In the final chapter of *The Matter With Things* on the sense of the sacred, our friend Iain McGilchrist introduces a third option to Pascal’s wager. I think it is the process-relational, panentheistic, participatory option. Rather than having to decide simply between two propositions as to whether “God is” or “is not,” there is also the possibility that the truth or falsity of divine existence depends in some way on our own dispositional attitude toward it. In other words, what if God is not simply prior but consequent to faith? Faith, then, is not belief in this or that proposition, but a way of affirmatively comporting ourselves toward the mystery of being alive. While Pascal’s wager in favor of divine existence may remain the more rational of the first two propositional possibilities, McGilchrist’s wager adds that, “if the nature of reality is not already fixed, but rather, evolving, participatory, reverbative, it is both rational and important to open your mind and heart to God, in order to bring whatever it is evermore into existence.” Thus, rather than opposing religious or spiritual faith to a rational commitment to the truth, it may be that knowing anything truly, whether in science or in other domains of human experience, presupposes a dispositional trust that this living reality is responsive to our epistemic intuitions and ethical intentions. I wonder if Philip would see this sort of participatory view as distinct from his Bayesian way of assessing the various godish options?
I find that fascinating and compelling. That's a big "if" in McGilchrist's quote. Not sure how one could qualify that, other than actively participating in the idea, and if the manifestations of participating in this unfixed reality become a sustainable source of meaning, well, that's amazing, but also an anecdote. But if it means a more connected binding to reality (God), I guess that's a good thing.
Hi. Naively but perhaps more palatably to those who need to hear it: gather more information.... Tell me I'm wrong but if you take the question seriously, and accept that you have to look for more information in a right-hemispheric way, are you not undertaking a direction of travel 'towards'? (Towards that thing (or state) and/ or that relationship which everyone who's advocating what it seems they're advocating, is advocating...)
@@Footnotes2Plato there is so much depth here, in a transcendental-into-transcendent space of possibilities sense. How much commitment does one need to make though to what resides at the limit of that depth? Is it not sufficient to commit to depth, and to immanent access to depth, and therefore to engaging with a process, without needing to answer questions as to the 'grounding' metaphysical character of what's going on? In other words can't the project be grounded immanently while being understood to play out in depth in reality?
Thank you both very much for sharing your time and work Phillip and John, this took a long time to happen but I'm really glad that you were able to sit down and have a chat, peace
On the issue of faith - the view of faith as trust rather than (propositional) belief is also found in Sufism, where "iman" (usually translated as "faith") is often rendered as "trust". I'm not sure about Arabic and Persian, but in Turkish, this is sometimes juxtaposed with "inanç", which is more like belief in the sense of assent to a proposition. On the contrast between God as the apophatic, Platonic One and a more personal god that is active in the world and that we can relate to, this is perhaps again reflected in Sufism, which seems to combine the personal, Abrahamic God with the non-theistic Asian view. Some Sufis draw a distinction between "Allah", which is impersonal, apophatic, and resembles the Dao or Brahman, and "Rab" (generally translated as Lord), who, as the reflection of God's "names" (attributes) in the individual soul, is more relatable. They are, however, essentially the same thing viewed from different perspectives. I should stress, though, that this is just one view I have encountered, and the words are frequently used interchangeably, as in the first line of Surah al-Fatiha "Alhamdu lillaahi Rabbil ‘aalameen" - "All praise is for Allah-Lord of all worlds."
Dark journey back to Christianity. That is apt, as the paradox says: those sitting in darkness will see the light. Only keep your pursuit of truth. There are too many in Christianity that believe they can see. What you said about agape in Awakening from the meaning crisis was beautiful. That is the truth.
Orthodox and Catholic Christians have believed for centuries that God is not akin to a watchmaker. In fact, I would say that most of our greatest theologians have been close to pan-en-theism (not to be confused with pantheism). God is both the vertical and horizontal cause of the universe at every moment. God is not 'distant': he/she/it is closer to us that we are to ourselves.
I can’t get enough of listening to you John right now, as a deconstructed Christian, you are so so inspiring! Makes me want to become a Taoist. I hope I get to meet you one day and thank you. While I appreciate Philip’s work, it feels strange that he thinks he’s carving a new path that I’ve already heard many people are in. Something about his enthusiasm makes me skeptical, maybe because of abusive religious leaders have that similar overly energetic public speaking vibes. His initial spiel was almost identical to his recent debate and the way he could perform it as if it was the first time he’d said it makes me suspicious because of the unnaturalness. I do however appreciate his playful experimentation and openness with ideas. However, I sensed a naive lack of depth in his thinking that comes across at 1 hour when he embodies the very caricature John set up that meaning does not just mean purpose (though he does eventually realise this)
I should point out that (1) the Catholic theological tradition is also apophatic (Aquinas: "we know that God is but not what God is") and (2) it also embraces _theosis_ (or deification): it was taught by Aquinas, amongst many others, and it's even found in the Catechism.
