Ancient Wisdom, Modern World: Bret Speaks with Jonathan Pageau
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 08. 2024
- Bret speaks with Jonathan Pageau a symbolic thinker, CZcamsr, and carver of orthodox icons.
/ @jonathanpageau
thesymbolicworld.com/
www.pageaucarvings.com/
/ pageaujonathan
*****
Find Bret Weinstein on Twitter: @BretWeinstein, and on Patreon.
/ bretweinstein
Please subscribe to this channel for more long form content like this, and subscribe to the clips channel @DarkHorse Podcast Clips for short clips of all our podcasts: / @darkhorsepodcastclips
All removed videos can be found on Spotify Video and Odysee: open.spotify.com/show/57R7dOc...
odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f
Check out the DHP store! Epic tabby, digital book burning, saddle up the dire wolves, and more: www.store.darkhorsepodcast.org
Theme Music: Thank you to Martin Molin of Wintergatan for providing us the rights to use their excellent music.
*****
Sign up for the Spectator at: spectatorworld.com/specialoffer/
Use code: DARKHORSE
*****
Timestamps:
(00:00) Introduction
(02:47) Bret on religions being “Literally false, metaphorically true” NOT “a mind virus”
(05:35) Jon’s definition of religion
(07:57) Bret - all scientists have faith, i.e. base assumptions, axioms
(11:15) Jon’s definition of faith, as levels of understanding
(13:58) Spectator Ad
spectatorworld.com/specialoffer/
Use code: DARKHORSE
(15:45) Bret’s article of faith in evolution
(17:56) Jon’s refinement: religion is the “patterning” of being
(20:07) Emergence is the jump between levels
(21:45) Jon’s emergence
(23:34) Adaptive evolution and group selection
(26:45) Why does cooperation exist?
(28:05) Survivability of individual or group or lineage
(32:05) Google Vs Catholicism
(33:26) Point of attention
(35:55) Evolution predicts the behavior of religions
(38:46) Richard Dawkins’ memes
(42:35) Self sacrifice
(45:56) Confessions in a congregation
(49:30) Jon on importance of self sacrifice
(53:44) Rapist gene
(59:24) Geneva Convention
(01:00:39) Flip the table on the genes
(01:01:49) Purpose of organisms
(01:03:13) Consciousness and purpose
(01:05:16) Purpose
(01:09:15) One homogenous religion
(01:13:55) Centralized digital identity and mark of the beast
(01:19:59) Genes are self replicating patterns
(01:23:19) Bret’s “obsession” with genes
(01:25:09) Starting from experience, not genes
(01:31:06) Consciousness is recognizing patterns
(01:33:35) Consciousness is good
(01:39:36) Technological systems are driving us into madness
(01:42:59) We need to upgrade our consciousness
(01:45:44) Wokeism and COVID measures
(01:48:49) Damned if we do…
(01:53:59) Religion has predicted this
(01:56:39) Gain of function research and fission power
(02:01:06) Aiming for a higher good
(02:02:33) The atheist’s advantage and heaven
(02:07:13) Descendants 10,000 years from now
(02:11:14) Building of an arc, remnants, and end of civilization
(02:18:56) Update religious texts?
(02:20:39) Tools and religion
(02:24:39) Is lineage the wrong level of abstraction?
(02:29:43) Follow-through tennis analogy
(02:35:57) Cynicism around religion
(02:40:23) Consciousness comes down on existence and forms identities
(02:44:17) Tetrapods and speciation
(02:48:40) Identity and purpose
(02:50:33) Wrap up - Věda a technologie
This conversation reminds me of this quote “Religion and science are opposed but only in the same sense in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything”. The origin of the quote comes from 1915 Noble Prize winner in Physics, Sir William Bragg. In his book The World of Sound he ends the book with the above quote and the addition to the quote, Bragg says, "From religion comes a man’s purpose; from science his power to achieve it." ... in the era of the post modern world, where we currently see many taking the view that "reality" is a mental construct, conversations that Bret and Jonathan are having are so necessary to keep us grounded in the empirical, yet is reflective of the symbolic connection to a greater spiritual meaning.
Fantastic quote. Love it.
Awesome quote. Thank you for sharing
Brett is going on the assumption that religious belief is false. That's a tough one to say "Oh I agree, but let me make a little differnt perspective." This is a revival of social darwinism, and that's not necessaryily a good thing.
What a lovely thought
Thank you for sharing that.
Thank you for the great dialogue. Brett, please consider having Jonathan on again. I think you two uniquely have an opportunity to start bridging a specific intellectual valley that exists in modern discourse.
Exactly this.
Yes! Continue. This is great and I do think/feel the conversation is moving toward greater understandings which will benefit many, not only the two of you. On a personal level, I see this as a convergence of being and doing. How do we best ride this great wave of existence which incorporates the fundamental necessities of both being AND doing into the future…and the present…and perhaps even the past?
Bret throws words like consciousness and evolution but it is difficult to understand how Bret explains how genes that control humans are spread to next generations without taking away free will of future generations. Looking at genes as robot controller and/life batteries seems to be missing that God point that inevitably would still need to be at the end of the debate. Also, if genes control all the why are humans different that animals that all live on same planet?
@@GreyForceTK I think he was referring to genes in a sense of we would all try what we could to survive. Not sure if he was accounting for free will. Like none of us would jump head first to fight a lion... what do you think?
