Jonathan Pageau vs Skeptic DEBATE: Is the Bible True?
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 08. 2024
- Watch the unedited debate here: • Jonathan Pageau vs Ath...
In this debate, Jonathan and I argue about whether the stories of the Bible are true.
Jonathan Pageau is a French Canadian icon carver, public speaker and CZcamsr exploring the symbolic patterns that underlie our experience of the world, how these patterns emerge and come together, manifesting in religion, art and in popular culture.
For the Sake of Argument Podcast:
CZcams: / @jakenewfield
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4k9DDGJ...
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Twitter: / jakenewfield
Timeline
02:06 - Intros
02:48 - Is Christianity real?
04:45 - Debating religion
37:20 - Symbolism
Here is the timeline:
02:06 - Introductions
02:48 - Is Christianity real?
04:45 - Debating Religion
37:20 - Christian Symbolism Explained
Don't quit your day job.
Sorry for all the rough feedback. I haven’t looked at your channel to know what kind of content you’ll generally work on, but I think people underestimate how difficult it is to get started.
You jumped in the deep end, though.
That said, I agree with you that a clearer sense of the importance of what really happened is desirable. This is especially true about Jesus’s resurrection. That would be (partly) a historical matter. But Jonathan is right that the main question will be whether or not you trust certain people’s testimony. That does start to bring you into territory much more similar to the question of whether or not your wife loves you. Trust in this sense is not opposed to reason. (“She says she loves me but she keeps deliberately hurting me; I’m not sure she’s telling the truth!” for example.) But it does go beyond what reason can independently verify. Trust is an irreducible feature of the relationship.
Similarly with the Lord’s resurrection. We don’t meet this merely as a brute fact to be scientifically analyzed. The testimony about “what happened” is also about the relentless love of the God who called us into being in the first place and will not suffer us to be lost.
That’s where faith happens. The testimony of the Apostles is found to be trustworthy, not because it can be independently verified, but because there’s a certain deep and satisfying fit that the believer perceives.
Other commitments will shape a person’s response, of course. If someone does not recognize that there is a transcendent Creator, then their ability to perceive the fit is going to be dulled. But even that is a bit misleading. Faith comes by grace. I don’t mean to suggest someone figures it out, so to speak. The resonance that invites trust in the Good News is not quite like solving a puzzle. But the analogy with marriage probably shines enough light on this very personal aspect of weighing and responding to the Gospel that Christ is risen.
He is risen, indeed.
@@stephencrawford5452 Indeed he is risen. Excellent and a loving response. One thing I might add if I may. Grace does sometimes include "figuring it out."
All humanists must ask themselves how the humanist world has faired so far?
@@paulmelonas7263 Thanks for the response! When I say we don't figure it out, I mean that we don't figure it out by our own lights. It seems to me more a matter of a Light breaking in on us from outside. Or put differently, we don't figure it out, so much as we're shocked to suddenly realize that we've been figured out.
That said, I agree that our own insights can be a part of that process. And really I want to talk about faith in a way that is open to the contributions of reason, rather than closed off to them. I suggested this with the question of whether or not to trust someone's claim that he or she loves you. You can consider the person's actions, whether or not they align with the claim to love you, and so on. But that is not a matter of independently verifying. You are deciding whether or not to take the person's word for it, which can be reasonable or unreasonable. But whether or not trust is reasonable in a given situation, it still remains an act of trust. This has to do with the content of what's presented; sometimes we're told things dealing with matters that we cannot possibly know for ourselves.
To a large extent, the things of God are this way. Did God raise Jesus from the dead? What a claim! Unlike Jonathan, I think I'm more open to considering that the first witnesses were women, that almost all of the apostles (and myriads since) believed so sincerely that they died for these beliefs, and so on. Still, whether or not to trust the Apostles' report that Jesus rose from the dead is a question of just that: trust.
Note that it's not ONLY a matter of whether or not to trust the Apostles, though. They could have seen what they saw, but really they were hallucinating. Does God raise the dead? I do think we can know in a different way that there is a transcendent Creator. But why did this transcendent Creator make us in the first place? Will he hand us over to death forever and simply wash his hands of us? Or did he create us merely out of love, so much so that he won't let us go, but his plan is to rescue, restore, even resurrect? That's the story that has come down to us, and many people hear that story and something clicks.
@@stephencrawford5452 Understanding can come from the experiences and reasoning of others and our own, but illumination can only come through revelation from God.
Our creator intended for it all to be in play. Hopefully we are open to it all.
I do believe the question of did God raise Jesus from the dead can only be answered through personal heavenly revelation.
In answer to the question,"why did this trasnscendent creator make us in the first place," is answered by, to be like him. We were originally made both in the image and the likeness of God. We have maintained the image but we lost the likeness when death entered the world through sin. Sin and death are not like God. Jesus conquered both sin and death for us so that we can not only be made in the image of God but also so we can regain God's likeness.