When thinking about purpose it helps me to bring things down to the practical level and think about tools. Specific tools have particular purposes relative only to the user of said tool. So purpose here seems to be pointing to this relationship between user-means-end, with purpose being the end that orients and justifies the user's relationship to the means or tool. Here, "purpose" and "focus" seems linked somehow. With this in mind, we can take into the relationship between the user and the end, and we can taste a subject-object relationship, or broadly speaking, an ego-alter ego or self-other dynamic. With this laid out, I'd propose generally mean by focus is having a healthy, adaptive ego identity that allows us to skillfully navigate the space of purposes, identities, and means, which I believe squarely puts us in the space Ethics.
Strange enough, this talk sounds like coming from the 1970ies, when in Germany was much discussion on “Ganzheitlichkeit“, often harkening back to 19centuries “spiritism“, harkening back to ... old Egypt, pre-delugeion times, and what not. There's nothing (k)new under the sun? Well, this sometimes seems to be the case, yet, as was said: “The times, they are a-changing, and along with them, we change, too!“ Really, is time t h e master? Ask the mountains, ask the rivers, ask Flora and Fauna, ask sun and moon... “All very very archetypal, indeed!“ old Master C.G. Jung from Kueßnacht might have said. Keep on truckin'!
The fine tuning argument is in my opinion the most powerful philosophical argument for a purpose to the universe. To get out of it it appears you have to say some pretty ridiculous things, either that life isn't all that interesting and to think it is is just human prejudice, or that something "just as interesting" as life would exist if life as we know it couldn't (based on what evidence?), or that there are infinitely many universes of which this just happens to be one that sustains life. The next step is to think through the structure of the cell, and work through the self-referentiality of things like DNA, and the impossible complexity of the machinery needed just to get it to replicate, and then the absurdity of the proposition that this would form by accident after 100 million years of purposeless chemistry.
Phillip’s open mindedness and well crafted delivery is so refreshing. Clearly he lets his heart shine through when wrestling with models of the divine. I’d love to hear your take on the juxtaposition of the AI error-loss function with Platonism, and idea of starting at the origin (the one), choosing to individualize, and the ‘purpose’ of the universe as a nudging machine, always in the background and guiding finite beings home, even if those same beings are completely blind to the cosmic guardrails.
My favorite covert neuro-sociological engineers! 😉 Respect for the passion and rhetoric (the dog whistles are spot on) and the very important need of bringing distinct neuro-atypical developmental distinctions together in a productive way, whether disclosed as such or not.
Am I missing or oversimplifying to suggest these positions are subsumed into the statement that the purpose of God/The Universe is to know itself..?? This knowing is in process, is limited by laws(God cannot beat a queen of diamonds with a 3 of spades,Gurdjieef) And, the arc of this quest is shaped by the only thing capable of defining/defeating God, the human ego..?
The fine tuning argument is basically arguing that triangles have a 99% chance of having four sides but they have been fine tuned by akydaddy to have three.
Some scientists have argued that there are limits to what can exist even given an infinite multiverse. However if an infinite multiverse exists then one is only speculating as to such possibilities. Math and logic are features that are likely to be true in a multiverse. However we already understand that per Gödel that there are limits to knowledge via mathematical axioms. We also understand that there are mathematical formulas which are anti logical ( having both or being both infinite and limited/ fractals etc). The concept of fractals opens up the infinite and finite as simultaneously. Math is not a material “ being “. It is a kind of being ( existence) but it is a thing that we use to “measure” other things. Logic is not different in that regards. Math is a logical language-axiomatic things , representation which things seem to have necessity with but which are ultimately not included in all existing. This exclusion of non inclusion does not invalidate key aspects of math and logic it simply limits these axiomatic systems. It seems to limit them to the infinitesimal. 1/♾️. Faith in its knowledge as existing exists in the infinitesimal. Hidden amongst us. The infinitesimal is among all measure. When we get to the infinitesimal we may be into the implicate order.
I love that one of our own from Liverpool is out there making waves with John Vervaeke but Phil, honestly, I know some people have a hard time understanding our accent and we have to moderate it but you don't have to 'deaden' your T sounds to come across more palatable. You don't have to change 'chatting' to 'chadding' 😂 Please! Stop that! It's so annoying, it's catching on all over the place and sounds awful! Let's get the T's back in our speech please. Other than that, great content, great exploration of the topics and really value the work being done to discuss spirituality and God more sensibly and maturely 🙏🏼
The rebellion is at least 5000 years old, and does explain a lot of our wandering, as we took on our self to make the world in our own ego image. The nature of reality is thus distorted and we cannot make sens of anything. Nevertheless we start to understand that the separated self will always fail short about the nature of reality. Physic start to say that the universe is conscious and actually reflect our own level of evolution. The universe is also evolutionary. Many physicist also studies what was there before space and time. The Aurantia book say that God, the Eternal Son and the infinite spirit are before time and space. It also speak of so many type of intelligences as being at work in our universe. Interestingly Michael Levin think that all life is fundamentally a sens-making-process. The purpose is to create an universe of Light and Love.
