so there was no snake…but it would mean creation would be still and forever unchanging. A pristine statue of Adam in a plastic garden, no motion, sound, perfect stillness. A world without suffering, how great! I wish Jonathan paused to explain this to Alex, but no shade thrown. It can be difficult coming into a discussion with the topic in mind and some idea of how it will go, but then having a little snake pop its head in and derail things…
If god created chaos, as it's necessary for the world to exist and for growth and change to occur, then god shouldn't have a problem when people make mistakes or sin. BTW, if "heaven" is a perfect place that exists eternally without chaos, then god could've skipped the whole chaotic- world business from the get-go. Perhaps he enjoys watiching people suffer.
@ga6589 the world with suffering and chaos is actually better because it allows us to be individuals with true & meaningful choice. A world where this choice is a dictatorship where God predetermined who we are and what we would choose - an ultimate dictatorship. He would rather offer us the choice.
@@JacobSmaby Humans have no choice about when, where, or to whom we are born. Those circumstances are completely out of one's control and have a great deal of influence on future decision making. That your god created us without invitation and then introduced the first two poor schmucks to evil does indeed indicate that he's a psychopathic dictator. And your argument that god didn't predetermine who we are is a direct contraction to the abortion-foe folks who claim god DID know us, even before we were in the womb. Look, I have no reason to believe in ANY god, due to lack of credible and verifiable evidence one exists. For you to claim that there is a god who would allow the suffering and abuse of small children and allow millions of people to suffer horrifically in the Holocaust, because it's "better" is quite disturbed thinking, IMO.
This was a great conversation, very interesting to hear and both were very respectful towards each other. It felt that it took time for Jonathan to get to the core of Alex's questions simply because both have fundamentally different views of reality and are trying to solve a fundamentally different problem: Jonathan see God, the nature of God, and the accounts of the Bible as factual pieces of the puzzle we call reality, and need to connect all of them to make sense of it. Because what if scenarios are not true in his world view, it doesn't fit in the puzzle so there's no point in wasting time on it, and that's why he call himself "more of a realist". Alex, however, see all of the above as simply hypothesis, including the very existence of God and their all good nature, and what if scenarios help with testing if those hypothesis are coherent, to find if there are maybe other hypothesis that have better explanatory power. But even if I disagree with his world view, being atheist, Jonathan's explanation were very clear and pretty insightful on the views of orthodox Christians, and presented some new interpretations of Bible symbolism that I didn't know or have thought about, being raised catholic. I'd definitely watch another episode with him as a guest.
Viewing from a (Lacanian) psychoanalytical and (Hegelian) dialectical perspective, I don’t find what Jonathan said in this podcast to be confusing, but rather quite reasonable/understandable and interesting. Also, I find this angle on Christianity to be strikingly Buddhist, though I only have superficial grasps on either of them.
Good catch on the buddhist similarity. Yes it seems like eastern orthodoxy's world view is closer to zen buddhism than any modern western worldview including modern christian theology. Its classical theology vs modern theology. Nowadays classical theology looks like a far eastern thing to a western audience
I once heard Jonathan saying that the difference between Christianity and Buddhism is that the ultimate goal of Buddhism is something like an individual transcendence, which the individual gets for itself and distances him from all else. While the ultimate goal of Christianity is something like a communion of love between saints.
![[UNCUT] "บอสณวัฒน์" แฉ! แหล่งซุกเงินแก๊งบอส ขยันผิดที่ไม่กี่ปีก็เข้าคุก l คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ l17ต.ค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BL56qIfXYZM/mqdefault.jpg)
Johnathan Pageau and Jordan Peterson are having dinner together.
Johnathan asks “Did you enjoy the meal?”
Jordan replies “What do you mean by enjoy?”
Johnathan says “Enjoy as in the coming together of purposes to close the space that once filled the void. We both encircled the perpetual abyss with the substance of an emotion that makes us happy”
Jordan says “We’ll then why didn’t you just say that to begin with how is anybody supposed to understand what you mean?”
Jordan then asks Jonathan:
What is a meal ?
Jonathan:
Johnathan Pageau leaned forward, his eyes gleaming with the promise of a revelation so profound it seemed to teeter on the brink of the ineffable. "A meal, dear Jordan, transcends its mere culinary assemblage. It is a symphonic convergence of archetypal symbols, an alchemical transmutation wherein the prosaic acts of cooking and eating ascend to the hallowed status of sacrament, embodying the quintessence of communal identity and existential coherence. Each ingredient is not merely a component but a hieroglyph, an intricate sigil that encodes the primordial whispers of the archetypes, those deep structures that undergird and shape the labyrinthine expanse of our collective unconscious."
Dawkins: Eat it to survive or die.
"did you enjoy our dinner last night?"
"I'm still enjoying it"
The cool thing about communication is that I can take your entire comment as a communication that you don't get it. Which is fine.
You guys make it sound like they're being BS, but that's actually how Socrates would talk. That's how the entire field of philosophy was created.
That's how the entire field of philosophy was created. (1) Someone starts by saying certain things, and (2) then someone drills you down on the MEANING of the terms you've used by asking those very questions, until you both come to a clarification of the terms you've used, and (3) then see whether the certain things that the other person had said was true or not.
If you're going to say how philosophy is a BS field, you're also throwing the entire field of science away because that's where the scientific method is patterned upon-the Socratic Method:
(1) Hypothesis (a statement you've made about physical reality)
(2) Testing (asking those questions, by following through and poking holes to the hypothesis)
(3) Conclusion (see whether the certain thing you've assumed, aka your Hypothesis, is true or not).
And clarification of terms is very much important in almost all areas of discipline. e.g. If you're not clear with the meaning of legalistic terms, you're going to find yourself in a world of tyranny buddy.
@@Mobuku I don't think that's what bothers me. It's more that what Jonathan and Peterson et al. do eventually leads to a kind of equivocation. Meanings are swapped around and substituted for others. We're not digging down to a deeper meaning, we're completely changing it altogether. I don't think that is the same as the process you described.
This shows why conversations are always better then debates
Not “always”
I used to be a Christian. I backslid once I became an adult by not going to church. I always had questions too that I never asked.. Somehow I stumbled onto a debate between a Rabbi named Tovia Singer vs some Christian professor in a debate. I watched Tovia dismantle the guy and Christianity. He showed the forgeries and corruption. The Rabbi made so much more sense. He spoke Hebrew.. I started watching all the debates..
The Rabbi me down the rabbit hole and I'm no longer Christian.
I listen to atheist debates vs Christians. The atheist always win but I can reconcile that you can't prove a faith based religion.
Watching a Rabbi dismantle Christian scholars was far more effective for me
@@NeonSlime-uu5kt considering Christianisty stemmed from Judaism I'd say neither won
@@PaulB_864 ... what are you even trying to say?
@@ItsOnPaper When debate is better?
To anyone who like me read the comments first and felt dissuaded from watching because of all the comments by those who failed to grasp what Jonathan was saying . Ignore the comments, Alex approaches the conversation in good faith and although the they dont always seem to be quite grasping what the other is saying he does a much better job than some of his audience members at treating this subject seriously. Well worth the time spent watching.
Thank you a lot for this comment
Alex did great, but the comments aren’t wrong that Jonathan is just waffling. He constantly restates basic concepts we all already understand in grandiose or abstract terms and fails to really answer any question.
@@regular-thing1:50:36
I found a lot of the comments were fairly disingenuous.
Pageau sounds good because he can phrase nonsense in a way that appeals to people who want the world to be grander than they currently perceive it to be. His early conversation about Eve being Adam's "opponent" is a great example. All he does is play with an English word that has nothing to do with the Hebrew word and pretend you can apply it backward. A first-year seminary student should know not to do that, let alone a famous religious communicator.
I think Pageau's connection of sin and death is mindblowing tbh. Describing death as the loss of unity of a multiplicity is actually the best description of death I've ever heard
When voldemort dies the eight Harry Potter movie you see him fall apart into many pieces of ash. The multiplicity no longer held together in unity.
It's undeniably in the category of descriptions of death that I've heard. And I say that with undiluted confidence.
Well it certainly sounds fancy.
@@lakingpaul what makes it sound fancy?
Check out Pageau's brother's book The Language of Creation
Thank you Alex and Jonathan for this amazing conversation.
Both of you showed great patience, respect, and interest with regard to each other. Great chat.
Good conversation. Your conversation was about “the problem of evil”, though and that should have been named as the issue. Throw in some Augustine and Aquinas and riff off of it. Alex is a polite Luciferian intellect (thats a compliment) that puts believers like Pageau on their heels. Pageau understands things that he has difficulty articulating in the rational/materialist world. But he is growing in knowledge and wisdom and has had some brilliant insights when on biblical panels with Peterson. Keep at it guys,
In one direction, the respect was deserved. 😅
@@mfoley92
'Alex is a polite Luciferian intellect (thats a compliment)'
Why do you worship Lucifer...you gone mad, Bro?
' Pageau understands things that he has difficulty articulating in the rational/materialist world.'
Which is exactly why i love listening to the guy...
he's one of the few students who've successfully managed to circumvent the power of state indoctrination techniques and go with a more grass roots understanding of reality, and tb perfectly h that ain't an easy thing to achieve in this day & age, is it?
So, long may Pageau's lumb reek, as we uncivilised Scots like to say! :P
I think one thing you Alex should do, is to talk to someone about differences between mysticism and scholastism in Christianity. I think that might be one piece that is currently missing from this bigger picture you are trying to paint and communicate to us
@@LolSumor but I understand Christianity from a sola scriptura perspective...
Thank you for this comment.
But also mysticism is a unification with God, is personal. Is not the same as esoterism (inner path or understandig), which is a path of knowledge about these things.
The best comment. 🏆❤️
Alex could benefit from someone teaching him how non-scholastic/ mystic worldview works; and vice versa for Jonathan! 💪❤️
It's a difficult divide to broach. 😶
To be fair; Jonathan is repeatedly having remarkable success with it, considering how hard of a divide it is. 🏆❤️
Alex is also displaying remarkable flexibility & speed of adaptation. 🏆❤️
This is the single best analysis of the story I’ve ever heard. Where has this man been all my life?
haha welcome to The Symbolyc World.
Yeah holy shit this is absolutely mind blowing.
A lot of us been trying to get people to see this forever but it's usually 2 camps.
Atheist who just want to think the Bible is worthless and then fundamentalist that can't let go their personal images and relationships with the images.
And the 2 propagate each other. Atheist burrow deeper into wanting to hate and reject anything in the Bible because of how much fundamentalist cling to what they do.
The bible is a PROFOUND deeply spiritual book of spiritual truths that just ring true to your spirit.
Lot of people make fun of Jordan Peterson when he is asked questions and he says but what do you mean by that.. because he knows people cling to their own images of their personal relationship with meaning
Ikr alex is so very good at deconstructing and calling out the contradictions and major overwhelming issues with the Bible and a lot of other religions. It's crazy how people believe this nonsense for the sake of having a feeling of a higher purpose or fear of death....
@Mamba4.8 it's not that it's worthless it's that the religion has done far far far more harm than good. And is honestly causing more problems than not even now.... 99% of all wars are over this rediculous religious bull crap......
Eve in hebew is described as: "Ezer ke-negdo".
Ezer is helping, "ke-negdo" is indeed "opposite" (the "ke" means "as", that is, helper as his opposite) , which usually can be understood as eve was made to be help for Adam.