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don't know it.”
-GK Chesterton
Sums up a lot
Do you think that the scientific method (and the process through which we ascertain historical truths) are "Dogmas?"
@@bubbag8895 Do you think that the scientific method (and the process through which we ascertain historical truths) are "Dogmas?"
@@jakenewfieldwhy even care about "historical truths"? Is it even possible to attain them? Why do they matter? And for all you know the world is created this very instant with the appearance of existing in time and space. And no amount of facts and evidence can disprove this bc the facts and evidence themselves are part of the illusion. And the ones who care about the so called facts of history are the most deluded bc they miss the mark of living in the present and being attentive to who and what they truly are. The domain of facts and evidence have some importance but are just lesser and not as deep as Truth.
@@jakenewfielddude you need to learn about philosophy of science. Modern science relies on a myth frame work as proven as the Bible by your standards. By my standards modern science is making up crap out of nothing in most cases. Age of the earth is actually unknown. Evolution is a joke. Archeological disputes are about dates nine times out of ten and the people making a stink are always die hard atheists on an agenda. The Lancet put out a study that 50% of all studies are bogus. Astronomy and astrophysics is just a bunch of guessing. You have no actual proof for most of what you believe. You simply believe what a lab coat tells you. These are the dogmas you cluelessly subscribe too.
I think Jonathan's point about trust can be unpacked a couple of ways:
1) the scientific method doesnt prove itself; youre trusting that it is the best way to ascertain knowledge.
2) as soon as the data is beyond your material experience - either because it is historical, far away, too small to percieve, etc, youre reliant on trusting those people who claim to have observed it.
3) dismissing religious experience as purely psychological phenomena rests not on empirical data, but on a different set of presuppositions. As jonathan said, all cultures report some kind of supernatural being, gods, demons, etc. why assume theyre mistaken? Its because you have a [perhaps implicit] trust in a materialist worldview. Point is, consciously or not, you are trusting that worldview, not verifying it empirically.
I tried to explain this and ended up writing a giant wall of text. You managed to summarise it clearly and very briefly. Congrats, this is really good. Hope he reads it
Amazing evaluation, materialism/atheism had a mask off moment here.
Well said.
Yes well said!
As far as I understand this seems to be an answer that there is a God or Gods as opposed to materialism. I would say that any faith can get behind this idea.
But how does it help to go a step further and show that we can trust Christianity for example to be more trustworthy than Islam for example?
@MalarkusD, let me respond to your points:
1. Either we DO have an accepted system for discerning truth, or we DON'T. I believe that we DO. Do you believe that we DO, or that we DON'T?
2. This is not true. This is disproved by the first point.
POV father teaching teenage son
lol
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
Bro this was a debate?@@jakenewfield
@@martinallen6411 I think he has a different style, more conversational, came off more honest to me where as most debates they'll stoop to being disingenuous to make a point, he's trying to hear the other person out
@@jakenewfield this wasn't a debate. A schooling isn't a debate.
It’s hard to believe the last ten or fifteen minutes is part of the same interview. Obviously your just starting out but your whole demeanor and weight of the conversation flipped 180 towards the end. It started out as you arguing and trying to be right, and in the end you began to ask genuine questions and a real chance for the guest to share his beliefs uninterrupted and it became a conversation rather than an argument . Do that and you’ll blow up.
@Jake Newfield You need to watch a few of these Jonathan Pageau videos before you interview him next time:
"The Inevitability of Ritual"
"You'll Never Be Able to Unsee this Nihilist Trick | Jonathan Pageau"
"There is No Literal Meaning"
"The Metaphysics of Clown World"
After watching these video's, Jonathan Pageau's worldview should be a lot more clearer to you.
I once was a materialist like you, but after listening to Jonathan Pageau for a while, it started to make sense.
Good luck!
Noting this playlist now... thank you
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
One does not have to be a materialist to be skeptical of extraordinary claims and to press for answers about whether a particular believer believes the miracles of the Bible to have been historically factual.
Jonathan just kept deflecting like his friend JPB and relying on
a phenomenological pragmatism as the standard of truth.
There are many atheists who would love a crack at JP if he had the guts to face them. TJump, BreakfastTaco, PineCreek. If he has the "truth" and the all-powerful "Holy Spirit" on his side what would be the problem. There are many theists who would call him out as well VaticanCatholic comes to mind.
@@thenowchurch6419 JP is a BS artist. As an "Orthodox Christian" he is required to accept certain beliefs that he clearly does not accept. He obfuscates, prevaricates, reifies, burden shifts and uses deceptive language. He NEVER provides any substantive evidence for what he is saying and just tries to pick holes in a sophomoric way with "modernity" the great bug bear.
I'm an Orthodox Christian, this is a great interview and reminds me of the kinds of fun conversations I'm constantly having with my family who are not believers. We're coming from very different places, them from a scientific/materialist point of view and me from a "the world is made up of values/attention/worship" point of view. There is a lot of talking past each other, but that's how things go when you see things so differently.