@@abrahamkassis3138Can confirm, it seems he meant "the genes" in that way, to me too
Mr. Pageau was quite strong in this exchange with Bret. He was attentive to what Bret was saying and responded strongly with warmth, humor and some playfulness while always having a smile on his face. The way he flipped Bret's tennis analogy on its head made me chuckle.
I especially loved the very last bit of conversation when Jonathan was explaining creation and the differentiations and categorizing of species-Bret almost looked like he had a glimpse outside the material bubble and into the mystical. So looking forward to their next visit!
The problem is that they are wanting two different conversations to take place Bret asks his questions from a scientific evolution minded basis and Jonathan wants to give him answers that Jonathan hopes will lead him out of the particular so he can see Jonathan's broad religious perspective in order for Jonathan to fully participate in Brets particular questions it has to do with the framework and worldview your working in Jonathan and his brother understand this masterfully
@@diamondgirl359 Preach!... It cracked Bret's materialistic frame a bit, IMO all for the greater good of the convo going forward
@@superwormhalz2607 True... the last part was doing it: "when do we define a species as a distinct species; is our delineation arbitrary or not, in the final summation?"
@@elektrotehnik94 I’m curious, after having “cracked Bret’s materialistic frame”, what other frame would you have him replace it with?
The move Jonathan makes of saying the purpose of seeking the highest has really been humans’ purpose since the beginning is so astounding, beautiful move
It seems to make a lot of sense that if you aim towards the "good" for you and others over time, humans collectively will florish because solutions to the impediments to florishing will be found. In that sense Bret acting in a religious manner, equal to Jonathan.
Yes, 'seeking the highest' might be the yearning to experience the most perfect harmonic of the totality of pattern?
@@jiojiojoj Mao collapsed the hierarchy onto himself (+his yes men); it's one of the reasons the system was/ is not performing optimally, suffice to say ^^
@@pjjmsnwell said
Jonathan, Brett, the way you handled the conversation took patience, courage, and intellect… I commend you both for being inspiring to my thought processes
This was one of the deepest, most edifying and important conversations I've ever heard. Thank you both.
I feel like they are both trying to describe a forest, whereas Bret starts by describing what a tree is and Jonathan starts by describing the what the planet Earth is.
Yes. And the problem is that starting from the top down is an inefficient way to built out a world view. For the same reason that when building a house, you start with the foundation and not the roof.
One of the best tools we need now and into the future is good faith argument, as exemplified by these two gentleman. This discussion was fascinating and a pleasure to listen to.
It depends on what you mean by a “good faith” discussion. I don’t think either was going to be convinced by the other. But I also don’t think either person was trying to “win” the discussion.
I am an Orthodox Christian and I have always been interested in this question of the problem of science relying on faith. It was so refreshing to hear Bret have such an honest concession that at some point everyone has faith in something. I love Jonathan Pageau and this was simply fantastic. Hope you guys get together again soon. God bless.
As a Christian who loves the Catholic and Orthodox tradition I found this conversation both incredibly constructive and engaging, whilst being incredibly frustrating at the same time. Religion is not science and the collection of Texts we call the Bible is not a textbook which primarily provides practical tips. Yes, the texts are set in historical contexts but the tradition and community that compiled these texts found a grander narrative that reveals a pattern of being and means by which all of being can be in a relationship of love through right ordering of praise and sacrifice. This revelation is applicable to all people and times, and is the ground from which we come to act in truth, goodness and integrity in response to the suffering we inevitably face and very often create for ourselves. THIS is why religion was coined the “ queen of the sciences”. Faith seeks understanding and understanding leads to contemplative action.
The pandemic has led me to read the Bible for the first time even though I walked away from Catholicism a long time ago and I have a very scientific training and teach science. I agree with Jonathon that it is more useful than ever if you pay attention to the patterns within the text
It’s amazing how we have lost track of the basic patterns that have been replicated for millennia, and how this loss may be at the root of the confusion of the current woke generation.
I enjoyed this very much just the other day. Hope you will too. czcams.com/video/Hw7DG7L6Gsw/video.html
That is the way to go. It's hard to take the Bible very literal in this modern day and age but there is always an underlying universal dilemma that is deeply buried within each scripture / story that is timeless and extremely valuable in this era of confusion.
As a poorly catechized Catholic who was swayed away for over a decade by the secular culture and the rhetoric of the 'Four Horsemen/New Atheists', I can relate. I began my journey back just before the pandemic began, I'd like to recommend a few sources that might help you out in your journey back or, at least, lead you to a deeper understanding of the Catholic faith and recognizing of these universal patterns.
A. The channel on YT Sensus Fidelium - Fr. Ripperger sermons/lessons in particular. (free)
B. Foundations Restored - a Traditional Catholic perspective of origins, which includes evolution. The first 2 episodes are free.
C. Bible in a year by Fr. Mike Schmitz. (free)
D. New Saint Thomas Institute - Dr. Taylor Marshall (subscription, worth especially if you have the time)
E. Read the Gospels multiple times (D-R or RSV-CE, Catena Aurea (commentary by Church Fathers), Ignatius Study Bible).
God bless
You should read books by Rene Girard. You will love them, as I did. He put a lot into perspective. I read Conversations with Rene Girard: Prophet of Envy
He looks at religion from an anthropological perspective, I enjoyed it a lot.
this is the best podcast I have ever listened to. Thank you both.
The Problem I see with Bret is, ironically, his head is in heaven, and his work is in earth, yet he hasn’t found a way to bring the two together without mixing them.