But indeed, it could be understood with a deeper meaning, where the term can mean both it's positive and negative meaning, such that eve may "counter" help Adam.
Interesting, never saw it like that until now...
@@hatulflezet yet everyone else is claiming its just nonsense immediately. At least somebody (you) take seriously what you hear and check the original Hebrew
What's your source for negdo meaning opposite? I can't find anything saying that except for Christian websites that clearly have an aim in mind.
@@bluebitproductions2836 I am a native Hebrew speaker 😊.
"Neged" is that what opposes, on the other side, it can mean "against" but also simply like when you describe "the shore on the other, or opposing side".
Context is important when using the word, to give it the full meaning.
@@egonomics352yes! This is was a point made in the Exodus series where Jonathan was part of, but the point was not made by him.
@@egonomics352 Because it is nonsense. And what does it have to do with calling the serpent the woman?? It’s all just intellectualizing hatred of women. All these conversations are is people trying to defend how awful the Bible is.
This is the kind of content that brings me to life. Huge thanks to both parties involved; hoping for many more.
Idk man... Johnathan couldn't back up a single thing he said
@@BenChaverin i have to say i enjoy these kinds of conversation as philosophical inquiries, but i fail to take diehards like him seriously when they claim this is certainly real
@y0landa543 even if he wasn't claiming it's "real", he isn't a compelling speaker. He does the JP thing where he can't stay on one topic. He's a poor communicator and thinks heaven is "where air is" whatever that means, when Satan is the "prince of air" and air is very obviously on earth lol. He just says things.
@@BenChaverinhe's being metaphoric. Ultimately we live in a physical world and have to bridge a gap to the spiritual because our language only exists to describe our experiential world which is primarily physical. The ancients had an experience of air but no idea what exactly it was but they knew they certainly couldn't go without it. It was mysterious, ineffable but life-giving hence the association with spirit.
If you want to be hard-nosed about these things and say that "we know that air is a gaseous solution of roughly 70% nitrogen... And we can't accept any other associations with it" then very quickly your options for communication become very limited. Take for example the word "inspiration". The ambiguity of "spirate" the substance being taken in is vitality important. Spirit being something that changes you, compels you to move towards a certain aim. Air being something external from yourself you take in. This gives a much better phenomenological account of the way inspiration is experienced than the modern idea that it's something produced by the working of our own minds.
There are many such examples of everyday metaphorical language that depend on such ambiguities. If you want to nail things down to a certainty based on scientifically measurable phenomena alone you'll quickly find your language is confounded and your unable to understand others speech. Just as it happened for the people of Babel when they worshipped the technological achievements of man over the mysterious power of God which has given rise to their harmonious society in the first place.
But of course the Bible is a load of old fairy stories. None of that could possibly happen in the real world ahahahaha
@BenChaverin that's not what he or his brother mean by heaven. If you read the language of creation then it's very easy to understand what Jonathan is saying. Heaven is simply the spiritual/immaterial world that informs Earth aka the material corporeal world. The problem here is many anglo atheists (especially americans) have the cards stacked against them when trying to ready the symbolic world of the scriptures.
Imagine clicking on a interview asking an Orthodox Christian about the fall of Adam and Eve and being upset when he gives an Orthodox Christian account of the fall of Adam and Eve
Lol
@@marincusman9303 Shocked Orthodox Pichachu face!
@@marincusman9303 nah, one can be curious what the view is and then get disappointed that the view is dumb.
@@realGBx64 have you ever heard anything of Jonathan Pageau’s before?
@@marincusman9303 no, and after this, I'm not interested at all.
When Alex asked, “Could Eve have done differently?”, I was sorry that Jonathan didn’t make more of the opportunity to discuss the significance of free will in the story. It’s a point that I think demands our attention.
I had the same feeling that You.
It's precisely in that point Free will and Conscience and consequences of good or bad usage of them is what separating Us from rest of Creation.
God made Adam and Eve by His image. He gave them purpose and direction how They should use their power to stay in union with Him.
Adam should make order from chaos just like God by naming creatures and call the purpose on them.
And second part of their purpose was to not eat from the fruit of knowledge of Good and Bad.
God tell them that They are Created and not Creator what They should and shouldn't do in order to stay in union with Him.
And then Eve met serpent who tried to inflict opposite of what God wanted.
He wanted direct Eve look out of him.
Serpent was below her but fruit was above both of them.
Then Eve was charmed by fruit and that desire was in conflict with Conscience.
She should delay gratification and control her impulses.
Serpent should be getting his purpose and order from Adam because he was above serpent . But when he distract Eve by prohibited fruit he put his desire on her.
In that time She should put her will to obey God first and desire to get fruit on second, step back and go for Adam for help and Adam should use power from God to put serpent in his hierarchy place and order.
And when Eve come to Adam with fruit for him to eat, She was separated from Adam and God.
But Adam wasn't separated from God yet.
He shouldn't be deseived by Eve, but put God will first and call God for help and repent with Eve because He wasn't with Her when she met serpent.
It's story about not putting Our desire first because we are creatures created in the image of God above what God is desired for Us.
God bless Us.
Have a great Life.
@@KamilWieczorek-ns4en Thanks for fleshing the point out. Yes! I think the “vertical” dimension of sin (our will against God’s) is absolutely central.
Yeah this too. But perhaps this may be the difference between Orthodox and Catholic theology that we're seeing from Jonathan Pageau. Catholics heavily emphasizes Free Will, but I'm not sure about the Orthodox position.
@@Mobuku It's just admiting that We have agency in that World, We are not a puppet. God creating Us with a tools and to make relationship.
Making relationship is not a puppet property.
We can see that as God created that Us in a way that is good trajectory for Us to mature and use Our tools to rule the whole world to the Glory of God.
Like We Us people are invited to table for big Boys, God is a Boos ofcourse but it's the best Boss and Leader to have and it's realm of spirit, Angels and Demons and Us. All of Us are invited to the table.
It's one of Meaning of the name of Israel is to wrestle with God man.
God loves Us to be taught opponent but with kindness and grace.
It's like on every One of Use individual and the power of relationship between Us and between Us and a God is
Whole fck ing Universe is settled.
I was had some really profoundly realization. Big Big. It's soo Damm scaremy but soo DAMM massive too.
If u want then listen.
We are called to first to rules Our self in this Earth. Like everyone in this planet it's called to be united under One God to the sake of his Glory. It's to summun resurrection not to the inviduals. But to whole planet.
Jesus will come in the End of a Time in this universe will be still glimpse of hope to make anything in the name of Glory this Universe have future We are still welcome in the table for a Big Boys.
But all living beings and God itself is betting to Us go mature as fast and in the so much Big scale like We can .
Every living beings on this planet have One purpose.
To spread the Glory of Our Father in every corner of the Universe.
It's like We need to assume that We are not enchanter to this day Life from outside of Here and There.
It's like one candle of Glory of God Father, Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit in the vast vast universe.
Maybe They are waiting for Us to join, Or We are the only One that survived. Only becouse of Grace of Jesus Christ.
Every day every Ants, Beea Cow,s Pigs, Doliński, Orks and Wheals, Bird bacterias and Viruses ars counting on Us, They are cheering o Us and aploud to Us.
Becouse only We Us a human Can take Glory of God from this Earth and spread his Love to the Moon, to The Mars and to Every fcking corner of this and maybe beyound that Realm.
Every One of Us need to build in Our Heart Temple / Tabernacle for the Glory of God and Jesus and Holy Spirit and in every relationship with each others We need doing for the Glory Life.
And after everything od this Im staying in me room for years and I'm scared to death to pray for Life.
I'm sorry My Lord Jesus Christ that I'm so sinful. Everything Hope I have in You. With out You that's no worthy. Everything in You and nothing without You.
Please Help.
God Bless You Jesus
@@KamilWieczorek-ns4enWhere did you get the idea that the created must obey the Creator Carte Blanche? Wrong answer. By that position you think if you create clones you can enslave them. Neither does a Creator have authority just because it created. If you want to contend so, that’s merely an argument for ‘might makes right.’ Otherwise, indeed even Creators have to obey a greater justice, and therefore should be disobeyed if they issue bad orders. For example, here’s the correct maxim for all mortals: “Always disobey orders to stay ignorant of ethics.” For otherwise you can’t even discern injustice or abuse. Gaining knowledge of good and evil is a higher purpose than dogmatism. Dogmatism is dangerous and irresponsible.
I love Alex's ability to break down and challenge other interpretations with proper understanding and context
But does he, I’m at a loss for words, a truly dumb individual. I think people don’t think, just want to hear presuppositions, it’s wild, what of any sense did the man say? Cause dumb literal man can’t think I should go with that, it’s so bonkers.
My take on Adam and Eve would be that it may be metaphor for reality as a lot of religious stories are. In the beginning in terms of reality if there was unity no forces split off yet. Then the strong and weak force emerged. After some time the weak force fell and caused what is manifest. So what we are living on, what is material is the weak force. Likely the strong force would still play a role and the neutral force mitigates the forces. So Adam: strong force; Eve: weak force. The weak force has also been personalized as Satan. There is the belief that God and Satan will be reconciled and a chant that posits that. The forces reconciled one day,what that would mean scientifically is not easy to determine.
He doesn’t have proper understanding and context what the fuck are you on about? Alex the idiot atheist has NO context no understanding no history no cultural knowledge at all of Christianity and the Bible. He doesn’t care to that’s the point. He’s logically dishonest.
@@ALavin-en1kr that is a very interesting interpretation and works well as a metaphor, although retrofitting it onto the fundamental forces of the universe (something the original authors would've known nothing about) is a bit of a stretch. It's a shame it's difficult to discuss the allegorical/metaphorical significance such pivotal writings without people either treating it as fact or trying to discard them wholesale because they aren't factual.
He's an expert flimflammer -- like Trump.
11:26 Eve is called an עזר כנגדו a helper opposite him as in a person who helps him by being opposite him. A person who brings out his best by challenging him.
This guy has no idea about the Hebrew text
Alex I highly recommend you talk to a Chabad rabbi for understanding the Jewish Bible. If I could recommend one rabbi specifically it would probably be Rabbi Richie Moss from Nefesh Sydney
I've heard it referred to as a beneficial adversary by Dennis Prager, is he also off the mark?
That's the only thing that sucks about the podcast format, there was no chance to really drive this home outside of jonathan doing it, and I'm positive he knows this but it's hard sometimes I'm sure when the red light is on. I was wanting to chime in on this conversation at several points like that 😅
@@RollCorruption ying/yang
Fascinating. Alex you are that v v rare commodity in modern life of someone who genuinely listens and attempts to understand what the other person is saying even if you are skeptical. Its brilliant. I find Jonathans insights to be v interesting.
As an Orthodox Christian myself, it's very interesting to watch Jonathan's symbolic thinking engage with Alex's analytic thinking. It really demonstrates why many modern people struggle with the way Jonathon speaks. He's not coming at it from the perspective of philosophical inquiry, but instead giving a symbolic account of reality. The symbolic thinker isn't so obsessed with getting things "correct", nor are they that interested in speculating about what could've been, but is focused on how to live given that reality is the way that it is. Both Alex and Jonathan are trying to bridge the gap between their respective approaches but it is clearly very difficult at times as they start to speak past each other (as is the case very often when analystic thinkers engage Jonathan).
I believe the issue is that atheists think that the Bible stories are arbitrary, and because of this reason they feel confident to disregard the things Jonathan say. They think that it's logical to speculate about alternative stories because the new alternative story is just as arbitrary as the original story.