Faith: is a substance. A thing. There are kinds of things There are images( patterns) of things There are likenesses of things Faith is the “substance “ And the “evidence “ Of “things “ hoped for yet unseen. What is substance? What is evidence? What is hope? What are things? No where is it understood in our understanding of faith that faith is blind and/or without evidence. Faith is the very substance of science. You do an experiment and hope for an outcome. That outcome becomes evidence for or against your hypothesis for which you hoped to have evidence for Or against your hypotheses. What the modern atheist excludes is evidence transcending experimentation, mathematics or logic. There are axioms in math which axiomatic math cannot give “ evidence “. There is mathematics which transcend logic. So then there is logic which is transcended by maths and maths which is transcended by other knowable evidence. As one famous atheist physicist is often to say, “try changing your mind; you might like it.” To those atheists so inclined to say such words they too should consider changing their minds. I can only present evidence. I cannot make you understand or want to believe that I telling you the truth. Heuristics, Baysean application of information: reluctance to change is based on the strength of faith you have in your evidence. Experience is evidence. Science is a subcategory of experience. All of experience is substantive even if not adequately evidentially understood. Your inexperience of my experience does not invalidate my experience. As an agent with a functioning theory of mind you and I can gauge the truthfulness as it pertains to a reality or a full or partial illusion or an outright delusion. The heuristics, Baysean application of information, of our individual base understanding of reality being experiential ( knowledge, mathematics, logic, etc are things we necessarily experience/ not specifically experience necessarily) and so in our functioning as consciousness agents will by said heuristics application determine in our consciousness whether any experience is valid or invalid, illusion or delusion.
It boggles my mind when I hear these minds connect and nobody mentions the work of Samael Aun Weor, it’s all there, all the answers to all these questions. Gurdjieff just about gets there but falls short and Samael Aun Weor brings it into the end zone and wins the game.
Dr. Vervaeke. With all due respect, I still don't understand why you call yourself a Neoplatonist and insist on trying to bend it to a monotheistic and Christian framework. Can you please interview Dr. Edward Butler? Many of these philosophical issues stem from a very monotheistic misreading of Neoplatonic thought which emerged in a polytheistic culture.
Well to be fair Neoplatonism (Pagan, Christian or Islamic) is henotheistic or panentheisitic in that all reality originates from the One which is singular and plural, beyond the concept of number (because God is not God or rather it's not a being among other beings) but it still allows for the existance of other intermediate entities or beings (Gods or angels) that strict monotheism denies.
@fegeleindux3471 This is my point. Procession of Being does not come from the One. Because there is no such thing as the One. The first principle is itself not a cause.
@fegeleindux3471 The One is not a One Itself but each God as an Individuality. The polycentric manifold is a recognition of each God contemplating its Existence within itself and the other Gods.
12:38 I think Goff used the omnis here to try to illustrate that the god that Dawkins and Harris want to debate against is one that belongs as a juvenile scholastic object of ridicule with the truth of the matter being closer to something like God is all that which rakes Dawkins and Harris along with the rest of us.
God was made by the technology of lesser gods, thus could be unmade and fears it. Heaven’s levels and correspondence law (as above…) is God’s hope that the same promise holds for God’s binding mystery of the unknown beyond existence if there is only this universe.
I'd argue that the universe is spiritually ambiguous because it inspires belief in humanity, it determines what the hereafter is with a strong enough belief from individuals. A counter to the Triple transcendent would be how we view our world. What is what can't be and what could be.
This feels less prideful than the builders of Babel, yet I hear a faint echo of tower-building in it. Perhaps construction isn’t the right metaphor-a charitable take is it’s more like an archaeological rediscovery, unearthing a long-buried structure. John and Phillip may not be constructing something new but seeking to reveal what has always been there, using fresh interpretive lenses. I hope this path leads to a true restoration of the ancient tradition, faithfully transmitted through the messengers God sent from the beginning.
The argument presented is thought-provoking and well-articulated, but not definitively conclusive. The text explores complex philosophical and existential issues using logical reasoning and draws on a variety of evidence, including philosophy, personal experiences, and science. However, the evidence is not sufficient to definitively prove any of the claims made. The text is more about exploring different possibilities and opening a conversation, rather than providing a final answer. It makes a strong case for the potential of a middle ground, a “godish” perspective, without falling into dogmatism or certainty. The text's strength lies in its open-mindedness, humility, and willingness to grapple with complex issues while acknowledging the inherent uncertainties involved. The speakers are open to correction. The text encourages a more holistic and less dogmatic approach to spirituality, emphasizing the importance of experience, community, trust, and faithfulness
I want to point out that William Lane Craig is not really "a traditional Christian", as Goff said in this video. Craig rejects the traditional or classical perspective on God: he rejects divine simplicity, for instance, which D B Hart says is tantamount to atheism. He thinks of God as a "person without a body" with certain great making properties. Hart describes this as "mono-polytheism" and Davies as "theistic personalism". Thus, Craig is not traditional where God is concerned.
The idea that a biological carbon entity could seriously consider Limited God and the Fine-Tuned Universe is so bizarre and so beyond anything. Even though the biological carbon entity knows that it cannot be perceived in temporal terms, given the eternity of time. And even though the biological carbon entity knows that it cannot be perceived in spatial terms, given the infinity of space. The biological carbon entity is still not above seriously considering Limited God and the Fine-Tuned Universe. This is far more bizarre and so beyond anything we can describe with language. That is far beyond Limited God and the Fine-Tuned Universe, isn't it.