Beautifully put. I agree. When Bret's speaking in this conversation, it feels like entering a smaller room.
Perhaps this is the natural hurdle that has to be jumped in order to comprehend the next level. The incredible thing about highly intelligent, honest seekers is that when they do finally make the leap, they truly understand why they’re making it and what they’re seeing once they emerge in the next level. They don’t flit or fake or fall into their evolving world view. They uphold their convictions through courage rather than conformity. They are capable of accurately describing what they comprehend to others who may or not have made it that far or who may be approaching from a different angle of experience.
Notice how both of these highly self-educated, high integrity men perform as true statesmen, each working towards attaining greater truth through a common foundation of principles - despite their presumed differences. That is in itself a universal pattern that exposes both them and their audience to whatever truth may be found within this conversation. Both seekers “find” what they seek, if not what they may be predisposed to expect. Neither gives up what they perceive as consistent, yet both are open to learning something new from each other.
This advanced skill set is the hard-earned fruit of highly developed comprehension. It is not something to be scoffed at or disrespected…mostly because the vast majority of people utterly fail by refusing to do the lifetime of work necessary to function at this level.
“Destination” oriented people tend to judge those who haven’t reached their own conclusions yet…presuming their own superiority over those perceived as the lesser “other” with dysfunction/stupidity because they don’t “catch up” to join in those personally held conclusions. This presumed “stuntedness” is viewed as the CAUSE - rather than considering the possibility that perhaps they themselves did a whole lot of leaping over unproven ground by failing to ask the questions that need to be answered before pounding a stake in the ground in declaration of arrival.
Guess which is better able to survive the storms that strip the luxury of all illusions away. In the end, only Truth itself exists.
1:05:14 This is precisely how Nietzsche proposed his Ubermensch after his "God is dead" conclusion: human beings are left with no purpose in modernity, thus they must invent their own purpose, thus becoming like God. Bret is just coming at it from the other side: from the middle of the Therapeutic society, where people have chosen "feel good" as their purpose, and psychologists, biologists, and sociologists have been trying to conform to that conclusion "from the ground up": desperately trying to pull purpose from emergence, then despairing at the terrible purposes they find.
The problem is: that this struggle for purpose is really a schtick of modernity. People had always known they were on Earth for a purpose: it is we who have cut ourselves from that intuition at a civilizational level.
When people stop believing in God they don't believe nothing they believe anything.
Then endpoint of rationalism is nihilism. I think it was Kant, but don't remember... Anyway, I think Nietzsche was very pessimistic that humanity would survive this.
I agree. Nietzsche was a biological determinist. And at the bottom of these views is a troubling will-to-power.
Facts
Huuge fax
The essential difference consists in their disparate views of consciousness. Both prioritise it in their own ways, but only Pageau does so ontologically. Consciousness, for him, exists prior to anything else (and hence the need for proper attention/worship) etc. For Bret, consciousness is epiphenomenal, an "accidental" advantage humans have received from our genetic history. According to Pageau, this is simply incoherent, as he said in the discussion with John Vervaeke, Bishop Barron, and Jordan Peterson:
"We are in the world and we are part and parcel of the manner in which meaning, even the world itself, discloses itself. People who think they can imagine the world outside of human consciousness, like where are they? Where are they standing that they can tell us that we are projecting meaning onto the world? Are they like gods you know up in the world? They've taken themselves out of the equation."
Bret is taking a meta perspective without realizing or acknowledging that he is taking a meta-perspective. Given that Bret doesn't mind this incoherence, Bret can continue advocating for consciousness as epiphenomenal, and arrives at an ironically somewhat gnostic view because of it. The gnostics argued that Yahweh was either evil or stupid, and reliance on it must be overcome to realise the real potential of humanity. If you swap gnostics for Bret and Yahweh for genes, you get a similar structure. Credits to Paul VanderKlay for summarising Bret's position in gnostic terminology; "It's all genes unless we transcend our code (and I have the secret path to transcend the evil demi-urge behind the genocidal spelling bee...)"
I'm nonetheless thrilled that these conversations are happening! It's astounding how it's possible given the vastly different set of "languages" and "toolkits" you both use, props to both of you!
Yeah, I've really enjoyed Paul VanderKlay's insights, as well.
I agree wholeheartedly that it is in the definition of consciousness that the fundamental disagreement arises. Acceptance of consciousness as an epiphenomenon of genes is the essence of materialism. On the other hand I’m not sure how one can espouse a Christian philosophy without reference to the Holy Ghost or some amalgam of soul with spirit.
@@jameshurth2233 "on the other hand.." Why the contradiction? Are those mutually exclusive?
@@jameshurth2233 Quantum world... all events are random, but on a macro level come into focus as having meaning. I hate physics woo (except for the generator 😁), but that's kinda where I'm at. You cannot have randomness in a deterministic world, but I don't believe consciousness can be deterministic (a la Hofstadter's strange loop). A cpu cannot decide to ignore the next instruction.
This is why I think the people who have a magical belief in AI are deluded. Ultimately that all comes down to logic gates. Gödel had good insights into this also
@@sdrc92126 The logic grid you are doing your thinking on is not adequate to deal with the subject. There is a deeper way of reasoning which provides better maps.. The Cloud of Unknowing is still reason, just a different kind of mind doing it. I have experienced it.
When we admit that "consciousness" is inseparable from Intent, and that Intent is built into the universe, only then will we begin to think well about randomness, determinism etc. There is simultaneously determinism and randomness because there is a kind of lubrication built into everything. First potential, then actual, as particle physicists theorize. And what of Time? Time is the downhill slope of God's Intent.