@@No5TypeK Yes this could certainly be the case!
@@curtisben79 If that's the case, what should be done in this situation, then?
@@No5TypeK Well if someone isn't willing to take the stories seriously and receive them as Christians interpret them, then there is really no point in engaging. There's nothing you can provide them that will justify the Scriptures if that is their mindset imo!
@@curtisben79 that's... sad? Because I can't imagine at any point in the future everyone being willing to humbly try to interpret the stories as Christians interpret them. So there will always be misunderstanding and division in the future.
Am I missing something?
What are these comments? Thanks for the great conversation, Alex and Jonathan. Very different backgrounds and forms of thought, but I thought it was super stimulating.
You'd love hanging out with stoners lol. Very strong similarities between them and John.
@@Philitron128 I think you'll be able to name one similarity: you don't like the way they talk.
@@martinallen6411kind of like a wealthy intellectual saying all poor people are stupid because of they way their off putting “ghetto” accent, right? And the intellectual would have a very hard time surviving as a poor person in a ghetto.
@@andreys1793 I'll tell you what these comments are. Jonathan has a communication problem where everybody including Alex is having trouble understanding him. And he's answering questions Jordan Peterson style.
@@andreys1793 the comments are because Jonathan was just asserting asserting. We have a method to differentiate imagination and reality. Do you? If so, how does anything jonathan said pass that test?
Excellent conversation. Alex facilitates the elusive style of Pageau such that it becomes more grounded as the conversation goes on and the ideas begin to solidify
That's a charitable and diplomatic characterization of Pageau's "style".😅
@@MrPayne91 When did it ever solidify? I couldn't make it through
@@authenticallysuperficial9874 towards the end it becomes clear that he sees genesis as a condensed retelling of an event that happened "the fall" which explains the state we find ourselves in spiritually. He explains why gnostic interpretations fail at helping us to reconcile this and will leave us in a worse position.
I'm gonna start saying bless you whenever someone farts
Jonathan was talking about the stickiness of superstitions and phrases like bless you and presenting their “stickiness” as something mysterious when in fact there is nothing mysterious or divine about why they happen to persist.
They are also not always universally applicable and they do not contain some divinely ordained Truth or meaning within them. Just social facts. Which of course, is where religions come from.
Read: “Denial of Death” by Ernest Becker.
No religion has a monopoly on a basic biological function like sneezing, breathing, life or death.
Etiquette rules surrounding bodily functions, appearances and other social, economic and physical markers have routinely been used throughout history as a way to differentiate upper classes from lower social classes. In many cultures, displays of “unrefined” bodily functions were seen as uncivilized, and thus associated with the lower classes.
The rich, powerful and snobby (and those that aspire to be like them) use this as a way to demonstrate their superior status and create a distinction between classes thereby reinforcing class hierarchies.
It’s not a cosmic mystery. So why try to present it as one?
They persist because of the stigmas around not following them. Not for some spiritual, or cosmic reason.
@@Ungrievablelol it’s not arbitrary, what’s the reason those upper class ppl would pick those things in particular?
@@jacobschmidt Once you stop and think about it, it’s not that hard to see that sneezing, burping or farting would all be leveraged in similar ways to set the wealthy classes apart from the lower classes over the course of history-through ridicule and the enforcement of certain social norms.
Over history, the wealthy upper classes (or those aspiring to be like them) have used various social, economic and physical markers to distinguish themselves from lower classes, in order to build and then reinforce their status and privilege while shaming, ridiculing and stigmatizing lower classes.
Other examples of social, economic and physical markers:
- Hygiene: Cleanliness (access to soap, clean water and clean clothes, access to toiletries) which the poor could not afford. This has been (and still is) associated with wealth and status. You can add any “undesirable or so-called embarrassing bodily functions” like sneezing, burping or farting, to that list.
- Posture and body language: “Shoulders back!, head up!”, nose in the air!. “Good posture” was established as a sign of refinement. See how much good posture you can maintain, when you’re going through some serious heartbreak and hardship. Jolly good!
- Table manners: Talking with food in your mouth. Loud noises while eating. I say!
- Body size: in many cultures over history, being overweight has been seen as a sign of wealth and status. Goodness gracious!
- Smells: Perfumes and colognes to cover up their body odor. Something poor people could not afford nor be privileged enough to care about. These days we still have people looking down on homeless people for some of these reasons, without realizing that they simply don’t have access to showers or even to clean running water. Good heavens!
- Hair: Trimmed hair, regular fresh haircuts. The poor cannot afford that but are looked down at for not maintaining. “Bally well done!”
- Skin color: Throughout Asia, even to this day, dark skinned people are looked down upon and seen as belonging to lower castes and as undesirable. Skin lightening products are popular there. You ought to already know about the horrors of skin based segregation, slavery and Jim Crow. “Beastly weather isn’t it?”
Let’s see. What other social, cultural or economic markers could the rich upper classes leverage as a distinguishing marker of status?
- Well, going to the Opera, of course: In the past, only the rich and privileged could afford to do indulge in Opera culture all dressed up like the monopoly guy from Ace Ventura. Lol. I do declare!
- “Refined” Language: In England, certain regional English accents and mannerisms are still seen as less proper and less refined and used to distinguish the refined “posh” upper classes from the lower classes. Hence the veneration of the “Queen’s English” in England. “One mustn’t grumble dear.”!
This made me literally laugh out loud. Thank you.
@@Ungrievableyou can always rely on a post-modernist to give the worst feasible take
Such a great conversation. Thank you for actually engaging with and trying to understand Jonathon’s symbolic way of thinking and describing the world.
This has been my favorite episode so far, and I think you guys are properly discussing an issue that is at the heart of the atheist / Christian divide. I'd love to see another episode. Thank you for this one!
Yeah all the 4 points Alex made in the beginning could be their own episode 😅
Christian makes up anything he damn well pleases to interpret it to make sense to himself. Alex reads and interprets what the words are actually saying.
@@ryanfristik5683 I understand the frustration, but I truly think you are missing where the conversation went
This kind of babytalk philosophy, way below the level that Alex O.Connoer can operate at, is your idea of a great direction? Babytalk Christianist moralizing and Bible torture.
@@ryanfristik5683How do you know what words in an ancient, half-forgotten and then artificially resurrected, not widely known language mean? Out of a wider context of the body of scriptures and ancient Hebrew culture you have little exposure to. 😂Is maybe that you rely on the interpretations of others who/ which may or may not be trustworthy? Your whole idea that you understand the words is all based on faith, buddy. Oh, the irony😂
It appears that to "understand" these texts, you must begin with the predetermined conclusion that everything originating from these gods, or themselves are inherently good. However, the moment you do this, you become oblivious to what these texts might truly be conveying.
You could do the same thing in reverse by assuming that the text has jack-shit to say, and just presuppose that the author is a moron because he lived a long time ago.
@@mentalwarfare2038 you still came with a predetermined conclusion which is exactly what I said
well the text itself says the thing is good and he based what "good" means off the texts and off what the "patterns" of good exists into most mythical stories.
He also entertained the idea of everything being evil (gnostic) and he think it doesn't work.
Not really. For example, there are plenty of scholars of scripture who have captured what these texts might be “truly conveying” while also acknowledging the theological aspect of it. Some examples are John Meier and Raymond Brown
But yeah you’re right, your metaphysics do play a role in how you read a text, just as they’d play a role in anything else you interpret in life. We’re fundamentally story telling creatures. Your insight isn’t that profound
I'd put it that you need to presuppose that there is a truth value to be found in the text.
Which itself presupposes the univocality of the texts, which is really where the whole thing falls apart. We know that these texts as we have them today are the result of centuries of redaction and that even their earliest material is the result of multiple authors writing in different contexts with different ideas about how things work and what things mean.
I'm trying to understand how Pageau describes a hierarchy of being where the problem with the serpent tempting Eve was that it came from a being of lower station trying to reach above its place and disrespecting the divine order, and then on the other hand saying that NOT thinking this way leads to caste systems. Usually i can follow arguments and see where the intuition comes from, but to me this sounds like saying "if we don't respect the caste system, we'll be more likely to create a caste system, and we all agree that caste systems are bad"
I think you kinda missed Jonathan's point.
@@uchechukwuibeji5532ok? Where did I go wrong?
@@brbrofsvl I think he is attempting to explain that the potentiality for disorder in the nature of things is explained in the most coherent way in the genesis story, by the snake embodying that potential towards chaos.
Therefore, by him proclaming this vision of the fall of man to be the most coherent, he makes the argument that a return to proper order has to follow this same model.
Don’t hesitate to tell me if it answers your question.
This was an excellent conversation. I really enjoyed hearing pageau’s perspective
Alex, you truly are my most respected Secular thinker.
Thanks for sharpening my understanding through having meaningful conversations with religious thinkers 🙏🏻
Im glad you two are talking! Jonathan and his brother is the reason I'm christian today, seeing the world as symbol really made it a magical place
@@Alexander_Isen If the kind of "reasoning" Jonathon uses were valid, I could use it to prove literally any claim.
@@authenticallysuperficial9874 No, you couldn't.
@@Alexander_Isen yes he could, I can tell you right now that Jonathan does not know the story of genesis that well (and he doesnt care about it) because he would say stuff that were not written in the bible in order to make sense of it. I have done intense research thru all the genesis translations and i can tell you that for a person who claims he knows the symbolism of genesis he doesnt know KEY info about the story. He has not done proper research. I simply cannot trust a person like this. The same way Jonathan created symbolisms for the story of genesis i can create similar symbolism about everything and anything..I could argue that the devil is actually the good guy in the story and God the bad guy. This is how people end up with theories like the earth is flat. Because without proper research, evidence and logic you can create any world view you want, but it will have nothing to do with reality. Jonathan is living in his own imaginations, his own world because he is afraid of reality.
@@asas14444 One day you'll wake up
@@Alexander_Isen yeah, you too little bro
29:05 he talks about defining terms but then looks at what he wants them to mean then defines them that way so his ideas work.
And once the ideas work, do you still have problems with them? Do they account for everything or is there still some problem?
@Augass 1+1 =4 if you define 1 as 2. But 1 is not two in this universe, so the ideas don't work. This is my point.
@@seand9805 Well I think he also prefaced this or may have said later that we have a disconnect between how we understand the word "evil" now and how it would have been understood back then, which is why it's easier for us to grasp what was really meant by it when we use the word "bad" instead. So he isn't choosing the word "bad" because it fits better in his worldview, that is just how it was originally intended to be understood.
Your analogy does loosely work, but in the reverse. And I say loosely because the meaning or definition of a number doesn't evolve the same way the meaning or definition of a word does over time. Especially through translations, words tend to get aberrated. So, we are looking at 1+1=4 and saying, no no, that doesn't align with reality. Maybe we've misunderstood what 1 means, and it was originally intended to be 2. A better analogy would be: say I am making a toolbox out of wood and the instructions say I need to build the box to be 8 wide, 5 tall and 15 deep. So I grab my metric ruler and start to mark out the pieces to fit that dimension and I realize this will be a tiny toolbox. I could barely even fit my hammer in a 15cm deep box. So then I go back to the instructions and see that it was an American company that made these instructions so I was meant to use imperial, which not only fits the worldview of a properly sized toolbox but also makes sense given its origin. So then I convert all the imperial measurements to metric and I carry making my toolbox.