Don't let the negative comments get you down Jake, it's great you're interested in Christianity and articulating your own point of view to help you think these deep questions out. I wonder if the people who aren't happy with this conversation don't have in depth conversations with nonbelievers, like do they only ever talk to people who think just like them? Lol.
Excellent comment 👌
Thank you! I appreciate it
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
So if the material universe did not exist would the "the world is made up of values/attention/worship" exist? See supervenience for more information about how I look at it.
Some people listen to understand, others listen to respond.
thanks for this feedback!
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
@@jakenewfieldlol you just did it again
I'm impressed with the Christian generosity of Jonathan Pageau to go on a show that has 260 subscribers and a host that just likes to hear himself speak.
I actually thought he did most of the talking, frankly
Naive empiricists smh.. pageau got his time wasted
@@jakenewfield Not without being spoken over by the "host."
@@DarKMilitiaClan Agreed
@@jakenewfield He did, you're the host, you're supposed to talk, ask questions and press on certain issues especially the ones that make people feel uncomfortable. You did a good job, these people are just plebs who cannot handle that if something didn't actually happen in history then it isn't historically true and therefore isn't true historically and therefore most likely not true at all. Watching Pageau get passive agressive and condescending is hilarious. So what if there are repetitive patterns throughout history based off of human nature that point to some kind of fractal phenomenological thematic underlying/overarching structure of meaning, it doesn't make the bible true and it doesn't make macbeth true either, but no one argues that.
Talk less, listen more and prepare better.
thanks for the feedback!
@@jakenewfield you’re welcome! Hope it was helpful 🙏🏻
I thought it went well. The back-and-forth disagreements are what made it interesting.
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
try to be more intelligent and less arrogant and pushy also
The problem in this conversation is that you implicitly pressupose a physicalistic worldview in your argumentation. Physicalism is a metafysical standpoint, it is not science! That the so called real world is physical/materialistic is a pressuposition which cannot be proved scientifically. For you the physical world 'out there' is real and the psychological world 'in here' is less real and at best corresponds to the physical 'real' world. But, Carl Jung for example would say that the world of the Psyche is just as real than the so called real physical world. The Psyche is real and it's contents are real, and integral part of the totality of reality, which cannot be reduced to the mere physical.
Couldn't agree more. But!, there is nothing wrong with asking whether or not something physically happened, like, literally, in history. There should be a clear answer even for the non-physicalist. Pretending like it's naive or unsophisticated to even ask, though perhaps true when asked by a materialist, must be some form of obscurantism. Why else dance around the question?
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
I guess you think you are real smart huh?
You are conflating Jung's archetypal truth of the Psyche with random
subjectivity.
In every insane asylum on earth you will find people convinced of
all kinds of ridiculous ideas from within their Psyche but which do not
comport with any sort of factual truth.
Certainly there are some whose inner worlds tell broad truths of humanity's
Unconscious mind and of their personal truths of experience but one must distinguish between the inner truths and inner absurdity.
Psychic truth cannot erase, dismiss or replace everyday material truth, just as
material truth cannot erase or replace inner reality.
I actually have an interest in physicalism from a purely pragmatist perspective as I think physicalism can be useful in helping me study, say, physics. I would definitely not subscribe to it as a presupposition of ultimate reality, though.
@@jakenewfield It seems you have removed or hidden my reply.
Why is that bro?
I am getting notifications from this thread but my comment is not here anymore.
The major roadblock in the Atheists way for seeing God is their materialistic view. You cannot rationalize the supernatural. Jonathan is right, believers and nonbelievers ARE living in 2 different worlds. Jesus told the believers to walk in the Spirit, following this opens up half of existence that nonbelievers can not perceive. It’s impossible to convince or “prove” this to them. It’s like trying to explain beautiful colors to a person born blind. It’s sad actually. Pray for them.
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
Or like searching for Tolkien himself within the Lord of the Rings.
@@joshualeond if i were a character in Lord of the Rings it would be irrational for me to assume that Tolkein exists
@@jakenewfield I was an atheist/agnostic not long ago. Hope you find truth and peace.
Bingo
This podcast is very unpleasant. Especially at the beginning you seem very inattentive. You were constantly adjusting your microphone and seemed to be reading things on your screen while Jonathan was explaining his view on the crucifixion (which as an orthodox Christian is an extremely complex matter). Shortly afterwards you say you don't want to catch him off guard regarding his faith even though he has just touched on the core of it. You don't seem to be listening, just waiting to talk. You are an atheist, but ironically you come across as preachy, not the orthodox Jonathan Pageau 😂
Thanks for this feedback. I should have been off-camera if I was going to be adjusting my mic
@@jakenewfieldDo you believe in empathy? What evidence did you use to confirm that empathy is real? Do you believe you're a good person? A nice person? Obviously. Do you have any evidence that you're a good or nice person? Obviously not. Everyone knows that. But you're gonna keep believing it anyway. Here we stand, at the edge of your rationality. What will you do?