Love Jonathan. We learned what makes successful cultures and families ages ago. We also learned the opposite: Once you become feminized and promote LGBTQRST lifestyles you are at the end of culture. Even a lesbian , feminist atheist like Camille Paglia recognizes this historical fact and believes the patriarchal Christian society created western culture.
Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome are good illustrations of this.
I've reached the stage where a post collapse dark age is increasingly attractive.
@@grannyannie2948 We've used up all the cheap energy (oil) to get where we are today. Modern methods of energy extraction require technology that is not accessible with wood power. We've pulled up the ladder behind us so there won't be another technological civilization for a few hundred million years. OTOH, I've read that Roman civilization was the peak happiness for humanity...
@@sdrc92126 I live in Australia, where we have a small population, where without net migration our population would slowly decline from the current 26 million. We have huge reserves of coal, uranium and natural gas and we export food, and have done since the nineteenth century when petroleum was not used in agriculture. My family's business at the time was breeding and training draft horses for work in agriculture, and farmers still used manure as fertilizers.
You are also making a value judgement that technological societies are preferable to what came before. I believe society peaked in the nineteenth century and has been in decline since.
It's pretty hard to argue that happiness peaked in Roman times. The Roman Empire lasted centuries, there was slavery, there was tyranny, there were horrific punishments and executions, the working class lived in single windowless rooms, infanticide was accepted, and a father had the right to kill his daughters (except through the brief period of Christianity.)
@@grannyannie2948 I'm no Roman scholar, just things I've read and heard other people talk about . Windowless rooms are not a problem for people how are outside all day and happiness is subjective. Given it lasted for centuries is a good indication they were doing something right, or else it would have ended sooner. who knows
Been waiting for this. Glad they got together! Two of my favorite gentlemen.
Ha, wow! I did not expect to see Mr. Pageau on this channel. Great discussion!
I havent finished the video yet but I had to express this.
we are truly blessed to be able to hear conversations like this having so much respect between each other and love. This conversation didn't just occur and vanished in time but we can access it from all over the world, pause it, continue it and appreciate it like if it was in real time. we truly live in a wonderful time. this makes me shed a tear
I am 1hr 17mins in and I cannot help but love both these men. They are so truly listening to, honestly and respectfully challenging, and thinking about each other in this dialogue, it is utterly riveting!
Love you both so much!! I think you guys just did the world a huge favor. You guys may have just reached 10,000 years in the future!!!
I appreciate Brett approaching this with respect. Jonathan has a different take than I certainly am used to but as a Christian I’m learning from him. I can imagine this is tough for Brett to wrap his head around. Thanks. Experiencing through VanderKlay’s eyes first. Will be back.
If someone asks "are you FAITHful to your partner" they aren't asking if you believe in their physical being, it's about whether you respect the commitment you made to each other. Belief is a commitment to a set of fundamental axioms that govern how you interact with the world.
Fully agree.
Belief comes from the german word glauben which means "to give your heart to"
Its not a subscription to a proposition. Its Trust in a model.
Modern Christianity has replaced "embodied trust" with "stated belief" and the church is dying for lack of meaning.
Also.. Mate.. That is quite the dichotomy between the depth of your comment and your profile photo. Hilarious
Well said. Is that explanation taken from somewhere that you could cite, or will I be citing Joe42m1 from now on when I use it?
@@hhoi8225 modern thinkers who have most clearly brought this point forward:
Iain mcgilchrist
Jordan Peterson
Jonathan pageau
John vervaeke
. . or committment to what you know, from your experiences of contact with the living God.
@@ourblessedtribe9284naybe he was refering to the one Jesus came in on... mmmmmmm
We need both these worldviews, and a bridge is being made by conversations like this one. Deeply appreciated 🙏
By the Word yeah? For the bridge, in the beginning must be the Word, as it always was.
Word, the bridge between these worldviews begins with
a word,
a word given with love, because sharing a word is love.
What are the chances that John 1:1 starts with:
In the beginning
was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
I love all the good-heartedness throughout this and especially at the end. Brought tears to my eyes. Thank you both.
I watched this about 24 hours ago. For me, it ended where it started. If this beautiful duo do come back for Part II, the conversation is sure to be different.
Being more familiar with Bret (and B&H Dark Horse work), I am further confirmed in my respect and trust in Bret especially seeing his depth, honesty, and even vulnerability to some vexing situations.
WOW! Great conversation! So grateful for these two gentlemen.
So happy to be able to experience this
One of the best podcasts I've seen in a long time. Respect these two a ton, thanks for giving me some interesting questions to chew on
This is great. Such an interesting thoughtful conversation. THANKS
Thank you so much for this amazing conversation, ut was truly incredible.
gonna have to listen through this a couple more times to really grasp it. thanks both of you for this conversation
Bravo to Jonathan Pageau! There were so many points where I wanted Pageau to present what I thought would be the best next comment, and Pageau said something even better.
Bret is deeply informed by his years of immersion in the world of Evolution, which has long contained a strong negative reaction to the religious world view. But that religious world view taught to the Evolutionists was always just a caricature, and Bret is beginning to understand that there is a way to inhabit the world honoring that Biblical wisdom without having to forego one’s intellect.