Hopefully, this second analogy helps you understand that he is not (at least in the timestamp you showed) trying to change the definitions of words to fit his worldview, but instead hearkening back to their original intention and using our language to relay that comprehensively.
@ClimbingtoFreedom sure that may work, but you are missing the point. He starts with defining death and says it is when you stop moving toward your purpose. But then glosses over how this fits the ideas of "dying on that day" that he is trying to get around in the first place. Humans' purpose was to multiply then, and it still is now. Or if you believe it is a god. It was to worship God then, and it still is now. So, his weird definition of death does not even work on his terms regardless of the purpose.
He then goes on to say that it is good and bad, not good and evil, as you said. This is also odd, given he can not site anywhere the validity of that claim, but only that his brother came up with the idea. But worse is he says that a table would make a bad car or something like using a parrot for a spoon. So is he saying that Adam and Eve were so dumb that they would try to eat rocks before they ate of the tree of knowledge? Next, how is being naked bad? That is the tip off to god in the story. Naked is not bad but shameful. Adam was not protecting his naughty bits from the elements. His good/bad idea is silly and does not work in his own little world, but Alex is too gracious of a host to tear him apart. There is far more wrong with this guys reasoning, but it is not worth my time. There is enough here to damn his position. If you want to walk down his crooked road of nonsense, be my guest, but don't pretend to others that it actually works in context or even logically, for that matter. Thanks for the conversion.
@@seand9805 But what's more important is THAT NONE OF THIS MATTERS. That's exactly why neither Matthieu (Pageau) nor Jonathan are citing bible translators for you. Matthieu gives you a coherent system of interpretation which you can check yourself. If it's completely coherent and never fails who cares about citations?
Have been watching these discussions for a while, and this is by far and way one of the best ones, if not THE BEST. Interesting top and a good/honest conversation. Should 100% have Jonathan back.
This is one of the few conversations that I can genuinely say is ahead of its time
The way he presents quite lofty ideas with such assurance rubs me the wrong way. He presents points in a way where it seems like they should be so obvious but they are some of the wildest interpretations I've heard.
Because he's thinking more like a ancient, rather than modern reductionist materialist. Of course it's going to seem wild, it's a totally different framework. Most people in the West aren't going to get it, at least not immediately. Can't read the bible as a set of forensic historical physical facts.
Read Lucifer by Vertigo comics. Way more interesting and consistent.
Spend more time in this space. These interpretations are pretty normal.
So true. My BS meter was flying off the deep end within 5 min and I had to come to the comments to ensure I wasn't the only one.
They are obvious within the Christian worldview. Your incredulity is not an argument against it.
He's not "theologizing", Alex. He's "symbologizing". That's his thing to do to everything, including burps. Good catch.
Except he is just pulling these symbolizations out of thin air.
@@TacoTuesday4 I just read your sentence by pure chance. Pulled it out of thin air.
What if everything means something other than what any person with any perspective for or against, believing or doubting, ever thought the thing meant? But that's what it was always about! Because it's way cooler and solves some issues with the standard framing! @@TacoTuesday4
A Joseph Campbell turd with chunks of Jung and Freud.
@@brianbrennan5600 a good way to challenge his ideas is to have many people try to find their own honest interpretation of a particular symbol he talks about. Ideally we should pick one that he is strongly confident about. And if too much of these interpretation does not connect to his own then that is a good argument to challenge him, his brother, and jordan peterson.
This was one of the best theological discusses I've heard in a very long time. Thank you for the conversation.
My brain is melting through my ears
Likeeee. 😅don’t I know the meaning of opponent? 🤣
I swear I don't understand a single word of what he's saying 😂
So. Many. Words.
Lol, I’ve never heard that one before, but I get it because I’m realllllllllly lost myself. I understand what Alex is saying, and everything after that I’m either dumb or just plain stupid…..
Been listening to Pageau for 2 years now, and what he says is just now starting to click.
This was imo the best Pageau I’ve heard. And I thought his explanation of the Bible was top notch and easily the best explanation of genesis I’ve heard. But I also think if I hadn’t been listening to him for years now I wouldn’t have understood this video.
The final part regarding original sin, i understand what Alex is pointing at, and i think it’s a good objection, but I dont think I yet fully understand Pageaus response, but I’m hopeful I’m close to understanding it
I'm curious, what was it about the original sin part and Pageau's response? I may have missed it if there was something cryptic in it.
@ButConsiderThis I think you are misunderstanding. When I say it took me 2 years to understand, I am trying to highlight that the way Pageau thinks and talks is VERY different from the way I normally think and talk. I would compare it to learning to speak in a different language. So it has taken time before things start to make sense.
I really think I understand what you mean, and I think it is fair in some cases. For example, I don't really care much about what he had to say about sneezing. But really I think your criticism is akin to listening to someone speak in Spanish and criticizing the speech for being terrible English. You aren't speaking the same language and you would have to learn Spanish before you can offer a real criticism.
Also, Jordan Peterson helped bridge me to Pageau, because Peterson often talks like Pageau, but is even closer to the way I normally think (like a reductionist materialist).
Side note, this is why Alex is so great to listen to and interesting, because he is a TOP NOTCH reductionist materialist (or at least a top notch representative (seems like he is becoming more of a non-materialist atheist lately)). So he can speak clearly to us who have lived most of life with a reductionist-materialist worldview.
And also mad respect to Alex for honestly trying to engage with Peterson and Pageau, because he doesn't make comments like yours (no offense) he is actually trying to figure out what they mean and at least is willing to consider there might be something valuable behind their ideas. To extend my earlier analogy, listening to Alex is like listening to a masterful English speaker giving a speech and appreciating the English, whereas listening to Pageau is like listening to someone speak Spanish. At least Alex is trying to translate it into English, and learn the Spanish where no direct translation exists.
@@echinaceapurpurea1234 Well, I understood Alex's questioning on original sin to be something like "If I step into the Christian worldview, I think original sin is a logical inconsistency. Am I wrong?" and I don't understand Pageau's answer yet
@ButConsiderThis You have to symbolize everything because everything in the Bible has a deeper symbolic meaning. Unless you're saying you're a biblical literalist, which is frankly its own can of worms.
@@parkercoelho9036He doesn’t have one. He can’t admit he thinks there’s value in suffering. If he acknowledged that, he’d feel like he lost the argument. But it’s the only way his views make sense. God chose suffering. Jonathan just can’t admit that’s at the core of his beliefs.
If God wants to enter into a relationship with us, why would we even need somebody like Jonathan to help educate us about the true meaning of the text? Why can’t we just take the words at face value? If everything Jonathan says is true, we must accept that God intended on sending a confusing message that everybody will misunderstand, and for some they’ll pay the price in eternity because they misunderstood the true meaning of the text and dismissed the book as mythology.
Jonathans worldview is common knowledge and taken for granted in Orthodox communities and is in many ways just explaining what people intuit about the text naturally. Now unfortunately for those of us who have to step into a foreign worldview to understand these ancient texts, it takes effort to do so, but is nonetheless worth the effort in the end. I strongly encourage you give a complete effort to understand his position and the lens that he sees it through.
@@immortalityprjct Jonathan himself said it is like a puzzle. So God sent a Puzzling message? So much so that the one's who wrote Genisis belonged to a different religion and Judasim still doesn't get it? How many Christian denominations are there who take a different reading? Too many to name. What is Johnathons heavily symbolic reading good for? Any sophist can spin a meaning out of a story. To claim that spin as *Truth* is jumping the shark.
Fair enough if that's his view but he seems to speak as if his view is the case.
@@jhunt5578The easiest conclusion to draw for a holistic interpretation of Christianity is that God views suffering as a good that creates meaning in behaving without sin. If that’s accepted, everything slots together. The moment you try to argue suffering is bad, the whole thing falls apart. That’s an indictment of the religion, but at least it would be cohesive.
@@UltimateKyuubiFox So bite the bullet on the problem of evil?
if nature is so self evident, then why we need science and scientist's perspective to describe the world for us? why do we need things such as microscopes, rules, logical systems, etc? why isn't everything just engraven in your brains when we born? why can we move your fingers when we want to, but don't know how exactly how our bodies do it? why can't we just take everything at face value?
You need someone like Joanthan to explain the Scriptures for you for the same reason you need Einstein to explain Physics to you. Those things are not self evident, there is no such thing as "pure empirical experience", you don't experience gravity, you only experience objects falling to the ground. You also don't see all 4 cube's facets at the same time, you can only see 3, and you will have to spin it to see the other one, nor you know the exact size and quantity of atoms there is.
Both nature and human knowlage is contingent. Its simply how everything that is phyisical is, there is no reason for the metaphysical/spiritual to be different. And it is like this because its good, you cannot argue otherwise.
This is the most interesting and mind opening discussion on Genesis I've heard. Fantastic listen!
I'd love to read a single negative comment toward Jonathan here that actually brings up the things he says instead of just spamming 'word salad' which just reveals you don't understand what he's saying. You guys should be more like Alex himself, who at least is able to repeat back to Jonathan what he is saying before he attempts to argue against it. (p.s, just because another language uses a phrase that doesn't say the word 'bless' in it, doesn't mean you aren't 'blessing' a person when you respond to a sneeze. That is just the word-concept fallacy.)
I posted a couple. Although I focus on epistemology.
I recognize a lot of people are having a hard time engaging in a certain style of thinking that Jonathan is proposing. I see Alex providing helpful push back to demonstrate the side literal thinking against Jonathan’s symbolic thinking. There is a bridge needed. And that a perspective of practical, experiential psychology. For example, the hottest buttons in this conversation are 1) what if the fall didn’t happen, 2) why are we (humanity) confined to experience the bad decisions of someone before us. The fall was a spiritual opportunity for Adam and Eve to exercise their free will; a free will that is required for us to have a harmonious and loving RELATIONSHIP with God. Relationship requires a two way interaction. On a practical level, I will not truly know if I can trust someone’s commitment to me until it is tested. Their response to the challenge or test says more about the person than their words or self-proclaimed belief system ever would. This is, how I see, the fall playing into the relationship establishment of God and Adam / Eve. It is less about it being the origin of all sin, and more of a demonstration on the opportunity WE ALL HAVE within our relationship with God. It happens in our lives, now. This idea also feeds into hot button #2 that I stated: why are we suffering because of someone else’s decision. Unfortunately we are carrying the weight of generational patterns and tendencies. You see this in family dynamics. Parenting styles pass down, communication styles pass down, belief systems pass down. Why? Influence of environment matters. So we can choose to break out of that in our own personal lives, but sometimes it takes some work to even see those patterns and how they consume us unconsciously…. This is also a spiritual opportunity. Do we rest in bitterness and resentment over what is, or do we allow ourselves to step through the doorway of opportunity that arises in the face of challenge? The Christian calling promises that the step through that doorway is actually a step into ultimate purpose. Pain is a great teacher, a wonderful propulsion forward. Arguably, unparalleled.
Hope this brings insight to at least one person. I feel like these ideas needed to be addressed more deeply but the styles of thinking were like oil and water haha extremely enjoyable to traverse through with Alex and Jonathan 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼👏🏼
Well, for starters, relationships only exist and work if you know the other person is really there.
@@TheRealShrike that’s kind of the insane experience of applying the Christian meta-narrative. You actually experience a relationship with God. Pretty wild! Highly recommend!