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
Dude chill out.
There's a way to give constructive criticism, and this wasn't the way. You came off condescending.
You picked the kindest and least argumentative Orthodox apologist, Jonathan has said before he does not like these types of conversations! Speak to Fr Deacon Ananias, Jay Dyer, even Sam Shamoun! These people will have fun dismantling these secular arguments
Agreed, I think Pageau is a great apologists it's just that he doesn't tackle it from a hard philosophical apologetics like those you mentioned. Mr. Jake is highly materialistic in his suppositions so as you said Dyer or Fr. Ananias would be better to tackle Jake.
@@larryjake7783You hit it spot on, Jonathan is an amazing apologist but stylistically different . Jonathan introduced me to Orthodoxy and these conceptions, but the other more argumentative people i mentioned have narrowed in the logical debate aspect for me personally
I am taking your advice! just reached out to Jay Dyer, and I'll have him on my show soon.
@@jakenewfield you need to talk to Sam Shamoun. God willing
@@jakenewfieldOh man, don't talk to Sam Shamoun unless you're ready to hear your mother called horr ible names. The man has a terrible temper!
What kind of "threshold" would someone need to believe something like the Resurrection? Evidence is interpreted inside your previously believed paradigm. If you are a materialist, no amount of evidence would suffice for a "super natural" event, because that event would shift your entire worldview.
Bingo facts are theory laden
but theories have a very high threshold to be created. not anything can become a theory
@@jakenewfield I understand, but worldviews are not theories, they are presuppositions that are a condition for theories to arise.
For example, physicalism is a metaphysical presupposition, you can't have "evidence" for it because any evidence would be interpreted from your presupposed framework. How can you disprove that the ultimate reality is matter? Or how can you disprove idealism with evidence?
Ultimately, at the paradigmatic level, all you can do is contrast the internal coherence of each system.
@@issaavedra I don't think he cares. He either has no idea what he is talking about or he is just trying to boost algorithm promotion or both
Also, don't be discouraged by the negative comments. I enjoyed your interview, as a lifelong atheist who converted to Orthodox Christianity, I still struggle with some of the issues you pressed Jonathan on, and I enjoy listening to his answers.
Thank you for this feedback! A question for you to ponder: If the stories of the Bible are as real and true as other stories in history, then why aren't the stories of the Bible included in history textbooks?
@@jakenewfield Because the history that is being taught is purposely secular. If you have materialist presuppositions, you can't assume the validity of any "supernatural" claim, otherwise, it would destroy your entire worldview.
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
@jakenewfield Your question isn't right. These stories in the Bible aren't happening all over the world for people to see, although some are. An example, the story of the flood is even found in the Chinese typography, search into it, earlier biblical stories are written in Chinese typographies
@@jakenewfield Another thing. Jesus had an answer for everything even for people like you. He said, His witnesses and evidence are His miracles and His teachings. And so if you are one to believe in miracles you will trust the stories of these miracles, and if you believe truth, you will trust His teachings. No one disagrees with Jesus's teachings and can teach like Jesus, if you want to know if what the Bible says is true, take the teachings of Christ, and apply it then you will see.
Jake, if you schedule conversations with people like Jonathan I recommend contacting them months in advance and ask for some literature to serve as a primer for the conversation. You're coming into the conversation with little to no classical training on Christian symbology, as well as a few materialist atheist presuppositions that make it very difficult for Jonathan to explain things to you -- as you're coming in with a lot of presuppositions and perhaps don't recognize it.
Thank you for this feedback!
@@jakenewfield A good source would be Charles Taylor's 'A Secular Age', especially where he describes the concept of the Imminent Frame and how it shapes modern secular thought.......
This is painful. The host is 15 years too late, and doesn't realize it.
Thank you! This type of feedback is helpful for me. If you're willing to subscribe to my channel and give me more feedback like this -- I'll be able to learn and improve my videos.
Have you ever heard of Epistemology Jake? Jonathan is talking about first cause principles. What he's trying to say is that you both are equal in terms of relevance of sensory data information, but you won't concede that point because you think without sensory data nothing is certain ( so it seems).
Look to the work of the great sceptic David Hume, who suggests this; Empiricism and sciencism is a fallacy based worldview because you cannot give a logical account for induction, can't rely on sense data without giving an account for the self which you can't do without being circular, and finally you cannot derive an ought from an is.
These points suggest that your position is arbitrary; You can't use science to derive morality, you can't even rely on tomorrow being like today without certain presuppositions!
So by that standard, good Jonathan is much closer to the base of reality than you are. He understands metaphysics, he can give an account for his worldview via the divine mind. But you, i don't think, can even give an account for logic itself without presupposing logic by debating ( a logical system of rhetoric, circular reasoning).