Pageau is right. There is no looming catastrophe that won’t be solved by welcoming the Wisdom of the Ages. Bret, if you’re looking to start that important conversation that helps humanity step away from suicide, please begin by recognizing that solving the problem of currency would go a very long way. Please see Robert Breedlove for more on that perspective. Any centralized system for control or money is too irresistible against the ultimate development of psychopathic control. We are currently at “Peak Pathocracy” and that is what you are seeing in the world. The Wisdom of the Ages is telling us that our next step is to take the power away from the Psychopaths, who are always just a front for Satan. There’s a great battle ahead of us.
You have a very special role. Please be ready to find your way alongside Pageau on this journey. I can’t imagine anything more challenging than overcoming the cognitive dissonance for a secular Jewish Evolutionary Biologist of renown finding his way into a Christian world. It’s clear you’ve already stepped much farther in this direction than any of your colleagues.
At some point I hope you will also meaningfully interact with people in the “Intelligent Design” community, like the Discovery Institute.
Two of my favourite you tubers. Thank you so much for this conversation.
Phenomenal conversation. Going to have to give this one multiple listens for sure
Interesting conversation and so pleasant to listen to. Two honest, smart, well-meaning men diving deep into their own minds. Thanks!
Amazing. Watched it all with wonder in my eye and appreciation in my heart. Have another conversation with Jonathan! You both are intellectual powerhouses which makes the handling of this conversation with such grace all the more impressive. Well done. The true union of opposites in the best sense
Fascinating conversation 🙏 Thank you to both speakers.
Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts with us all, for your thoughtfulness, for your openness and honesty in a goodwill manner of discussion of taboo topics that are so incredibly important and necessary. Thank you 🙏🏼 and Heather, and thanks to everyone who has held steadfast in these times of censorship and canceling people and their families for simply sharing their thoughts, for daring to have an opinion or different point of view - no matter how much experience or knowledge or facts they bring, it’s been almost impossible to speak up, and if it weren’t for you and Jordan and, everyone else like Joe…I dread the thoughts of where we’d all be now, considering how difficult they’ve made it for anyone who dares try having a conversation, or especially when it comes to asking questions, and questioning the narrative and the powers that be!
Thank you very much, God bless you all - or may the gods bless you, or whatever it means to you to have freedom, prosperity, happiness, peace, good health, love and compassion in your life and the lives of people you care about! 🙏🏼♥️🥰🌏✨🌞🌙
Been waiting for this one for a while. Can't wait!!
I love this so much. Thank you gentlemen.
It's off topic but I appreciate the quality of your camera! The conversation feels more real. Thanks for inviting Pageau, you both are great.
Thank you both for this conversation, I will absolutely have to rewatch this again. Gets so in depth between the material and spiritual and also metaphysical. I love where you both agree, and I also love where you both disagree, please have another beautiful conversation again!!
These are the kinds of conversations that give me hope for the future. I hope this door is further opened.
"A man's wisdom brightens his face" ....Ecclesiastes 8-1....that came into my mind after looking at Jonathan's face....
One of the most important and interesting conversations of 2022 IMO. Really love the way both these guys think.
Great conversation! Thank you both!
AWESOME ... two great minds .. one great conversation !
I’m a great fan of Bret and I don’t doubt his integrity, but once you understand Jonathan’s point of view this discussion becomes quite hilarious with Jonathan’s patiently trying to lift Bret out of his circular folly.
What is less funny though is that Bret’s kind of thinking actually is just of the same kind as what gave us e.g. eugenics and nazism; it is just an improved step purified from the most obvious past evils. But it will unfortunately one day inevitably lead to similar horrors.
“But once you understand Jonathan’s point of view this discussion becomes quite hilarious with Jonathan’s patiently trying to lift Bret out of his circular folly” That’s exactly what I felt starting around minute 40 or so but you put it perfectly.
I was going to comment about how I kept thinking “how can Bret not think, “wow how clear and obvious this is, why have I been over complicating this question. now my eyes have been opened”, alas he didn’t. It truly does illustrate, at least in my part, how blessed we are to have had the Holy Spirit awaken our hearts to Christ and to the patterns and hierarchy that are now, have always been and will always be. If you see the world in this way, it’s as though all other attempts to impose inferior replicas on reality falls so very flat.
At 1:54:00 when Jonathan states how fundamentally different their position is and that the Church did provide us with plenty of relevant “comments” via the Church Fathers, etc. YES, said it all.
Jonathan, I am grateful I stumbled into your channel 3 years ago.
Also need to clarify how incredibly strong Bret’s argument is and if I was never called back to the Christ I would be 100% in agreement.
I used a part of Bret for a book with his Joe Rogan interview, now I subscribed due to this fantastic conversation, kudos.
Looking forward to the next talk with Jonathan. Please make it happen soon!
Already watched on Spotify but gotta stop by to leave a like and comment. Necessary discussion!
This was such an interesting experiment of a conversation. Both of them look at the reality differently, using a different lens and possibly different brand of consciousness. Can't wait for Part Deux.
Thank you both for this!!!
What an incredible conversation. I don't even know what side I'm on but I'm just happy to hear this amazing exchange.
Bret really needs to learn more about the history of religion, especially early Christianity and the struggle among the various Christian sects. The sack of Constantinople in 1204 by the Fourth Crusade is particularly instructive.
recommend some books pls
30 min in and this is already one of my favorite Darkhorse Podcasts.
Two beautiful minds...thank you for this conversation.