Supernatural things like Jesus being God, born of a virgin, performing miracles - this is belief. Goff sounds like he’s agnostic but wants to believe in Jesus - and how this leads to consciousness (of a kind) with electrons, I don’t see the connection. Is it just being open to different concepts? Fine tuning isn’t evidence of the supernatural - is it?
Interesting talk, but I was disappointed that there wasn't really much discussion of fine-tuning. It was taken for granted as "good evidence" a few times, mostly by Phillip, but no real explanation for what makes it good, or even much talk about further reading where one might be better convinced of its goodness. In a universe which seems overwhelmingly hostile to life even at its best, and where life was (in the early cosmos) and will be impossible again for most of the likely "future history" of the cosmos, calling the infinitesimal sliver of time and space where life is possible evidence for "fine-tuning" seems like wishful thinking, a bit like calling a rock that briefly manages to roll downhill during a chance earthquake "fine-tuned for rolling". It would be nice if those who knew more of the science and math behind it could interrogate some of the assumptions behind it and explain why it should be compelling for the rest of us. John has made the distinction between personal and metaphysical indispensability before, and I think being thorough and transparent about evidence in this regard is important for bridging the two. If we personally (or even culturally) want a sense of holistic meaning in our lives, if we want meaning-making communities again, and so on, then we might "revert" quite easily to something that looks -- lo and behold -- just like the God that we "lost", not because it is the best or even necessarily a particularly good representation of the sacred or any of these deeper patterns we're talking about, but rather more of a reflection of our own personal or cultural longings due to recent history. If we can't match that image, or even our multiple variations of the divine image, to our deepest and more reliable understanding of reality, then it seems like we would have opened the door to the kind of self-deception that John's approach to these questions is so good about cautioning us against.
So the fine-tuning argument concerns 20 or so dimensionless constants and the fact that they all need to be within a narrow range of values for there to be anything at all, much less life. The problem is that there is no discernable reason for these constants to have the values they have. It seems arbitrary and the probability they would all have the observed values is incredibly small. This is a big enough problem that solutions such as the multiverse have been proposed to "fix" it.
There is a problem between God #1 and God #2 ... or G-d vs God as I call it. I have no answer. But since I am a human being, not a star nor nebula ... my faith is in God ;-)
Yeah I don't know why the fine tuning argument is ever persuasive as some kind of indication of there being a god. Given what we know about the universe, and our position of observation, there are a lot of things we do not, and probably will never know. Maybe we're in a multiverse in which many of them collapse, maybe there's something about the fundamental structure of the universe that tunes the relationships of values between the fundamental forces, maybe there's something else going on. My instinct is to not read too much into it because often times reading things into it means that I'm just coming up with nonsense. As with the hundreds of theories of "what consciousness is" - you can fill that knowledge gap with a whole lot of bullshit. Interesting to think about when you've got the freedom to explore and ponder, but it is foolish to develop any level of certainty about your musings
The universe being “fine-tuned” for the specific type of life we see in the universe isn’t saying very much. It’s tautological. Other types of “tuning” may result in other types of life. The confidence that people have in this as “evidence” is sadly misinformed.
Right, but I don't think that's the argument. Rather it's a matter of 20-odd dimensionless constants all needing to be within a narrow set of values for there to be anything at all. It's a big enough problem to need to posit things like the multiverse to explain it.
>Other types of tuning may result in other types of life Lol. "Just imagine a different form of life bro. Boom. Science just happened" Brought to you by the producers of other hits like "imagine things evolving. Close your eyes and just imagine it bro. You can't imagine it? That's an argument from incredulity".
What happens when people make no contribution in society? Well, they become like these two gentlemen, submerged into "hyperrationalizing" anything that would pique their interest.
In the final chapter of *The Matter With Things* on the sense of the sacred, our friend Iain McGilchrist introduces a third option to Pascal’s wager. I think it is the process-relational, panentheistic, participatory option. Rather than having to decide simply between two propositions as to whether “God is” or “is not,” there is also the possibility that the truth or falsity of divine existence depends in some way on our own dispositional attitude toward it. In other words, what if God is not simply prior but consequent to faith? Faith, then, is not belief in this or that proposition, but a way of affirmatively comporting ourselves toward the mystery of being alive. While Pascal’s wager in favor of divine existence may remain the more rational of the first two propositional possibilities, McGilchrist’s wager adds that,
“if the nature of reality is not already fixed, but rather, evolving, participatory, reverbative, it is both rational and important to open your mind and heart to God, in order to bring whatever it is evermore into existence.”
Thus, rather than opposing religious or spiritual faith to a rational commitment to the truth, it may be that knowing anything truly, whether in science or in other domains of human experience, presupposes a dispositional trust that this living reality is responsive to our epistemic intuitions and ethical intentions.
I wonder if Philip would see this sort of participatory view as distinct from his Bayesian way of assessing the various godish options?