@@SacredSight you can experience falling while lying in your bed half asleep. that doesn't mean you're actually falling. you can experience fake things. People do all the time.
love seeing Jonathan Pageau on your channel 👍
Alex, thank you very much for being such honest and such genuine sceptic! I found your channel shortly after I converted to Christianity. Your witty questions and your opennes to have discussions with people like Jonathan, JBP or Ben Shapiro help me so much in understanding faith. I had doubting Christianity for the same reasons you usually raise, but you formulate them so much better than I ever did.
Thank you Jonathan for your energetic and inspiring answers! The way you see the the world seems truer than I ever saw it, thank you for sharing this.
If any of you would make a podcast happen with N. T. Wright, it would be amazing!
Logical Inconsistencies and the Infinite Regress of Sin
One of the primary criticisms, as articulated by Alex O'Connor, is the logical inconsistency inherent in the narrative. The story posits that Adam and Eve, prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, lacked the knowledge of good and evil. This raises the question of how Eve could be tempted by the serpent if she did not understand the concept of evil. Alex points out that this implies an inherent potential for sin within Eve, suggesting that the capacity for sin was present even before the fateful act, leading to an infinite regress. If Eve's ability to sin was preordained, the origin of sin cannot be solely attributed to the act of eating the fruit, but must lie within the divine design itself, thus complicating the narrative's internal logic.
Knowledge of good and evil is the experiential knowledge of good and evil. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they had no experience of evil. They only had experience of good. Sinning gave them an experience of evil. After, sinning, they now have knowledge of good and evil. So eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil conveys the idea of committing a sin which leads to death.
From my reading it doesn’t say she was tempted. It says she was deceived. And it was after her “eyes were opened”. Like did she know at the time she was being deceived? Probably not. That’s the whole thing about deception. ..
She didn’t have to have knowledge to listen to someone other than God. God told them not to do something (whether they know it’s good or bad), they do it (whether they know is good or bad) it’s separates them from God (sin). They realize in that moment it’s bad (their eyes are opened). Therefore concluding that God is good and anything that separates is bad. Then maybe also rationalized it later that she was deceived
Man always has had choice by design. When Samael fell he brought the temptation of sin aka Evil to Eve and she had a choice. She didn’t understand the consequence of this choice because previously man had not experienced evil but it was the nature of free will and choice that allowed man to experience both.
@@wesleymoening8525 good explanation
@@philosophicalinquirer312 AI generated mush
Great guest Alex, bless you
Jonathan made perfect sense. Thank you so much Mr. Pageau. If you know you know.
Fr man its bullseye after bullseye. The skeptic types in the comments just dont have context for engaging with the stuff he talks about, not to mention the bias towards reductionism being a real blinder
Awesome interview. These two gentleman have some great conversations. Thanks, Alex.
The problem I think it's that both Alex and Jonathan are approaching the Fall narrative at an allegorical level but forget about it when tacking Alex's question "But why God did it that way an not the other way?"
Alex's question would be to answer something like what it would mean if the universe didn't have gravity in it. The answer is always "you wouldn't be here to ask the question". If God did it differently we'd not be here to wonder about "what if". And that is the same answer on both allegorical and literal levels.
So the scientific narrative as well as the biblical narratives are maps of the place not the place, a way to understand the world around from perspectives that apply to different domains: the literal scientific narrative is about how things are, while the biblical narrative is about how to be. Hence these narrative are orthogonal not parallel competing with each other.
Then the question just becomes "Why did God make my being here conditional on contrasts like the presence of evil against good?" and "How can we trust that God didn't do it differently because this was the best way?"
@@KonoGufo your question is also moving away from allegory. It's like asking why did the universe made you conditional on the existence of oxygen, which is a literal understanding. On top of that you may think of God too literally as a flesh and blood being rather than the more appropriate definition which is the ineffable (just beyond the ability of the mind to capture into comprehension).
Doesn't the bible teach that there is an alternative i.e. heaven? What stoped God from creating that world instead of this?
@@DaFunkLab I think this might be a framing problem because I don't understand how Heaven can be thought of as an alternative. The coherent way I understand Heaven is that it is a goal, a different state of existence, not a retreat or an escape.
@@Adaerus maybe it's better to refer to it as an afterlife. If there is an afterlife is it possible to sin and "fall" there? If not, why didn't God create that world and we live there? Is there something about this world that makes the next possible?
I tried, I swear I tried to make it to the end, but I don't think my spirit is strong enough to endure so many arbitrary statements
So glad you guys got to talk again! I was hoping you would!
What was gained?
Lol, this is like being excited Rogan is having Terrance Howard on again 😂
@@HIIIBEAR While I don't think Pageau is always very articulate and has a hard time getting his feet in conversations like this, I'm just glad to see someone from the Eastern Orthodox perspective talking with Alex. That said, Pageau brings a pretty heavy mystical presentation and it might be better for him to talk to someone like Stephen de Young or Nathan Jacobs who are Orthodox scholars.
Alex has talked to a lot of Thomists and stuff in the past but Id be interested to see him discuss Palamite theology with someone. In any case, it's just nice to see someone with an Eastern Christian perspective instead of more apologetics stuff.
@@davidbolt9566 if someone doesnt have a clear way to differentiate imagination and reality then alex will never be on the same page.
Fascinating subject Alex, would be great to hear other discussions on this topic
Idk if it's becsuse I'm getting a kind of "distant uncle repeating something he read on Whatsapp" energy from the origin of "Bless You" explanation, but I'm having a hard time believing it.
Yeah his obvious BS really set this convo off on the wrong foot.
Copy/paste that for me for the entire conversation.
This just shows how little you understand Pageau's work on Symbolism. This is like Page 1 of his brother's book
Not to mention, he literally uses it as a conversational cudgel...he knows Alex doesn't appreciate it, and continues regardless. It's condescending browbeating.
@MystiqWisdom www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2429626/pdf/postmedj00163-0054.pdf
Alex: I never want someone to leave the podcast thinking, "Gosh, that was a bit hairy… I didn't feel very welcome there."
Peter Hitchens: LIAR!!
The part I thought was interesting was, "I don't like you" ... Like a 2-year old says when you punish him. You don't like me? Well now, isn't that hurtful and oppressive. I'll have to reassess the way I'm treating you.
@@bobgarrett7134 have always found the phrase "actively dislike" quite hilarious. As opposed to what: I dislike you Alex, but its an inactive dislike. Its sleeping on the couch atm, but when it wakes up you are in trouble.
@@markcopeland3011 He has the "I'm OUTRAGED by your pithy comments" gene. It runs in the family.
"What if Eve turned down the serpent?"
"But she didn't"
literally the "but I did eat breakfast" meme, lol
I had to stop listening at that point.
Well Newton's notion of gravity is interesting, but what if the apple fell upwards?
@@martinallen6411 exactly lol! Blows my mind how many people in this comment section can’t make sense of this conversation
It's the most meaningless 'what if'. It's like saying 'what if up was down?'
@@blumousey is it meaningless though? Apologists say the choice is the expression of free will that rendered the fall necessary. If there is no conceivable reality where the choice was different, then free will can't be the factor it's purported to be.
That was gentlemanly conversation. Yet such an unsatisfactory ending.
All these comments telling on themselves by thinking Jonathan is making “word salad” when it’s perfectly coherent
It isn’t word salad, but I believe Johnathan’s interpretation is simply untethered speculation. There are literally infinite possible interpretations that make sense. Why should I care about this one?
I see no novel testable hypothesis that can arise from this. No reason to think Johnathan isn’t reading way too much into this.
@@thoughtsuponatime847 because his point of view applies to every single Bible book, fairy tale, society, etc. it works coherently throughout the narratives humans have done for thousands of years. That must be something
@@robertodelgado2542 applying to lots of things is nice, but lots of interpretive frameworks do that. You could interpret any book from a Marxist perspective. Or a feminist one. Libertarian, liberal, pastafarian. . .
What new testable thing does this interpretation predict? How would you disprove his theory? A good theory should be falsifiable. What method would you use to tell if this sort of speculation is being done properly?
These are serious epistemological problems I see with interpretations. They need to be tethered to reality, else you can’t know if it is just imaginary.
@@thoughtsuponatime847 but these interpretations are more ancient and consistent than people think
@@thoughtsuponatime847the same Bible states that you cannot test God.
I do not think it is possible to create a theory on why all exists instead of nothing that it is falseable.
Or a theory about consciense that it is not subjective.
Soo ...will we ever get to the bottom of why the serpent was in the garden in the first place?
Its necessary to have temptation, you can't grow without being able to resist it. It's a test I think.
Well the snake is the agent of change in the story - to write a story where nothing changes, where there is no interesting turn of events say, is to not write a story at all.
@@pup11074You may be correct but did Pageau answer what the purpose of the serpent was. I think that was the point of the original comment.
@johnwheeler3071 I don't think he did explicitly answered it
@@giv123buckle up boys, this is a long one:
This is actually quite funny in an ironic way. The snake represents the part of the garden you can't account for. Or perhaps you haven't yet accounted for. Or you did account for but then it shifted, it shed its skin. Hense the mystery in a way.
So alex asked why did God put a snake in the garden if it's just going to trick Eve and cause the fall. As though this was a description of an almost arbitrary series of event that could have happened differently. "Couldnt God have avoided this?"
Jonathan was perplexed by this as he views the story as a description of reality, not some sort of recorded series of events. He thinks its obvious why the snake is in the garden, for several reasons:
- Adam sometimes misnames the animals, he misses certain facts in his theory. And those details he misses are like snakes in a walled garden. Those mistakes may form the grounds for a better name later, if the snake is handled properly. Or perhaps Adam has encountered something that cant be named, becasue its always changing. or, its to complex to be fully encapsulate by order...
- when God separated the dry land (order) from the deep waters (choas), he doesn't get rid of the waters, he leaves it around the edge of the land. Snakes and chaotic waters are associated by their waving behaviour. Hence leviathan and other sea snake mythology. You don't get rid of the snakes/choas, you put it in its proper place - outside or at the border. Also, you need the water to fertilise the land, to renew it when it becomes baron, not too much though, or the land becomes flooded and unliveable.
- snakes are associated with circles and time (the auroboris) - because we experience time as cycles and time brings change, and change is a source of chaos and so are snakes. Why circles? Circles are irrational, if you try to divide a circle Into segments based on its radius you get 6 equal segments and a 7th slither of a segment that contains the irrational remainder. That remainder is the snake in the walled garden (again). we live in a universe created with irrationality and remainders, it's baked into maths and physics.
What do you do with the remainder/chaos/snakes? You put them in their proper place and use them for your benefit. To renew yourself. And that's why the ancient Hebrews invented the 7 day week. 6 days of orderly work, keeping the garden clear of snakes and 1 day of chaotic rest where you allow the snakes to come back in slightly. Thus restoring balance to the cosmos, and giving your sons something to wrestle with. You dont want them to become Dodo's after all.
What happens when you kill all the wolves In Yellowstone national Park? The deer populatiom grows out of control and messes up the whole ecosystem. Put the wolves back in, the park is renewed.
This is biblical cosmology.
The purpose of the snake is to be difficult to understand. Why did God make a universe that changes and is difficult to understand? Becasue thats what makes life interesting. He created a universe even he cant fully predict and control (at least from the hebrew perspective).
The snake is the thing you know you dont know. You know? And when you're theorising about the cosmic order of the universe, you need to leave a space for what you dont fully understand, whilst understanding the effect that it can have on you when you encounter it.