3 thumbs up
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
he has recently googled epistemology, but he still doesn't really like it. History textbooks are more his thing.
Wow, you explained it so well. Well done. Praise be to God.
He does not and he tried to debate Dyer after this talk. Brutal learning experience for him.
czcams.com/video/SxDFfMeDnEk/video.htmlsi=YeMeuI5W09g4nwBc
Tbh Jonathan, I know that it might have felt like a loss of time for you, but I love listening to you talk to people who are so far away from our point of view. This is what I face everyday, and listening to your approach in these situations is really helpful.
I agree!
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
I saw "Jonathan Pageau" and "heated debate" and thought I immediately recognized click bait but....yeah that's fair.
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
I enjoyed this quite a lot. Often Jonathan talks to extremely educated people and also extremely polite people who don't want to push him too far. I think Jonathan was very clear here because of the slightly more ordinary nature of the discussion
I love your profile picture!
St Christophorus 🙌🏾
@@prodigaltrev provide a scientific description of how that is the case.
@@olubunmiolumuyiwa do you not agree that there should be a basis for establishing historical events?
I agree. Too much respect is given to these intellectuals. I think the host offered the right amount of respect. He pressed his guest for clearer answers rather than it be assumed that those of us that are struggling to understand are just not trying hard enough to understand.
@@jakenewfield Yes and it's certainly not materialism.
An edit at 2:55 in the middle of the first question already has me curious and a little skeptical about the integrity of the editing. Don't know if I trust...
Thanks for this feedback. I thought it would be a good idea to remove all of the filler words… I was wrong. This was a stupid mistake, and now my video appears over-edited, as you’re seeing.
@@jakenewfield It's fine. We all make mistake and gotten learn from them. It's hard to do in public so props for being honest about it.
Also, take heart what Jonathan's saying. He's not doing it for clout, this stuff really does change peoples lives. Peace.
@KevinMakins: because of your comment, I'm going to release the full UNCUT/Unedited version on Friday
@KevinMakins because of your feedback, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
@KevinMakins please let me know what you think of the UNEDITED version here: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
This guy reminds me far too much of my younger self. I was very proud of my “critical thinking”. I’m sure he will one day be baptized into THE story and realize that not only did it happen but that is currently happening and will continually happen unto ages of ages.
Thank you for this feedback! A question for you to ponder: If the stories of the Bible are as real and true as other stories in history, then why aren't the stories of the Bible included in history textbooks?
@@jakenewfield “why doesn’t islam teach christian doctrines”
There is no difference with what you asked and what i put in quotes. Your God is authority by foolish men.
@jakenewfield While it is evident that most of the world civilization is based the Judeo-Christian story, you talk about meaningless textbooks!
@@Liz-ol1si no, don't mock his history textbooks, they are his rock and foundation!
Sorry, didn’t you listening to what Pageau explained to you once and once again? Because they are not forensic history! They are telling you eternal patterns that manifest once and once again but with have a temporal reality as well, a moment when they manifested clearly to humans. Myths are not history in the scholarly sense! Please, read a bit Mircea Eliade and many others. Best!
Jake’s capacity to not listen is astounding.
lol. what makes you say that?
@@jakenewfieldthe video we’re watching.
@@jakenewfield everybody sees it
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
@@CalebDekker lol this is a great comment. Please subscribe and make more comments like this
The issue here is the difference in paradigm. You like the vast majority of people today have a modern paradigm of what truth constitutes which is simply materialism. Jonathan paradigm is the Christian paradigm amongst other ancient understanding in general before modernism existed.
Jonathan “how can I say this” Pageau
Well, he is French
@@mitch0990 Touché
@@brittybee6615 Google "symbolic world"
That's what happens when you find the truth through icon carving, art and ancient wisdom. But there totally is an "educated" way to define Pageau´s epistemology using academic language, and it's been done before.
Jonathan "It's important to understand" Pageau
Try not to be so incredibly disingenuous and patronizing and your interviews won’t be heated.
This wasn’t a debate, btw.
lol, I was trying to be polite, but I guess I failed
@@jakenewfield your comments are also disingenuous. Most likely to boost engagement but you wouldn’t have to that if you took the interview seriously.
I think I did take the interview seriously. what makes you think I didn't?
@@jakenewfieldyour demeanor, your questions, your talking over the guest, your unfamiliarity with the subject matter, your fake "I'm not trying to debate, but let me challenge you and demand answers" approach.
What are you talking about?
Jake doesn't know the guest's name is Jonathan, not John?
Jon is a pretty common way to abreviate Jonathan. I wouldnt be offended
ya that was my mistake... I spoke with John Vervaeke the day prior and got myself confused
It seemed like an irritating but honest mistake.