I am a Christian and I wasn't a big fan of Bret before because I thought he is like other militant athiests. I have a lot of respect for him after watching this. Good will conversations is what we need. And Jonathan visionary intellect is amazing
This was actually very entertaining. Thank you both
Bret says religion is "literally false, but metaphorically true". If Bret were to offer an example of a scientific statement which is "literally true" I think he would find that such a statement would necessarily involve categorization. For example "Insects have six legs" relies on the category of insects and the category of legs. Jonathan's definition of religion is "the practices that bind together". That's exactly what categorization is. This is part of the reason by which we may be able to consider all truths to have a religious dimension to them. My little example doesn't explain why the religious framework is necessary, but it shows that what Jonathan is talking about is not merely present and the lower levels like Bret references when discussion Descartes.
This territory is not easy to broach, we’re forging a new metaphysics. Neither one is nailing it. It’s the is ought distinction here and they both think they can solve it using just one.
See forrest landry. I think he’s made the most progress here. The way I see it is that there are 3 domains. Subject, object and intelligence. The intelligence domain is that which makes the improbable more probable. Subject is experience and relationship, being. Object is physical external mechanisms and systems. You could then split all 3 of these into individual / group. Solve for all 6 domains in such a way that they synergistically improve each other with the premise that all 6 are equally valid.
This exchange was great. I’m looking forward to part 2.
great conversation! thanks
Bret continues to be focused on patterns at the genes level, but Jonathan is right in saying these patterns scale up, and on the cosmic level, there are patterns that inform and account for all the levels below it including the genes level, but also way more. If Bret could understand this, and that the good is found, and can increase, as you move further into higher patterns, that would make him place the gene level pretty low on the hierarchy of significance. Not only that, the gritty details in the gene level are only significant to the extent that they participate in higher patterns.
This.
could you elaborate on what you mean by the good? how do we go from pattern recognition to inferring a grand cosmic narrative? I'm open to all ideas
@@andrewofaiur That's a really huge question- the question of the good goes way way way back. It is pretty much a central aim of all thinking-philosophical and religious- to try and sort out the exact contours of what the good is. Most of these ways of talking about it end up falling short- they are unable to adequately capture what the good is. However, it is generally agreed upon that the Good is indeed what humans seek after.
Started listening during a workout, but it’s too good for that, so will listen before bed. 😎
So thankful that these two have taken on this almost impossible discussion to have; To remain level headed and seek understanding between each other's lifework, with such complex problems, concepts, and passions.
Magnificent discussion, truly astounded by this. I want to learn so much more about both of your's fields now. Thanks!
Thank you both Johnathan and Bret for a intelligent discussion of where we are and where we're going. Challenges are mounting to which time is not in favour of or against, it's just passing through.
Bret's lineage describes how a faith can survive over time through the evangelism is spot on, I'm not sure why Johnathan would argue this point, because it doesn't negate the existence of religion, it just describes how it is perpetuated on through time. We're halfway through this discussion and we're still at the beginning. The value of religion is not damaged in any way by Bret's use of the lineage description. The only way that Johnathan might be misunderstanding Bret, Johnathan is equating lineage with gene's, but it is completely not being used in the same context here.
I felt they cleared it up when they both agreed that when Jonathan says fighting the urges we all have as humans is the same as fighting the genes that’s within us by making conscious choices
@@nathanaelmorales760 That didn't end it though, was a little like boxing.
Bret's lineage theory explains perpetuation of religion from bottom up (from genes to 'higher units'). Which Jonathan claims in the beginning is only half the story.
The entire idea that genes 'use' memes and never vice versa seems to stand on convention rather than any argument. To then use the 'genes make you do it' argument for cases where genes aren't directly propagated... or cases where gene propagation is not in question whatsoever (!)... sounds like a large reach.
Edit: The "table turning" is also just religious philosophy, except it was ignored in religions themselves because they (as any social institution) propagate this philosophy through 'lineage' institutions.
Wonderful prelude conversation to epigenetics both historically and contemporary. Consciousness is seen as a determinant of epigenetics.
Looking forward for this one!
Thanks Jonathan and Bret!
3 hours of Brett talking in circles while Jonathon tries to get him to realize it.
Jonathon thinks he knows everything and can explain everything because he's a Christian. He talks of abstract philosophical ideas as if they are 100% true in only the sense as he sees it.
1:02:25 "you use hard words... you used the word good" jokingly as if (Jonathan) he has and is the only one who can explain everything about "good"
@@theyeticlutch3486 Mirrored by Brett's insistance on his definitions of 'group' and 'lineage'. It's a fish and a bird trying to agree on air and water.
@DaemonLlama one major difference is Bret is fine with say I don't know to certain philosophy insertions
@@theyeticlutch3486 True. I would say that is mirrored by Jonathan's admission of ignorance regarding biology. Each is based in their expertise, and willing to assert the things they are confident about. Jonathan has faith in the Christian philosophy of good, while Brett has faith in the knowledge structure he has painstakingly built. Neither one is totally wrong, but they won't ever agree to the others presuppositions. I think the important thing is that they are trying to come as close as possible, in the same spirit of hope looking forward. If extinction and totalizing tyranny are your two options, we had best keep looking. IMHO.
Great, great guest! Love watching Jonathan Pageau!
Luke 14, to me, is the reason so many can't get Jesus figured out. You literally have to agree to shed off everything you ever heard or learned, from the people that did, or should have, cared about you the most, and learn who Christ is. Tallest order known to man. Most "in the church" even screw it up.