I might be one of the few, but i really like how Jonathan layed out the possible Inspirations of the Fall of Adam & Eve, the underlying structure of our World & the rules that are in the chaos of earth, and simple humans trying to make sense of it, passing on their theories in a story like this. I recently studied a lot of darwinistic Theories, you can definitly tell that many of these stories try to make sense of darwinistic principles, how they apply to humans, to our families, societies, civilsations, nations & us as a whole. I think the whole picture is beyond any human understanding, but we can learn enough, like its obvious that sin constitutes a moral degeneracy, that applies to greater society over time. At the end of this road lays distruction, like the annhilation of Sodom & Gomorah. We like to think we are above all those earthly rules, the chaos etc. But it is sins that bind us to this chaos, the very thing that seperates us from God. Sins that dont really exist in them, until they eat the fruit of knowledge. I will need to study further the relationship of darwinism & religion, but this helps tremendously. Christianity does something very different then the other Religions, its like it understood something that later Religions like Islam cleary missed. I also think you are spot on with your Interpretation of God, god often doesnt really punish, altough i until now perceived it as such, he even warns you before and just tells you what happens when you act a certain way. He is merciful in a way, as you often can turn around, repent & avoid the destruction & survive & create, change or turn around communities into thriving ones by acting good & moral. But for that you need to know the difference between whats good & whats bad. Thank you, Jonathan Pageau, your interpretations certainly brought me more understanding in some ways, like seeing those stories like a puzzle, that abstracts a bigger picture.
Jonathan is amazing. What I love about him is that he takes the Bible as a whole and doesn't dissect it like the literalists and fundamentalists. It is true the Bible is a library and has different genres, but everything starts to click when you read it contextually -- in light of the whole. The Biblical story is different from other creation stories where gods are competing with other gods and also with humans. The God of Abraham is a noncompetitive God. To be omnipotent, all knowing, and eternal means to always live in the present now. Thus, God knew about the fall for all of eternity. To be just, merciful, and allow free-will, it had to be that way. To allow free-will means God will never force anyone to love him, so with free-will, there are choses. To choose good, then there must be a flip side to that.
This was great. I very much enjoyed hearing both of you and couldn’t wait to hear the other person respond to each point
This conversation is absolutely COOKED! Over-analysis is certainly a thing, and scripture has been its primary victim, robbing it of its profound simplicity.
I was rolling after Alex pulled out the metaphor of the smoking alcoholic parent god. Just the expression on Jonathan's face lmao.
I like Jonathan as a person, but it's just and endless list of pieces that never come together in synthesis. Vague references of possible intrest. Any ball you throw at him perfectly fits in with what he's already juggling. I think he's been a horrible influence on Jordan who is prone to mysticism and depth without a bottom.
Nothing mystical about coming back to the primary human experience. He's just treating reality at the most fundamental phenomenological level. For example, if you don't understand that people drink water, but not H2O and that water can be warm and refreshing but H2O can't, then you've got a problem. An unimaginably large amount of H2O molecules makes water, but I don't have any experience of those molecules, only the higher identity.
The approach Jonathan is taking is a mixture of tradionalisme, symbolism, metaphysical and platonic thinking. It is not a scientifically approach strictly speaking although science is a way of determining patterns. He says this again and again. You have to see these stories as puzzles. Christianity is not by all means a homogen religion. He has his way of looking at the world. It is more phenomenological. How are we experiencing the world and how to make sense of it all. Stories are tools to comprehend the world that surrounds us. That is also basically what symbolism is. I ones heard from a professor that metaphysics is not something that is grasp right a way at times but it needs great pondering and reflection. For some it is the reductionistic way of looking at the world that are making meaning in their lives.
People like Jonathan, JP and Carl Jung back in the day critique is that this world view is not enough to make a meaningful life but rather to explore and see Logos in all things roughly speaking . It is very platonic in that what we are striving for is the good, the beautiful and the truth.
Sorry for my English ✌️🙇♂️ hope that you guys understand it better now 😄
The Hebrew phrase עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ (ezer kenegdo), if translated more literally, carries an intriguing meaning. Eve is described in oppositional terms, as “a helper who is against him”.
Like an opposable thumb?
This was a fascinating performance by Pageau, because it shines a light on how he goes about making his case. This is not about atheism; it's about intellectual approaches to debate.
Compare this discussion with, say, Alex's most recent discussion with William Lane Craig. They're _wildly_ different.
Alex and Bill Craig both belief in rational engagement with ideas, and they engage closely and well. They both have clear arguments; they tease out implications together and demonstrate their values and their underlying beliefs. We'll all have views about which of those underlying beliefs are useful or true, but both people are committed to useful engagement. And it shows.
In contrast, Alex and Jonathan Pageau are running quite different styles of discourse.
Alex is asking rational questions in an attempt to tease out what the (arguably morally incoherent) Genesis story actually means.
Pageau is doing something else completely, I think: he's using a style that erects a sort of barrier against inquiry. He certainly does it with great commitment and a measure of enthusiasm, and with a sizeable helping of the lowest-value ancient Greek notions about the nature of the world.
An example from Pageau of imposing meaning (at 57:20):
_"There is no other way for the world to exist besides the relationship between unity and multiplicity, because it is the very core of how identities function. And so ... the one of the identity, is made up of the multiple of its parts, and that's actually the very source of how something exists. And so, to give a story that gives .... really, it's giving a metaphysics, it's giving a manner in which the world exists, the relationship between between unity and name and meaning and spirit, all of these things, and the relationship between multiplicity and death and chaos, variation, change. That's what the story is talking about. And so it isn't an arbitrary God that just arbitrarily decides the world functions that way. There is no other world you can conceive of besides the world that is being described in Genesis - like, I'd like to hear of another world that is not made up of the joining of unity and multiplicity, in which, if multiplicity is given free reign, then it will annul the unity."_
Pageau takes the idea of unity and multiplicity, and simply riffs on them without coming close to dealing with the problem that Alex wants to deal with. (Pageau here is actually using a pair of concepts with a rich philosophical history going back to Plotinus, but without explaining with any clarity how these concepts relate to the issue at hand, let alone how they're helpful.)
A shorter example of imposed meaning from Pageau:
_Alex: "Why is it the birds represent order, and the fish are chaos?"_
_Jonathan: "Because the birds are in the light, and the fish are in the darkness!"_
Mostly Pageau's style of discourse seems a tribute to the power of complex and strange narratives to have all sorts of meanings placed on them, even when those meanings are not remotely useful.
I suspect a critic might respond that I simply fail to understand that Pageau is here addressing a different level of perception. I don't think that's it. If Pageau were to say "you can understand that question in two ways, and here's what they are, and one of them is the one I usually use", that might well be instructive. But Pageau barely gives any sign of wanting to respond to Alex. He just has his own collection of concepts and phrases, and that's what he's going to use, come what may. And sometimes he's just going to answer a question with an extemporised response: "the fish are in the darkness!"
What's comforting about this for people who get into it is that this technique inoculates you against argument. The problem is that it also inoculates you against being able to test its alignment with reality. If you just want to bathe in that feeling of invulnerability, it's clearly very pleasant. But it cuts you off from the search for truth.
There comes a point (at 1:44:45) where Alex really seems to get frustrated about this, and Pageau just seems to try harder to distract him from the question (with an altar-call, of all thing).
I do appreciate Alex letting this guy run. And Alex's interview technique _is_ a very underrated and worthwhile one. It lets people expose their intellectual style.
I think you're right that Pageau is not interested in the non-theist perspective, and that he genuinely believes Alex O'Connor can't present a theory of identity that differs meaningfully from his own. Of course Alex never tries.
A lot of you are wickedly straw manning the dude and think that your intelligence supercedes his. If you listen properly from the beginning he clearly started with a premise about the nature of creation. Unity and Multiplicity and everything else his whole point about the Genesis story followed from that. I understood it perfectly. How do you not? He gave examples that clearly iterated his point. Infact Alex followed through the whole conversation their only point of disagreement was if it could have happened any other way and wether the gnostic interpretation is equally plausible. Y'all don't listen you simply want to refute.
The real difference is that Alex has a certain understanding of what sort of information the Bible is trying to convey and what it means, and this is the one he learned it from very smart professors at Oxford. It's understandable that he is convinced strongly it is the correct one, or at least no less correct than any other. But it is nevertheless not the one ancient Christians had.
And Alex is always posing questions that would make no sense to an ancient Christian, even if they make perfect sense to a modernist like WLC who will attempt (badly) to defend the Bible within a modernist frame. This means, for someone like Jonathan, the modernist assumptions underlying the question itself have to be dismantled before you can even begin to address the thing being asked about.
Jonathan is never going to be able to justify why the snake could talk or how plants grew before the sun existed or how Noah collected all the bazillion species of insects and got them on a boat, simply because none of those things are what the story is about even though atheists want to act like they are.
@@huntz0r Obvious question: what _does_ the Adam and Eve story mean?
It means a whole bunch of things at once, of course. But one very succinct meaning is "don't reach and grab for the shiny thing."
Humans do this all the time, the most obvious example today being AI, another being nuclear weapons (it's a genuine miracle that we survived the latter half of the 20th century)
And it's not just the reaching that was the problem, it was engaging with the voice that said to reach. It is not safe to have conversations with the devil, he is a lot smarter than you are.
This was incredible, I learned so much! Love what you’re doing Alex, I follow Jonathan closely and this helped me a lot to understand my faith a little deeper. Great discussion!
Johnathan delivered a masterclass in theological structure
Alex looked up the word עֵזֶר (ēzer), which means helper. However, the next word is what describes Eve as Adam’s opposite or adversary which כְּנֶגְדּוֹ [cənegdo], often translated “a suitable helper” but is better rendered “a helper as his opposite.”
In French, it's "à tes souhaits" ("for your wishes") after your first sneeze, and "à tes amours" ("for your loves") after a second.
Usually after a third sneeze people say "à ta mort" (for/to your death) lol
@@eternalbattle1438 à tes aïeux !
@@eternalbattle1438 🤣
never heard the second one lol
I would like this part to be a sneeze world replies section ;) In Poland it is "na zdrowie" ( literary "for your health") no matter how many times one sneeze. In Zizek style when someone sneeze you can jokingly tell "sto lat ciężkich robót" ( "one hundread years of hard labour" :) ) One hundread years - this part suggest long life but it goes in a different direction in the second part as cheeky slav does ;):)
6:25 7:55 14:21 19:01 20:35 22:29 23:22 24:33 28:36 34:37 36:34 40:37 44:38 46:41 50:00 53:05 54:19 56:02 57:20
1:02:37 1:05:16 1:06:43 1:08:43 1:09:45 1:13:00 1:15:05 1:16:35
1:18:50 1:22:32
A good discussion! Many of the other commenters don't seem to appreciate it much. The world view Jonathan advocates for is very alien to the modern mind but I find it very fruitful to contemplate.
1:49:16 This question that Alex has is pretty much the exact theme in Job.
“There is a way that world is that I would prefer that it was not.” - that’s it right there, a perfect example of a good starting point.
And, like in the Job story, the “friends” never can give a satisfactory answer. It is a question that has to be posed to the divine itself, and the satisfactory state at the end of Job is not in the form of an answer, but in something else, which is well documented by many, including Blasé Pascal, who Alex was speaking about earlier, as some kind of an encounter with the ground of all being.
Look how it happens in all of these different stories:
In Abraham it takes the form of a negotiation
In Jacob it is pictured in a wrestling match that goes on all night
Amazing how much depth Pageau went into from being asked "if God than why bad thing happen?" over and over again.