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
Thanks for doing this. As an orthodox Christian after 36 years being an atheist, I found your questions helpful because it reflects how I used to think and how I still tend to fall back into thinking. This allowed Pageau to explain from an angle that he doesn't usually do. Very helpful. Thanks
I am glad to hear that! I hope that you subscribe to my channel
Thia Jake guy has no idea how to listen to someone. Whenever Jonathan speaks, he says, yea aha but he always fixes the camera and he is visibly distracted . Bro LISTEN WHEN SOMEONE IS SPEAKING TO YOU. WE can actually see it that you're not listening so what's the point of having a conversation when all you want is just to say your piece? Just talk to a wall !
you can't seriously see why he's frustated? Jonathan and Jordan keeps dodging literal ressurection of christ. It's obvious that it's not a literal true to everyone. Dead is dead, dead don't come back. I got to pluto and cameback yesterday is the same as dying and coming back. It's horseshit.
@@szpoganicz Even what you call "literal" doesn't make sense. How "literal" do you want to go.
I could say that all you, szpoganicz, are is just a much of atoms banging together in different ways. I could say that is "literally" who you are.
But in real life, If I were to talk to you, or talk about you, I don't describe you as a bunch of molecules and atoms banging together in particular ways, I describe you as a person with personality traits.
We describe things in human perceptable ways. This is the perspective that the Biblical books take.
As for Christ's ressurection, the reason it is believed is because Christ is the revelation of how reality works. If you reduce Christ to morals, you'll miss this. Please understand that Christ is seen as the totality of what it means for anything to have existance, and his ressurection is the ultimate fulfillment of this.
As in, too be the greatest, you must give yourself to the things below you, and in doing so, the things below you will glorify/raise you. "The first shall be last, and the last shall be first"
A small example of this is a teacher. A good teacher is the one that gives his entire being to the betterment of his students, *_sacrificing_* his time and effort in all that he does. And in doing so, the students are taught correctly and the teacher is praised as a good teacher and reaps the rewards of what that entails too. That's how any teacher goes from regular "Teacher" to "Good Teacher".
So likewise, when God, creator of Heaven and Earth (all things invisible and visible, the source of life itself), gave himself to his creation, by entering it and *serving it* with perfection, then died within creation, creation glorified Him by raising him up again to eternal life.
So as a teacher is raised/glorified by parents, other teachers or students into being a "Good Teacher" by sacrificing himself for his students.
God is raised/glorified by his creation into being a "Deified Man" (Christ after the ressurection), by sacrificing himself for his creation.
It is the ultimate pattern of reality and makes sense when you look at it from this paradigm.
@@olubunmiolumuyiwa cmon man, i watch pageau and peterson since 2016. Don't throw that on me. I'm sold that values that go through christianity are good for people. i'm sold on much of the 10 commandments since i applied them on my life and god a lot of improvements. But people dont die and come back. That's a fact. Dead is dead. Those who die don't come back. I can say i died and born again with peterson and pageau teachings. But i don't really died, if that was the case i would not be writing here.
and second. I cant argue with Jordan Peterson formulation of god, but the idea that this god thing that is out of space and time and is the amalgama of all possibilitys manifested in human form to be beatean gratuitously? Cmon bro. Maybe god it's real, but Jesus it's not, Jesus is an ideology.
@@szpoganicz You may have watched more Jordan than Jonathan because Jonathan would never say that Christ is an Ideology.
Again, Christ is the fullfillment of all of the meanings of the Old Testament, noone sat down to make up or come up of a story of a man as an ideology.
You say "Dead is dead". Then you don't understand symbolism in the way that Jonthan talks about it.
You are constantly dying and being ressurected at different scaled of reality:
- Even at molecular levels, your cells die and are ressurected into the same body that holds your identity. Different cells, yet same identity/person.
- At a higher level, you are able to die to passions so that you can live according to virtue within yourself. Different habits, yet same identity/person.
- At your job, you die to your immediate desire, so you can fullfill a greater reward in the form of money or career advancement. Different status in life, yet same identity/person.
So why is it so hard to believe that God can give himself fully to his creation and die in human flesh, then ressurect in glory, similar to the ways you do daily and on a regular, smaller basis?
This is what symbolism is about, it's about realising the extent to which these patterns go and are manifest. Christ is the true fullfillment of the meaning of life and how the world worlds. He just does it at a cosmic scale. This is beyond following the 10 commandments or saying Christianity is "good for people", it's about seeing that Christ reveals how the world works, or in other words, he reveals the meaning and purpose of the world and how meaning and purpose works in our life.
Despite all the critical comments, I think Jake did an ok job. You just interrupt a lot. A lot of the questions you asked are very basic and fundamental but sometimes these are the most important questions to ask. I think Jonathan also did a fantastic job of explaining his worldview and these types of conversations can be really difficult in general.
Thanks for this feedback! I hope that you subscribe to my channel and continue making comments.
the beginning of this interview was painful to watch. when Johnathan said we leave in different worlds to you he was not kidding. but the later part were cool.