Most, instead of learning who God is and where, inside of you he has hidden himself in the form of gifts and talents, decide instead, to become God and law down laws.
The laws banning gain of function were the same as the laws banning child sacrifice. They were laws that ignored the sinfulness of people....that people were going to do it anyway. Nothing new. Just sin nature doing what sin nature does. Fauci and the Sacrificers of old thought they knew better, they were a better little god. They both killed many, many people.
The wisdom we know, because we have the Bible, is that sinful people will do what they want, and get many people killed. The wisdom is that we need to do what Jesus did, and go after each and every person with the gospel and story of Jesus and remind everyone that they are first evil. Peterson is almost saying it right, finally. We were fools to think a law would reign in Fauci when he was sinful enough to suggest such an idea in the first place.
Brett, go read Romans. Heaven cannot be earned. The Jews always knew it, and the Christians know it. The Bible even claims that the atheists know it. Everyone is very correct to be very upset at any person that has ever told them otherwise.
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”;
How do you tell that to someone who has spent their life believing in the wisdom of man, unless they really want to understand the teachings and is gifted with Grace?
After many conversations (not that many, really, but enough with different people), I understand that you can’t reach a person who isn’t ready or who hasn’t been trying to figure it out. Even an ocultist can change his ways, but not unless they can humble themselves. Crowley probably didn’t for example.
Thank you gentlemen, for this captivating dialogue. Please continue if possible.
Awesome conversation!
The bit about the Catholic Church is right out of Father Brown-btw the Sacrament of Confession does not work that way. The priest is bound by the Seal of the Confessional so cannot betray the penitent by name or any other way less be excommunicated from the Church. As a lifelong Roman Catholic I can say with reasonable authority that your scenario never happened in a Catholic Church.
Additionally, homilies are supposed to be related to the Gospel readings of the day, not what kind of day the priest may have had.
As a Pageau listener this came down to Brett saying we have to use something new, without saying what that is.
As a listener of Brett, I got the same impression, I also can't understand why he's so sure the human species will become extinct.
@@grannyannie2948 I can't speak for Brett, but I share his concern and think our extinction is highly likely. We are a species very much out of balance. Our technological knowledge has far surpassed our wisdom and spiritual development, we are currently speeding towards our own demise through arrogance and self serving agendas.
@@Jen.K our wisdom and spiritual development is perfectly capable of keeping up with our current technology. The issue would be that the wisdom and spiritual development is found in long religious traditions, and the wider populace decided they were 'above' that. Hence the missing piece.
@@Jen.K What is the solution?
Not really something new he is asking for religion to recreate itself for the present and future which is untenable.
Great conversation. Very interesting to hear 2 men with completely different views that aren’t connecting in some ways, but are still trying to move in the same direction. There are times where they are speaking the same thing and other times they are totally out of touch with each other. Thank you.
Thank you guys for this. Can’t wait for the next one. The most interesting and important gap to me to be working on bridging is that of the religio-abstract and the scientific perspective. You guys are doing a wonderful job demonstrating walking through the tension of that conversation in good faith.
Hi 2022 Garrett :) I miss you a little bit man. I have to tell you some things from the future!! Your future self is still cool. I have officially hung out with you once. We played board games and you took me around town. Can you guess where we ate? We are way better friends now, and currently you are helping me write a fairy tale. I am writing this from my house and in my sock drawer is a dark little pouch of mystery chaos dice which you will give to me next year.
What a wonderful discussion. I listen to Pageau frequently but sometimes I find it challenging to think in such a symbolic manner. But Jonathan has been having these discussions with so many brilliantly minded people.
Bret, if you ever see this, I really hope you have a discussion with John Vervaeke at some point. Pageau and Vervaeke seem to line up in their thinking, but I find Vervaeke's cognitive science framework is much more easily grasped by my analytical mind. This is not to dismiss Jonathan's insights at all because I love his stuff and he is brilliant. Perhaps a discussion with all three of you would be fruitful!
Pageau is vague. It's easy to be vague and only talk aboyut symbolism. He sees patterns where wants to see. He's cherry picking just like all the reliogius sages and wizards have been all through the ages, tricking the gullible. It's not thinking that is rooted in logic and evidence.
@@gulanhem9495 I disagree. If his philosophy could be chalked up to cherry picking and vague projection, then you wouldn't so many other thinkers such as Peterson and Vervaeke coincidentally align with his views.
He talks about specific patterns and phenomena that provide a framework that can be tested and objectively verified. I would even go as far as to say this has empirical evidence you can use to validate his claims.
@@angelocole7740
No. I love Peterson but he suffers from the same problem. He's unknowingly biased when he cherry picks examples that support his ideas.
@@gulanhem9495 we're all inclined to a little confirmation bias. But I personally believe Peterson and Pageau are as genuine as it comes in their search for Truth.
@@angelocole7740
Oh I believe that too. I think it's more like they are unknowingly biased and cherry picking. It's normal for humans, almost like an instinct.
As Jonathan said: "Genes are patterns, but patterns aren't genes"
Good conversation!! Do it again! 😎👍
I hear this great communication and a thought that came to me is that as a mother, grandmother-Covid is something I did not foresee how both would be affected so the lineage for me comes without thought. That is what I understood. This is very valuable and I sure need more of it. Thank you gentlemen!
Bret is so condescending, it’s hilarious. The hubris of these scientists is part of the reason of why we are where we are.
Bret's fears & "apparent panic" seem to be because he can't get his ego to submit to a higher cause/ pattern/ being, that he's not in control of/ can't manipulate.