@teamcoalhapcharcoal you're right, I forgot to mention he occasionally said "plz say it's not real"
Thanks for the edifying comments at the end of the podcast Alex. Jon’s observation (and your response) is the reason why Christians like me stay glued to your channel. The world is too full of opinionated conversations which ends up not being constructive. You’re doing your bit in the universal search for truth ❤
"That's the best way to do it, is to use the text to interpret the text."
Somebody page Dan McClellan, stat.
Even from a materialistic point of view Scripture interpreting Scripture makes the most sense if your goal is honest inquiry into the truth because logically there must be a reason that this body of texts has stuck together for so long in so many different times, places, and cultures.
The real kicker is when you realize that they stuck together because they point to Christ, in whom all things hold together.
@@aaronh8095 Which body of texts? Because you know the biblical cannon took centuries to form, and even today different denominations differ on what should or shouldn't be in it.
But even if the cannon were more stable than it is, there's no way to get from "there must be a reason" to "that reason must be that it's all true." There are plenty of historical explanations for whatever degree of stability the biblical cannon has, most notably the massive, centralized institutions that have defined and maintained it for most of its existence.
I know I'm talking to a millennial, so allow me to explain it to you with Harry Potter. In order to understand why Harry's touch was deadly to Voldemort, you need to refer to the later text within the same series. That's the way you do it, you interpret one part of the text by using the other. It maybe novel to you, but that's in fact how pretty much all stories work.
@@n0vitski How many people wrote Harry Potter, over how many hundreds of years? I've never read it so I'm not sure.
@@BuddhaMonkey7it doesn't matter how many people wrote (or rather compiled) it. The canon is put together the way that it is because it made sense to people compiling it, the story follows within itself and is internally coherent. In that way it's no different than any other story. Your original remark was you putting your foot in your mouth. Now you're just suckling on it.
I'm only 30 minutes in and my head hurts from this guy.
58 mins in and This is deep 🔥. Jonathan really gracious in giving this info for free. I think part of the fundamental problem here is that Alex doesnt believe in free will, and so the idea of chaos and order being necessary for change or the great dance of life as Lewis might have described seems unnecessary.
Being a materialist, literalist, and fundamentalist hampers his ability to understand. I can see from his other videos, it literally blinds him from ascending to truth. He tries to grasp God in his head which is impossible. Since belief is based on faith and reason, there is also a supernatural component to which he does not believe.
giving out worthless platitudes for free is not being gracious, it is being annoying.
@@realGBx64noted brother.
I appreciate the discussions that demonstrate mutual respect on these matters.
Fantastic discussion! I absolutely loved this and found it so insightful. Thanks for sharing Alex and Jonathan!
"The sleep of reason produces monsters." Endlessly.
But isn’t everything meaningless anyway? Why is that a problem?
@occultislux if you hold this as a truth you shouldn't be here now but already expired by your own hand. Everyone who preaches meaninglessness but then shudders at practising what they preach is by definition a hypocrite.
The very fact you are alive commenting that at all is a contradiction of your comment. For obviously, your life has enough meaning to engage in this type of conversation. Beliefs unlived are lies, and the belief that nothing matters can only be died in, not lived in. To hold death worshipping ideas and to be alive yourself is a hypocrtical contradiction.
I literally cant give you the 3 letter acryonym that would be the TL;DR of this otherwise youtube autodeletes it. But you get the idea.
@@Reiman33 I was just being sarcastic to his claim. I'm not a nihilist / atheist.
@@Reiman33 I'm not in the nihilist camp but I wouldn't say believing everything is meaningless is "death worship". Wouldn't someone who believes such think death is meaningless as well?
@@Mr_M1dnight you are correct in theory, but in practice there is no reason a real human individual would turn to nihilism other than the desire to tear down the high
I mean I'm not gonna make claims, maybe there are some weirdos who don't follow that pattern, but it's certainly the main driver of nihilism
@Alex O'Connor, just a helpful little tip: if you press your tounge strongly against your upper palate the urge to sneeze will go away very quickly. I use this whenever I have to speak publicly.
This is very difficult bridge the two of you are trying to build so congratulations on some fairly productive conversations.
I really enjoyed the talk, but it took an odd turn when Alex asked Jonathan why God placed the snake in the Garden of Eden in the first place. It was unclear whether Jonathan misunderstood Alex's intention or if he deliberately avoided the topic, but his response felt evasive. At its core, Alex was asking: Why did God create an imperfect universe? Why did He make humanity flawed, requiring us to overcome our imperfections to become like Him? Why didn't God create a perfectly harmonious existence for all eternity?
This is a profound question for those who believe in a loving God, and an easy one for those who don't. I've pondered this question many times throughout my life, especially during periods of suffering. Each time I overcame a challenge and grew from it, I still wondered: "Why was this suffering necessary in the first place?"
There's a yogic idea suggesting that suffering is a blessing, pushing the unconscious to grow and expand by creating a necessity to escape the unpleasantness. Fully conscious beings, like angels, do not suffer because they no longer need it for their development. As Pageau mentioned, in this worldview, the purpose of life is to expand until we achieve absolute unity with God. Since God is all-encompassing, everything in existence must reach this full expansion and unity together to become God itself.
One can conceptualize this process as a big breath in and out. Initially, there was God as a singularity. God "exploded" into all creation, maintaining perfect unity since God is in everything. To the individual parts, however, it appears as if they are just that-separate parts. This is the difference between absolute reality, where God exists with full consciousness of everything, and relative reality, our perception where everything seems separated. This is the "breathing out" phase, where God bursts forth in endless creativity. As parts move further apart, they become less conscious of themselves and the universe.
Eventually, there's a turning point marking the beginning of the "breathing in" phase, where everything evolves and is naturally drawn to reunite. Everything strives to expand and encapsulate everything else, folding back together until it becomes one again. What comes after that? Perhaps another cycle of breathing out. It remains unknown.
Yet, the original question persists: Why? I suppose we won't know until we are reunited with everything else. Ironically, at that point, it will be us making the decision, for we will be God. There's an intriguing thought hidden in that: Why did we do this to ourselves the last time we were united as God?
The entire _interview_ felt evasive to me; the man is so bent on his overly-complex, sometimes senseless "explanations" he just avoids the questions he has no answer to with a lot of... well, it's not _word_ salad, but ... _philosophical_ salad.
I like your reasoning and Christian’s would call this new age theology, everything is god and all is separate yet one like the waves of the ocean being individual yet one with the ocean. God experiencing itself thru everything.
Mormons believe something similar to this, although they believe that once you become like God you will not be the same as him
@@MrFireman164 What a lot of useless pap that is. I'm sure it would feel good to pretend life was some kind of neo-hippie, transcendental journey into "energy realms" and "wave conjugations," but it's not actually explaining anything or making any useful differences to actual lives.
First world white people philosophical masturbation.
Brilliant. Best comment and I’ve read 100s! 🙏🏼
I thoroughly enjoy every conversation you have with Jonathan. Please have him on again.
i think if eve didn't eat the fruit, then genesis would describe a state of equilibrium. the story would end, there would be no time. so maybe the answer is: if you hypothesize that there is no serpent, then you get a static universe
That was fantasitc - thank you both! Seeing this podcast made me more excited than any podcast this year
I think he blew it on the sneezing bit.
Jonathan:
“Sneezing is non-deliberate and thus is akin to things that bring you away from meaning.” (Paraphrasing)
Alex (in another less polite universe):
“Our bodies do many things automatically, without our conscious control. Your heartbeat is non-deliberate. Does your heartbeat bring you away from meaning? What about breathing itself?”
How about:
-Pupillary dilation?
-The blush response?
-Sweating?
-Producing tears?
- Digestion?
- Being startled?
- Blinking?
- Immune response?
- Healing? Our bodies automatically heal wounds and repair damaged tissues.
- Hormone regulation?
- Body temp regulation? Our bodies adjust our temperature to maintain a consistent internal environment.
Felt like Jonathan was eagerly waiting to bring up this symbolic wisdom regarding sneezing from the word go, but it fell a bit short, tbh. It’s hard to drive your point home, when a sneeze throws you off course.
Air / Spirit escaping the body accidentally is why it is followed by a bless you. Emptying is responded to by filling. It's not due to an accidental function on its own.
I don't think the distinction was deliberate vs automatic. I think it's productive vs random.
Accidental noise making, not just any unconscious behaviour
You didn’t listen
@@Bodofooko
- Okay but how is sneezing not productive? Is it necessarily accidental? It is productive in its own way, just like many of the other bodily functions are, in their own respective ways.
- Many customs persist for thousands of years for a whole host of non-mysterious, non-spiritual, reasons.
- Since we’re largely talking about people’s learned reactions to it, it’s worth mentioning that the rich, powerful and snobby will routinely used their adherence to strict manners as a way to demonstrate their superior status and education over “The (so-called) Poors”. The reaction to sneezing is basically socially mandated, but not based on any actual mysterious, spiritual or cosmic purpose.
- Sneezing could be seen as accidental or intentional. It could be productive when it is clearing out irritants like dust, pollen, etc. from nasal passages. But it can also be non-productive and be caused by a tickle or even a stray hair in the nose. It’s not always a sign of illness. It could be seen as accidental to some degree, but it could also be seen as being deliberate from the perspective of the body’s needs. Both can work.
- Putting sneezing in its own special category and tacking on additional layers of cosmic meaning to it, just comes off as a bit forced when it’s not that distinct from many other bodily functions. Saying something like “bless you” is merely a social colloquialism of the kind that can and has been used as a way to differentiate social classes. In many cultures, displays of “unrefined” bodily functions were and are seen as uncivilized or uneducated, and thus associated with the lower classes. People react across cultures react to sneezes in various ways. Yes, the snobbier aspects of society will see it as an inherently negative thing. That much is true.
- Then there are some people that may be compelled to voluntarily sneeze (by looking at a bright light, for example, or by tickling their own noses.) Others may have picked up ways to suppress sneezes. Both are true.
- There’s nothing especially mysterious about sneezing, but if you want to force special cosmic meaning onto it, then fine but it doesn’t really work. I’m looking for something deeper that truly resonates on some cosmic level. Sneezing and farting ain’t it. Sorry.
- Saying sneezing or farting brings someone “away from meaning”, rings hollow. Give me something more than that.
I have been waiting for this for a long time, hope it’s good.
'A tree is an image of order, an image of structure. It's a fractal structure. Then you have a snake. It's an image of change. It changes its skin, it can be in two places at the same time, it's shifty, it's shrewd, its an image of chaos. The idea that a snake is an image of chaos, I hope you can see that this is pretty universal. Like in every culture this giant sea serpent, this Leviathan, slithering thing, that kind of moves and shifts and coils itself and is an image of chaos or strangeness of being.
I do not see this reasoning. Snakes shed and change their skin, but trees also lose and change their leaves. A fractal is a repeating pattern, but so is a coil. Why would slithering and moving be chaos? Earlier, Jonathan says that the sky represents order because the stars don't move, but he meant that they don't move relative to each other in the sky (on a human time scale). They do move over the hours. The moon moves. If feels arbitrary to classify these things this way, yet these classifications are load bearing to the entire argument.
If this is how the author intended the passages to be interpreted by their readers, do we see this understanding in ancient Hebrew texts? Perhaps I am ignorant, but I have not read that anywhere.
This type of classification seems unfalsifiable and, because of that, I feel it is very weak to base so much reasoning on.