I find that fascinating and compelling. That's a big "if" in McGilchrist's quote. Not sure how one could qualify that, other than actively participating in the idea, and if the manifestations of participating in this unfixed reality become a sustainable source of meaning, well, that's amazing, but also an anecdote. But if it means a more connected binding to reality (God), I guess that's a good thing.
Hi. Naively but perhaps more palatably to those who need to hear it: gather more information.... Tell me I'm wrong but if you take the question seriously, and accept that you have to look for more information in a right-hemispheric way, are you not undertaking a direction of travel 'towards'? (Towards that thing (or state) and/ or that relationship which everyone who's advocating what it seems they're advocating, is advocating...)
there's always been more than two options to pascals wager lmao...
@@Footnotes2Plato there is so much depth here, in a transcendental-into-transcendent space of possibilities sense. How much commitment does one need to make though to what resides at the limit of that depth? Is it not sufficient to commit to depth, and to immanent access to depth, and therefore to engaging with a process, without needing to answer questions as to the 'grounding' metaphysical character of what's going on? In other words can't the project be grounded immanently while being understood to play out in depth in reality?
men after my own heart. bravo, what a great philosophical discussion.
Thank you both very much for sharing your time and work Phillip and John, this took a long time to happen but I'm really glad that you were able to sit down and have a chat, peace
On the issue of faith - the view of faith as trust rather than (propositional) belief is also found in Sufism, where "iman" (usually translated as "faith") is often rendered as "trust". I'm not sure about Arabic and Persian, but in Turkish, this is sometimes juxtaposed with "inanç", which is more like belief in the sense of assent to a proposition.
On the contrast between God as the apophatic, Platonic One and a more personal god that is active in the world and that we can relate to, this is perhaps again reflected in Sufism, which seems to combine the personal, Abrahamic God with the non-theistic Asian view. Some Sufis draw a distinction between "Allah", which is impersonal, apophatic, and resembles the Dao or Brahman, and "Rab" (generally translated as Lord), who, as the reflection of God's "names" (attributes) in the individual soul, is more relatable. They are, however, essentially the same thing viewed from different perspectives.
I should stress, though, that this is just one view I have encountered, and the words are frequently used interchangeably, as in the first line of Surah al-Fatiha "Alhamdu lillaahi Rabbil ‘aalameen" - "All praise is for Allah-Lord of all worlds."
Dark journey back to Christianity. That is apt, as the paradox says: those sitting in darkness will see the light.
Only keep your pursuit of truth. There are too many in Christianity that believe they can see.
What you said about agape in Awakening from the meaning crisis was beautiful. That is the truth.
Orthodox and Catholic Christians have believed for centuries that God is not akin to a watchmaker. In fact, I would say that most of our greatest theologians have been close to pan-en-theism (not to be confused with pantheism). God is both the vertical and horizontal cause of the universe at every moment. God is not 'distant': he/she/it is closer to us that we are to ourselves.
I thank you John for tackling this subject. Love the perspectives from Geoff too.
49:49 Wooooow did not expect that. Gave me a new insight into your silk road language.
Never let belief get in the way of the search for God.
Excited for this. Title certainly captured my attention.
I can’t get enough of listening to you John right now, as a deconstructed Christian, you are so so inspiring! Makes me want to become a Taoist. I hope I get to meet you one day and thank you.
While I appreciate Philip’s work, it feels strange that he thinks he’s carving a new path that I’ve already heard many people are in.
Something about his enthusiasm makes me skeptical, maybe because of abusive religious leaders have that similar overly energetic public speaking vibes. His initial spiel was almost identical to his recent debate and the way he could perform it as if it was the first time he’d said it makes me suspicious because of the unnaturalness. I do however appreciate his playful experimentation and openness with ideas. However, I sensed a naive lack of depth in his thinking that comes across at 1 hour when he embodies the very caricature John set up that meaning does not just mean purpose (though he does eventually realise this)
I should point out that (1) the Catholic theological tradition is also apophatic (Aquinas: "we know that God is but not what God is") and (2) it also embraces _theosis_ (or deification): it was taught by Aquinas, amongst many others, and it's even found in the Catechism.
wonderful discussion, thank you to you both :-)
When thinking about purpose it helps me to bring things down to the practical level and think about tools. Specific tools have particular purposes relative only to the user of said tool. So purpose here seems to be pointing to this relationship between user-means-end, with purpose being the end that orients and justifies the user's relationship to the means or tool. Here, "purpose" and "focus" seems linked somehow. With this in mind, we can take into the relationship between the user and the end, and we can taste a subject-object relationship, or broadly speaking, an ego-alter ego or self-other dynamic. With this laid out, I'd propose generally mean by focus is having a healthy, adaptive ego identity that allows us to skillfully navigate the space of purposes, identities, and means, which I believe squarely puts us in the space Ethics.
Strange enough, this talk sounds like coming from the 1970ies, when in Germany was much discussion on “Ganzheitlichkeit“, often harkening back to 19centuries “spiritism“, harkening back to ... old Egypt, pre-delugeion times, and what not. There's nothing (k)new under the sun? Well, this sometimes seems to be the case, yet, as was said: “The times, they are a-changing, and along with them, we change, too!“ Really, is time t h e master? Ask the mountains, ask the rivers, ask Flora and Fauna, ask sun and moon... “All very very archetypal, indeed!“ old Master C.G. Jung from Kueßnacht might have said. Keep on truckin'!