I highly appreciate and respect you for having this conversation with Jonathan! Also, I completely understand where you are coming from and the argument you are making. That being said, Jonathan is coming from a completely different realm. It took me 2.5 years to understand anything he said, but now, I can’t see the world in any other way. I think it’s unfortunate the comments are so condescending to you, but I also think it’s disingenuous to call Jonathan’s arguments weak and circular without fully understanding the arguments. This is a common problem when an atheist talks to a Christian with a more ancient and mystical tradition. Either way, I’m glad to have found this video and channel, and I will be praying for you :)
Well said
Thank you for this feedback! A question for you to ponder: If the stories of the Bible are as real and true as other stories in history, then why aren't the stories of the Bible included in history textbooks?
@@jakenewfield Again, I understand where you’re coming from, but it’s the wrong question. The stories of the Bible are the realest, truest stories. They are meta-stories. Like Christ is the King of kings, these stories are the Stories of stories. Did they happen in history? Yes, but the way they were told is not meant to be a scientific, molecular description. They are phenomenological, experience based descriptions that outline how reality lays itself out. Jonathan talks a lot about how atheists tend to remove themselves from their own equations of “history” and “science”, and I fear this is what is happening. As far as historicity, was Christianity not immediately outlawed after Jesus’s ascension? Were not countless Christian eye witnesses martyred? Did Constantine not convert? Everyone at the time, Jews, Romans and gentiles, all certainly believed that something happened enough to die for the cause. Truly not trying to be condescending, but I think taking a lot more time to understand the ancient views of Christianity will help out a lot! Thanks again, and looking forward to hearing more from you!
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
@@joshuamorris683this a copied and pasted comment dont take it too seriously
This is what happens when a random tech bro who listens to too many podcasts tries to become lex friedman
Lex Fridman DOESN'T debate!
@@jakenewfield Fr Dcn Annanias (@esorem) would be a good guest for you. He is a philosophy professor in Montana.
@@jakenewfield you can't debate brother lmao
@@mitch0990 it's kinda funny too, because out of everybody he could've pick for debates on Christianity and the issues that he has, he picked Pageau specifically, who is an artist, to a debate. Anyone following Pageau knows that he rarely if ever are looking to debate anybody, so he definitely doesn't ask for this debate lmao
@@meaningofreason true. Dyer would be a massacre, but FDA is a teacher and could help him I think
Jake, please watch Rafe Kelley's interview with Jonathan. So much of this dialogue could have been avoided by seeking out his prior productive interviews with physicalists. This is frustrating to listen to.
thanks for this feedback!
This is my first time listening to your podcast. I will say, I appreciate you being polite and attentive. I'm curious about how you handle the difference in opinions between your wife and yourself about God. Do you go to church with her? Does she ever say "I'll pray for you" and if she does, how does that make you feel? I hope I'm not being too insensitive with these questions but I'm genuinely curious. You're doing well for this being your first podcast. Of course more practice is always great, but don't sweat it. I don't agree with you on the topic of God and religion, but I will be subscribing because i enjoy listening to different views, opinions etc.
These are great questions… and I’ll probably answer them on the next episode. Subscribe to my channel so that you can see it!
Jake you seem like a good guy. Jonathan’s pretty intense and I think you handled yourself well enough. Don’t get discouraged by all the negative comments.
As a Christian, I think it’s worthwhile for someone to answer your questions about the scientific and religious worldviews in a direct and patient manner. It drives me nuts when, if you ask “sure but did it happen?” people respond “in a sense…” I think it’s fair to press on that.
Here’s what I recommend: Try to read the Bible and consider its contents on classical, confessional, Christian terms. See if everything in it fits together according to those terms and boundaries rather than according to a non-Christian system.
thanks!
I think there's two fundamental points where you and Pageau disagree, and I don't think you were able to fully understand that or provide a justification for your own beliefs.
First, and most importantly, you are a materialist in the sense that you seem to believe that things are only "true" when they physically exist in space and time. You say this rather explicitly at 25:30.
Pageau, on the other hand, doesn't believe that. He believes things that exist abstractly or on a "higher level" are also real and "true". He believes that those things are what orders multiplicity into unity and are thus the basis for the world being intelligible to us.
If you didn't have the abstract pattern of a table, for example, you wouldn't be able to know which of its physical constituents belong to it (where it begins and where it ends). In fact, you wouldn't even be able to know what a table is at all.
Same goes for the Atlantic ocean, which you brought up in the comments: its physical constituents change all the time and by themselves aren't enough to define what it is. If you try to only define it with those, you're going to realize that it isn't an ocean but instead just a bunch of subatomic particles, or however close natural science has gotten to prime matter in the Aristotelian sense. Only through the abstract patterns of atoms, molecules, water, oceans and finally the Atlantic Ocean can you successively tie those together and say what and where it is.