Yeah, so many times I felt he was just running away with the metaphors that could easily be applied either way, or interpreted entirely differently - then he says "This is the world we live in, I don't see how it could be any other way"... I found that a bit arrogant, perhaps it's not his intent to seem as if he's presenting this indisputable portrayal of reality - but it comes across like that at times.
Yep. He’s not a disciplined thinker.
Dunno if this will help, but the difference between the tree vs the snake = difference between the house vs. The whirlpool. One is sturdy, lasting, a place you can count on - the other is mobile, quick, and destructive. Hope this helps discern between the two.
@@JacobSmaby you can belabour a metaphor to mean practically anything: the tree represents change and impermanence as it transforms during the seasons whereas the snake represents patience and solidity as it defends the eggs in its nest etc. Ultimately this symbolic world can be mapped on to absolutely anything in any which way you want to frame it, and then it becomes a rather blunt instrument.
@Vrailly There are myths of trees that hold up / structure the world in many, many cultural myths. There are sneaky / deceptive / chaotic snakes in many many cultures. These were not pulled out of John's butt, these are symbols that have been used for millenia untold to describe the word.
Thanks guys. My job sucks so this gives me stuff to focus on instead! Hope this stuff stays fun for you.
“A helper for you”: it isn’t helper but FOR that could be an opponent. It could be rendered against. A helper against you
Exactly
Is a “helper” against you a helper?
Anti-helper… got it.
@@bobbydobalina best kind. Beneficial adversary
@@bobbydobalina that’s how the hemispheres of our brain work. “The Master and his Emissary”
Kept expecting him to say "accidental discharge."
"I just sneezed and then I shidded and farted and camed in my pants."
😅
I don't understand how Pageau doesn't grasp the question Alex is asking about why the serpent was there in the first place. Both Peterson and Pageau have developed a worldview in which atheism is inconceivable. With a text as vague yet rich as the Biblical corpus, almost anything is conceivable, just as the authors did with the Gospels. Each Gospel represents an author's attempt to integrate Jesus into the overarching narrative in their own unique manner, and there are multiple ways to achieve this. However, to misquote what Bart Ehrman often says, 'with enough imagination, any two contradictions can be reconciled.' The mere fact that two dots can be connected does not imply that a connection actually exists between them. Both Peterson and Pageau are expert apophenics; they perceive patterns where none exist.
And both use way too many words to say nothing.
Not grasping is his only way out though. To admit the possibility of an alternative immediately begs the question of God's infallibility. For all the nuanced tiptoeing they did, the question was still, "If God is all powerful and all-knowing, why did he let/make this happen?" The only way to dodge it is to not even field the possibility.
any axiomatic system generates a statement that is true but unprovable. alternatively you can have a complete system that is inconsistent (not logical, breaks it's axiomatic presuppositions in the achievement of an all encompassing explanation). there ya go. there is always a snake, no coherent body of knowledge is without a snake.
@@sugakukata As I understand it, for Pageau, the Bible maps reality directly. Specifically, the reality of what human beings are like, what errors they make, and what they ought to do to live optimally. If the Bible is such a mapping of reality, then asking what it would be like if there were no serpent is akin to asking a phycisist what the world would be like if there were no gravity; it just doesn't really make sense. The laws of the universe would then be so fundamentally different to what they are that the role of phycisist itself would need complete restructuring, assuming such a universe even supports life.
Similarly, humans are the way they are, the Bible attempts to describe this being, so to ask what it would be if the serpent weren't there or if Eve didn't eat the apple or if God didn't punish Adam and Eve, well, that's just asking what humans might be like if we were fundamentally different to what we actually are - it is perhaps a curious exercise, but ultimately not all that meaningful.
@@alaron5698 Your gravity example is not the same thing. Gravity isn't a moral agent with freedom of choice. God is. So what is being ask is "why did god choose to to set things up this way?" If you say he didn't choose to, then what's the point of god?
Great conversation. I learned a lot from both speakers. I want to give some summary about the conversation.
Jonathan told us about :
- How we should read the Bible. In which through metaphor and as something happened in our reality.
- Explaining the creation of Adam from the dust and the Spirit as the one uniting Adam and Eve in the garden. Dust is multiplicity and something low, which is placed on the ground level. Where spirit is something giving life to the beings which will give purpose and unity.
- Adam is one from the above describing all the animals and things hierarchically. Where serpant is the cunning animal and give something worth considering from Eve point of view. This is a lot of things to unpack.
Alex told us about :
- The story is arbitrary and doesn't seem fit into our reality. Why would God create such a world in the first place?
- Some stories from thomas and apocrypa Gospel. (I knew the Gospel, but this is the first time I heard it.)
- How to make a good argument against metaphorical explanation of the gospel. I got an impression that the story doesn't matter at all for us human society to be a good person.
I think the question of the conversation, "Why did God create this world the way it is?" Is not answered yet. This is similar to the Problem of Evil question.
I think I know how to answer it.
People who don't listen and are just waiting for their turn to talk. it's the greatest sin in a good conversation.
After slogging through Jonathon’s rambling I can honestly say I am more of an atheist than I was before. He’s better at counter apologetics than C.S. Lewis who also made me more skeptical.
This is what I was exactly thinking 😅
Being more skeptical doesn't change the truth that Jesus is the answer.
@@deshon3523The answer to what, exactly?
I doubt his objective was to convert anyone to theism. Hes an interesting guy with an interesting perspective that most people find hard to follow. I’m Christian and I like Johnathon and find his work fascinating and he looses me a lot. I just appreciate what I do understand from him.
French-speaking _intellos_ lap up this kind of superficially clever-sounding word salad, but it's harder to sell in English.
Thank you, Jonathan, and thank you, Alex, for this great conversation. As an Orthodox Christian, Jonathan's words spoke to my heart. Also, I'm very greatful to Alex for asking all these challenging questions, which allowed Jonathan to deliver the symbolic world and all it's meanings in a thrurhfull manner. Also, I feel like the answer to Alex's question on "why the world was created like this? why Eve had to fall to the lies and temptations of the serpent?" can be discussed and elaborated farther on. I'm not a theology expert, or anything like that, but maybe the answer to these question is that humans were not created as slaves, as pre-programmed AI-machines, who were designed to be imperatively good. Maybe the path towards God can not be artificially, prerequisitely layed out. May that be that humans can reach the ultimate unity with God by conscious choice between devine order and the way of chaos? Anywas, I'm from orthodox country of Georgia and I want to bless both of you in my own language. Thank you. მადლობა ორივეს, დაე, არ მოგკლებოდეთ ღვთიური მადლი, დაგლოცოთ ორივე უფალმა, და დაგიფაროთ ბოროტისგან. უფალო, შეგვიწყალენ.
If "reading into it" was an olympic discipline Jonathan Pageau would be in his own weight class.
Read the church fathers. This isn’t new. Read Gregory of Nyssa’s The Life of Moses.
I think people who are very close to the bible often lose perspective about what the bible actually says in it's raw words. They fail to notice how they have constructed their own complex story around the words to make them sound more interesting, deeper, more sensical, less awful - take your pick! When JP is describing the "death" of Adam and Eve upon eating from the tree, he seems to have constructed an incredibly thoughtful, complex, meaningful and subtle sub-text that just isn't there in the original text. It's that "lean not on your own understanding" thing again: Anyone can talk around the words and create a new story from the bible, but it'll just be a set of assumptions, guesses, justifications. As someone who is NOT too close to the bible, who HAS read it but is NOT a believer yet is open to truth, it's just a crazy, fascinating old book with a messy history and an extremely dubious morality.
This is horrendous....
I thoroughly enjoyed it
@@immortalityprjctI enjoy listening intellectual train wrecks as well.
Jonathan Pageau needs to let Alex finish what he's trying to say...
After listening to most of this on a drive, it seems the central thought Alex got stuck on was “…but why couldn’t god just NOT create the snake?”
That snake is an embodiment of a chaos that cannot be avoided for our world to exist at all. Part of reality must be allowed to be chaotic because absolute order would leave no room for change or growth in the world.
Yes, god could’ve made it so there was no snake…but it would mean creation would be still and forever unchanging. A pristine statue of Adam in a plastic garden, no motion, sound, perfect stillness. A world without suffering, how great!
I wish Jonathan paused to explain this to Alex, but no shade thrown. It can be difficult coming into a discussion with the topic in mind and some idea of how it will go, but then having a little snake pop its head in and derail things…
If god created chaos, as it's necessary for the world to exist and for growth and change to occur, then god shouldn't have a problem when people make mistakes or sin. BTW, if "heaven" is a perfect place that exists eternally without chaos, then god could've skipped the whole chaotic- world business from the get-go. Perhaps he enjoys watiching people suffer.
sorry - you act as if a world without suffering is a bad thing?
You really haven't thought this through, have you.
@ga6589 the world with suffering and chaos is actually better because it allows us to be individuals with true & meaningful choice. A world where this choice is a dictatorship where God predetermined who we are and what we would choose - an ultimate dictatorship. He would rather offer us the choice.
@@JacobSmaby
and send people to hell for making choices he doesn't like.
Stop repeating nonsense you've heard from apologists.
@@JacobSmaby Humans have no choice about when, where, or to whom we are born. Those circumstances are completely out of one's control and have a great deal of influence on future decision making. That your god created us without invitation and then introduced the first two poor schmucks to evil does indeed indicate that he's a psychopathic dictator. And your argument that god didn't predetermine who we are is a direct contraction to the abortion-foe folks who claim god DID know us, even before we were in the womb.
Look, I have no reason to believe in ANY god, due to lack of credible and verifiable evidence one exists. For you to claim that there is a god who would allow the suffering and abuse of small children and allow millions of people to suffer horrifically in the Holocaust, because it's "better" is quite disturbed thinking, IMO.
This was a great conversation, very interesting to hear and both were very respectful towards each other.
It felt that it took time for Jonathan to get to the core of Alex's questions simply because both have fundamentally different views of reality and are trying to solve a fundamentally different problem: Jonathan see God, the nature of God, and the accounts of the Bible as factual pieces of the puzzle we call reality, and need to connect all of them to make sense of it. Because what if scenarios are not true in his world view, it doesn't fit in the puzzle so there's no point in wasting time on it, and that's why he call himself "more of a realist". Alex, however, see all of the above as simply hypothesis, including the very existence of God and their all good nature, and what if scenarios help with testing if those hypothesis are coherent, to find if there are maybe other hypothesis that have better explanatory power.
But even if I disagree with his world view, being atheist, Jonathan's explanation were very clear and pretty insightful on the views of orthodox Christians, and presented some new interpretations of Bible symbolism that I didn't know or have thought about, being raised catholic. I'd definitely watch another episode with him as a guest.
Viewing from a (Lacanian) psychoanalytical and (Hegelian) dialectical perspective, I don’t find what Jonathan said in this podcast to be confusing, but rather quite reasonable/understandable and interesting. Also, I find this angle on Christianity to be strikingly Buddhist, though I only have superficial grasps on either of them.
Good catch on the buddhist similarity. Yes it seems like eastern orthodoxy's world view is closer to zen buddhism than any modern western worldview including modern christian theology.
Its classical theology vs modern theology. Nowadays classical theology looks like a far eastern thing to a western audience
I once heard Jonathan saying that the difference between Christianity and Buddhism is that the ultimate goal of Buddhism is something like an individual transcendence, which the individual gets for itself and distances him from all else. While the ultimate goal of Christianity is something like a communion of love between saints.