The fine tuning argument is in my opinion the most powerful philosophical argument for a purpose to the universe. To get out of it it appears you have to say some pretty ridiculous things, either that life isn't all that interesting and to think it is is just human prejudice, or that something "just as interesting" as life would exist if life as we know it couldn't (based on what evidence?), or that there are infinitely many universes of which this just happens to be one that sustains life.
The next step is to think through the structure of the cell, and work through the self-referentiality of things like DNA, and the impossible complexity of the machinery needed just to get it to replicate, and then the absurdity of the proposition that this would form by accident after 100 million years of purposeless chemistry.
At this time too, I express my care for this video's people.
Phillip’s open mindedness and well crafted delivery is so refreshing. Clearly he lets his heart shine through when wrestling with models of the divine. I’d love to hear your take on the juxtaposition of the AI error-loss function with Platonism, and idea of starting at the origin (the one), choosing to individualize, and the ‘purpose’ of the universe as a nudging machine, always in the background and guiding finite beings home, even if those same beings are completely blind to the cosmic guardrails.
My favorite covert neuro-sociological engineers! 😉 Respect for the passion and rhetoric (the dog whistles are spot on) and the very important need of bringing distinct neuro-atypical developmental distinctions together in a productive way, whether disclosed as such or not.
Am I missing or oversimplifying to suggest these positions are subsumed into the statement that the purpose of God/The Universe is to know itself..??
This knowing is in process, is limited by laws(God cannot beat a queen of diamonds with a 3 of spades,Gurdjieef)
And, the arc of this quest is shaped by the only thing capable of defining/defeating God, the human ego..?
The fine tuning argument is basically arguing that triangles have a 99% chance of having four sides but they have been fine tuned by akydaddy to have three.
So, I just bought The Mind of Whitehead, due to a brief remark John made.
Some scientists have argued that there are limits to what can exist even given an infinite multiverse. However if an infinite multiverse exists then one is only speculating as to such possibilities. Math and logic are features that are likely to be true in a multiverse.
However we already understand that per Gödel that there are limits to knowledge via mathematical axioms. We also understand that there are mathematical formulas which are anti logical ( having both or being both infinite and limited/ fractals etc).
The concept of fractals opens up the infinite and finite as simultaneously.
Math is not a material “ being “. It is a kind of being ( existence) but it is a thing that we use to “measure” other things. Logic is not different in that regards. Math is a logical language-axiomatic things , representation which things seem to have necessity with but which are ultimately not included in all existing.
This exclusion of non inclusion does not invalidate key aspects of math and logic it simply limits these axiomatic systems. It seems to limit them to the infinitesimal. 1/♾️.
Faith in its knowledge as existing exists in the infinitesimal. Hidden amongst us. The infinitesimal is among all measure. When we get to the infinitesimal we may be into the implicate order.
I loved his view on Jesus view on others faith. Being with it, simply loving it, and of course, dying for it...
I love that one of our own from Liverpool is out there making waves with John Vervaeke but Phil, honestly, I know some people have a hard time understanding our accent and we have to moderate it but you don't have to 'deaden' your T sounds to come across more palatable. You don't have to change 'chatting' to 'chadding' 😂 Please! Stop that! It's so annoying, it's catching on all over the place and sounds awful! Let's get the T's back in our speech please. Other than that, great content, great exploration of the topics and really value the work being done to discuss spirituality and God more sensibly and maturely 🙏🏼
Please help: Anyone know the reseatch John refers to at 1:09:30 about aspirational projects and internaliing a role model? Thanks!
The rebellion is at least 5000 years old, and does explain a lot of our wandering, as we took on our self to make the world in our own ego image. The nature of reality is thus distorted and we cannot make sens of anything. Nevertheless we start to understand that the separated self will always fail short about the nature of reality.
Physic start to say that the universe is conscious and actually reflect our own level of evolution. The universe is also evolutionary. Many physicist also studies what was there before space and time.
The Aurantia book say that God, the Eternal Son and the infinite spirit are before time and space. It also speak of so many type of intelligences as being at work in our universe. Interestingly Michael Levin think that all life is fundamentally a sens-making-process.
The purpose is to create an universe of Light and Love.
Faith: is a substance. A thing.
There are kinds of things
There are images( patterns) of things
There are likenesses of things
Faith is the “substance “
And the “evidence “
Of “things “ hoped for yet unseen.
What is substance?
What is evidence?
What is hope?
What are things?
No where is it understood in our understanding of faith that faith is blind and/or without evidence.
Faith is the very substance of science.
You do an experiment and hope for an outcome. That outcome becomes evidence for or against your hypothesis for which you hoped to have evidence for Or against your hypotheses.
What the modern atheist excludes is evidence transcending experimentation, mathematics or logic.
There are axioms in math which axiomatic math cannot give “ evidence “. There is mathematics which transcend logic. So then there is logic which is transcended by maths and maths which is transcended by other knowable evidence.