Not blaming the guy, it's the hardest thing to accept, ever, IMO; to realize you, as an ego, a separate entity, don't really exist (past the point that you are an agent in the world, that can affect some things around you)
Totally agree! They know everything and they always have to be right! There's no humility....... :-/
What Brett believes is just common sense morality, Jonathan believes is a Christian sense morality. "Atheists" are aesthetically secular but presuppose Christian axioms. Not to mention the term conscience is just a modernist word for soul lol
This conversation was fantastic! This is exactly the kind of conversation that needs to keep happening to resolve the problems identified.
MORE! Great conversation :)
Christianity literally is the "turning the tables" on the genes Bret is talking about, but he doesn't see it. It is about a deeper "life" that transcends the ingrained baser/animal lineage. It comes from above, but sure, it potentially reorders over generations populations, just as good habits move for the individual the goalposts what is "second nature."
"We must transcend our gene code" -Bret
"Ye must be born again to enter into Heaven" -Jesus Christ
The perfect union of Heaven (spirit/consciousness) and Earth (animal/genes) is the project.
I don't think Bret misses this, but religion is other things besides what you describe and to the extent it is defined by an adherance to outdated (scientifically) writings and subject to "revelation" and other faith-based evidences (not to discount intuition or new insights by whatever means) we are paying a price. If we can reject and jettison those aspects while still retaining the level of adherence bestowed by whatever is built into our nature to respond to ancient texts, rituals, iconography, beauty, wonder etc. That has already been under way within religion, but it does seem that most religious people miss that they are being informed from WITHOUT the camp, so to speak - from insights often gained via science into explaining human behavior for example, or rigorous methods of recording and measuring the fruits of given practices, on human wellbeing. Typically, the religious are afraid to grant this, and will interpret this as from God, righteous men getting revelations, ect. But when it comes to blatant, predictable, reliable science like germ theory - that enables us to reduce tremendous harm (found nowhere in the bible btw) it seems the religious will quickly abandon a faith-based explanation.
@@joshkar24 Those are legitimate observations. Reminds me of a young anthropologist long ago who was living with Northern folk in an igloo which was always filled with smoke, He made a covered trench from the fire pit to the outside, to bring in air quietly instead of it being drawn in from the doorway. The air then became clear and breathable, and the Inuit were very pleased. When visitors came they said "Look what Grandfather made!" He was disgusted that he was given no credit..
Religious culture rests within the values of consciousness, but although immaterial, it is not abstracted from the world in the way science tries to be. It is participatory, and is, legitimately, very organic. In ancient days all culture and "religious" culture would have been one. The superb technical skills with which the Inuit survived in the Arctic were inherited from their deep past, along with their mythic patterns. The young anthropologist's way of thinking would have been strange to them. Rather than fear the new invention as some kind of sorcery, they chose to trust it and adopt it as "from Grandfather."
We moderns are only now learning integrate our scientific understanding with our very organic spiritual experience. It's like Wow!, Wow!, Wow! Witnessing the emergence of Mandelbrot patterns was stunning and transformative. And it goes both ways -- learning, and proving, that we can change clouds with our eyes forced me to rethink everything I had been taught in school about the material universe and our place in it.. And the more we integrate, the more our world becomes filled with synchronistic events. Jonathan spoke of these synchronicities in an interview.
Bret doesn’t understand religious experience at all. He is wonderfully intelligent and it limits him so his eyes do not see and his ears do not hear.
@@joshkar24 What for example would you jettison?
My faith truly helps me have a glimpse of what is good.
Really enjoyed this conversation, it's always great when people can disagree strongly but with civility
Fantastic. I really appreciate the mutual respect on display.
All of this verbiage that makes genes seem conscious, ie “the genes will sacrifice the memetic for the sake of getting their spellings into the future,” or “selection favors x,y, or z” are the scientist’s way of sneaking in top-down theology while simultaneously screaming that bottom-up will someday explain everything. I love watching you, Bret, but the truth is, God is real. Religion exists in all human societies because He exists. 💜
"I love watching you, Bret, but the truth is, God is real. Religion exists in all human societies because He exists. 💜"
--> Ok, yes; but until we help him see it, he can't (even if he wanted to) submit healthily to it.. letting go of our own ego is no small feat, patience
Bret must meet God in his own heart. Otherwise the seeds will fall on barren ground. I will be praying for you and your wife Bret. The Lord’s Peace be with you and your family.
Pageau is trying to say you can't examine the DNA strands and know a priori exactly what creature will be patterned after it. We can observe it from both levels (DNA vs. organism), but you can't go from one directly to the other. You can imagine this like looking at compressed data, versus uncompressed data - without the exact algorithm that is used for compression, you can't derive one from the other.
I really enjoy this video. Thank you!
Waiting for the next convo!
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen."
Jonathan, every 10 minutes in this episode: “that’s what religion is!!”
Yes! please! continue this conversation the two of you, and I would love to watch another one like a round table with you two plus Lex Fridman and Joe Rogan. Thanks!!
One of the BEST episodes of DH ever. GREAT CONVERSATION
1:55:33 All due respect to Brett, but he uses "we" in the same way Jordan Peterson uses "we" and the same way many materialists use "we". They think they stand on the cutting edge of understanding life from their materialist perspective and believe they are speaking for us all. Brett proves this by referring to traditional wisdom and the usage of it as a way forward as us being then, "ludittes".
Wat? Peterson is not a materialist.