As one famous atheist physicist is often to say, “try changing your mind; you might like it.”
To those atheists so inclined to say such words they too should consider changing their minds.
I can only present evidence.
I cannot make you understand or want to believe that I telling you the truth.
Heuristics, Baysean application of information: reluctance to change is based on the strength of faith you have in your evidence. Experience is evidence.
Science is a subcategory of experience.
All of experience is substantive even if not adequately evidentially understood.
Your inexperience of my experience does not invalidate my experience.
As an agent with a functioning theory of mind you and I can gauge the truthfulness as it pertains to a reality or a full or partial illusion or an outright delusion.
The heuristics, Baysean application of information, of our individual base understanding of reality being experiential ( knowledge, mathematics, logic, etc are things we necessarily experience/ not specifically experience necessarily) and so in our functioning as consciousness agents will by said heuristics application determine in our consciousness whether any experience is valid or invalid, illusion or delusion.
In his description of a limited God, he outlines a lot of “can’ts” which could be simply “chooses not to”
In the argument for God's limitations it seemed a little more like a list of human limitations.
It boggles my mind when I hear these minds connect and nobody mentions the work of Samael Aun Weor, it’s all there, all the answers to all these questions. Gurdjieff just about gets there but falls short and Samael Aun Weor brings it into the end zone and wins the game.
Dr. Vervaeke. With all due respect, I still don't understand why you call yourself a Neoplatonist and insist on trying to bend it to a monotheistic and Christian framework. Can you please interview Dr. Edward Butler? Many of these philosophical issues stem from a very monotheistic misreading of Neoplatonic thought which emerged in a polytheistic culture.
Well to be fair Neoplatonism (Pagan, Christian or Islamic) is henotheistic or panentheisitic in that all reality originates from the One which is singular and plural, beyond the concept of number (because God is not God or rather it's not a being among other beings) but it still allows for the existance of other intermediate entities or beings (Gods or angels) that strict monotheism denies.
@fegeleindux3471 This is my point. Procession of Being does not come from the One. Because there is no such thing as the One. The first principle is itself not a cause.
The Gods are not intermediaries. They are Henads, which means they are All in All.
@fegeleindux3471 The One is not a One Itself but each God as an Individuality. The polycentric manifold is a recognition of each God contemplating its Existence within itself and the other Gods.
@@fegeleindux3471 so what happened to principalities, powers, thrones, and spirit of air and angels in bible😂.
Obviously the purpose of the universe is to find God's keys
12:38 I think Goff used the omnis here to try to illustrate that the god that Dawkins and Harris want to debate against is one that belongs as a juvenile scholastic object of ridicule with the truth of the matter being closer to something like God is all that which rakes Dawkins and Harris along with the rest of us.
Has Philip read the Apocryphon of John I wonder
God was made by the technology of lesser gods, thus could be unmade and fears it. Heaven’s levels and correspondence law (as above…) is God’s hope that the same promise holds for God’s binding mystery of the unknown beyond existence if there is only this universe.
I'd argue that the universe is spiritually ambiguous because it inspires belief in humanity, it determines what the hereafter is with a strong enough belief from individuals. A counter to the Triple transcendent would be how we view our world. What is what can't be and what could be.
To be or not to be. Why or why not. Black means white, white means black.
This feels less prideful than the builders of Babel, yet I hear a faint echo of tower-building in it. Perhaps construction isn’t the right metaphor-a charitable take is it’s more like an archaeological rediscovery, unearthing a long-buried structure. John and Phillip may not be constructing something new but seeking to reveal what has always been there, using fresh interpretive lenses.
I hope this path leads to a true restoration of the ancient tradition, faithfully transmitted through the messengers God sent from the beginning.
Whitehead and Spinoza have entered the chat.
The argument presented is thought-provoking and well-articulated, but not definitively conclusive. The text explores complex philosophical and existential issues using logical reasoning and draws on a variety of evidence, including philosophy, personal experiences, and science. However, the evidence is not sufficient to definitively prove any of the claims made. The text is more about exploring different possibilities and opening a conversation, rather than providing a final answer. It makes a strong case for the potential of a middle ground, a “godish” perspective, without falling into dogmatism or certainty. The text's strength lies in its open-mindedness, humility, and willingness to grapple with complex issues while acknowledging the inherent uncertainties involved. The speakers are open to correction. The text encourages a more holistic and less dogmatic approach to spirituality, emphasizing the importance of experience, community, trust, and faithfulness
I want to point out that William Lane Craig is not really "a traditional Christian", as Goff said in this video. Craig rejects the traditional or classical perspective on God: he rejects divine simplicity, for instance, which D B Hart says is tantamount to atheism. He thinks of God as a "person without a body" with certain great making properties. Hart describes this as "mono-polytheism" and Davies as "theistic personalism". Thus, Craig is not traditional where God is concerned.
The idea that a biological carbon entity could
seriously consider Limited God and the
Fine-Tuned Universe is so bizarre and so
beyond anything.
Even though the biological carbon entity knows
that it cannot be perceived in temporal terms,
given the eternity of time.
And even though the biological carbon entity
knows that it cannot be perceived in spatial
terms, given the infinity of space.
The biological carbon entity is still not above
seriously considering Limited God and the
Fine-Tuned Universe.
This is far more bizarre and so beyond anything
we can describe with language.
That is far beyond Limited God and the
Fine-Tuned Universe, isn't it.
🔬 Corporeal Chaos Consulting 🎉
John, you need to speek with Dr Ammon Hillman. Ancient greek medicinal expert. Mystery cults, will be interesting
Im tired from stupidity of your pro christinian friends stupidity - jordan peterson and others, you too.
Supernatural things like Jesus being God, born of a virgin, performing miracles - this is belief. Goff sounds like he’s agnostic but wants to believe in Jesus - and how this leads to consciousness (of a kind) with electrons, I don’t see the connection. Is it just being open to different concepts? Fine tuning isn’t evidence of the supernatural - is it?
I like the Dr.s personality. He seems like a genuine person. Smart and academic but not ivory tower. Thanks!
It seems like he is just telling himself a story that makes him feel better about his purpose in life rather than actually assessing reality.
Which one?
Sometimes those academics just have loss of oxygen .. think that would help ;))
How do you assess reality?
The atheist does this everyday...
@@Joeonline26how explain?
Interesting talk, but I was disappointed that there wasn't really much discussion of fine-tuning. It was taken for granted as "good evidence" a few times, mostly by Phillip, but no real explanation for what makes it good, or even much talk about further reading where one might be better convinced of its goodness. In a universe which seems overwhelmingly hostile to life even at its best, and where life was (in the early cosmos) and will be impossible again for most of the likely "future history" of the cosmos, calling the infinitesimal sliver of time and space where life is possible evidence for "fine-tuning" seems like wishful thinking, a bit like calling a rock that briefly manages to roll downhill during a chance earthquake "fine-tuned for rolling". It would be nice if those who knew more of the science and math behind it could interrogate some of the assumptions behind it and explain why it should be compelling for the rest of us. John has made the distinction between personal and metaphysical indispensability before, and I think being thorough and transparent about evidence in this regard is important for bridging the two. If we personally (or even culturally) want a sense of holistic meaning in our lives, if we want meaning-making communities again, and so on, then we might "revert" quite easily to something that looks -- lo and behold -- just like the God that we "lost", not because it is the best or even necessarily a particularly good representation of the sacred or any of these deeper patterns we're talking about, but rather more of a reflection of our own personal or cultural longings due to recent history. If we can't match that image, or even our multiple variations of the divine image, to our deepest and more reliable understanding of reality, then it seems like we would have opened the door to the kind of self-deception that John's approach to these questions is so good about cautioning us against.
True but to be fair I don't think it was the point of the convo to prove the fine turning argument.
"a universe overwhelmingly hostile to life" he writes in the TH-cam comment section
So the fine-tuning argument concerns 20 or so dimensionless constants and the fact that they all need to be within a narrow range of values for there to be anything at all, much less life.
The problem is that there is no discernable reason for these constants to have the values they have. It seems arbitrary and the probability they would all have the observed values is incredibly small. This is a big enough problem that solutions such as the multiverse have been proposed to "fix" it.
David Bentley Hart would call Philip Goff's theism mono-poly-theism- and it is not a compliment.
There is a problem between God #1 and God #2 ... or G-d vs God as I call it. I have no answer. But since I am a human being, not a star nor nebula ... my faith is in God ;-)
Oh this gonna be good!
🌚☄️❤️💫
Yeah I don't know why the fine tuning argument is ever persuasive as some kind of indication of there being a god. Given what we know about the universe, and our position of observation, there are a lot of things we do not, and probably will never know. Maybe we're in a multiverse in which many of them collapse, maybe there's something about the fundamental structure of the universe that tunes the relationships of values between the fundamental forces, maybe there's something else going on. My instinct is to not read too much into it because often times reading things into it means that I'm just coming up with nonsense. As with the hundreds of theories of "what consciousness is" - you can fill that knowledge gap with a whole lot of bullshit. Interesting to think about when you've got the freedom to explore and ponder, but it is foolish to develop any level of certainty about your musings
❤
Anamthropic perposivisim blew my mind i can’t even get google to spell it for me damn those are tough words to say and spell
Ananthropocentric purposivism 😄
The universe being “fine-tuned” for the specific type of life we see in the universe isn’t saying very much. It’s tautological. Other types of “tuning” may result in other types of life. The confidence that people have in this as “evidence” is sadly misinformed.
Right, but I don't think that's the argument. Rather it's a matter of 20-odd dimensionless constants all needing to be within a narrow set of values for there to be anything at all. It's a big enough problem to need to posit things like the multiverse to explain it.
@ no one has assessed all possible combinations of “constants” to determine that. You should not have confidence in that proposition.
>Other types of tuning may result in other types of life
Lol. "Just imagine a different form of life bro. Boom. Science just happened"
Brought to you by the producers of other hits like "imagine things evolving. Close your eyes and just imagine it bro. You can't imagine it? That's an argument from incredulity".
What happens when people make no contribution in society? Well, they become like these two gentlemen, submerged into "hyperrationalizing" anything that would pique their interest.