The realm these things exist in is what Pageau calls heaven. The fact you thought Pageau believes heaven, hell, angels and demons are physical things (22:27) shows that you fundamentally misunderstood his position.
Matthieu, Jonathan's brother, puts it like this in his book: the spiritual perspective asks "what does it mean?" and "what truth does it embody?" while the material perspective asks "how does it work?" and "what material is it made of?".
Your own position here isn't as obviously true (whatever that would even mean in your framework) as you might think it is. The topic is covered, to a certain degree, by the Nominalist and Realist positions in the debate about the existence of abstract objects, which I recommend you delve into.
The other point of disagreement, which results from the first one to a degree, is the method by which you ascertain what is true or not. At 9:50 you said that you follow an "accepted tradition", which is exactly what Pageau also does.
At this point, the question becomes why you two follow said traditions. Pageau noted that, at the core, you do it out of trust: trust in the method itself, trust in its basic axiomatic assumptions and trust in the people who supply you with information that you didn't have yourself.
Your mistake here was that you didn't manage to look past your own horizon enough to question the reasons for your belief. You didn't give an account of why you follow this tradition, while Pageau did. This is why people in the comments referred to Chesterton's quote: "There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it."
Pageau and you operate on completely different paradigms, which is why he said that you live in different worlds. People aren't necessarily criticizing you for having a different paradigm, they are doing so because you failed to see the problem at a paradigmatic level and thus failed to understand what Pageau was saying and didn't justify your own beliefs.
If you further dive into these issues and want to debate them, I recommend doing it with Jay Dyer, who regularly has open debates about these topics. I guarantee that it will provide you some street cred if you manage to stand your ground.
And one last thing: the fact that you consistently called Jonathan by the wrong name is very interesting. Within your paradigm it was just a coincidence; for us it was an occasion of "symbolism happens" and a perfect representation of you not understanding what he was saying. To know the name of something is symbolic of knowing the thing itself.
If we were to transmit an account of this conversation over 1000s of years, the fact you couldn't name him might be the only thing to stay in that account, simply because it encapsulates the meaning perfectly. Maybe the story would still be that you couldn't name him even if you had done so correctly, but that wouldn't make it any less true - the important part is what meaning it conveys.
I am praying for you and wish you all the best for your life and your channel. Perhaps you will post a follow-up video reviewing the interview and adressing the points made in the comments, I am genuinely excited to hear what you have to say. It's always good to hear from the other side, and for us it's especially interesting since many of us used to share your exact worldview.
Praised be Jesus Christ!
The end of this interview was excellent. Jonathan has previously expressed frustration with himself by not being able to have the words to communicate in a way that is understood, in the moment, with 'horizontal plane' only materialists. At the end he was able to simply articulate what it is that he struggles getting across, how he applies it in his art and work and how it can help people see that the world is glowing with meaning. It always has been. It took a long for me to shake off the blinders off my 2 dimensional understanding of the world that I was taught and that I defended my whole life. I had intimations of more at times through poetry and beauty but it was not until listening to Jonathan Pageau (and others) that I was able to perceive the entirety of the miracle. And then everything changes. The mysticism of the unity of the cup goes all the way up!
@@johnw6992 "The mysticism of the unity of the cup goes all the way up" is actually a good way to put it. I remember vividly when I finally got what he was saying, incredible feeling.
thanks for this feedback! Which part specifically did you enjoy? I'll make it into a separate clip
I'm taking your advice! I just reached out to Jay Dyer, and I'll have him on my show soon.
@@johnw6992 "The mysticism of the unity of the cup goes all the way up!" I can't believe anyone can say things like this and take themselves seriously. I'm so glad I can't get into the mindset of the Pageau follower.
History is peoples stories and perceptions.
Anything said is a story or perspective or point of view.
The ever present variable in all experiments or research is MIND.
A question for you: If the stories of the Bible are as valid as historical events like Mayan Civilization, the Mongolian Empire, and the Roman Empire, then why aren't the events in the Bible also included in these same history books? Curious to hear your thoughts.
@@jakenewfield history is written by the victors i once heard. Maybe even the way history is presented is crafted and trimmed to fit certain narratives. Ultimately where we place our faith or leanings in this things says more about our own psychology than it does about history.
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
This feedback is incredibly helpful to me, and I will use it to improve. Would you be wiling to subscribe to my channel (and continue giving me feedback like this?) Thanks in advance.
I really enjoyed your honest and sincere conversation with Jon mate. A lot of people in these conversations are actually really disingenuous or disrespectful. You come across as a very honest and ernest main in a genuine pursuit of truth. God loves ya mate. I know that doesn't make sense sometimes considering the crap that happens in life and the unfairness of the reality we live in. But it really is all about God's love.
Looking forward to hearing more!
Thanks for the feedback! Also -- I'd appreciate if you could subscribe to my channel (and continue giving me helpful feedback like this!)
@@jakenewfield already done mate. :)
God bless Jonathan for going on this guys show. Christ is risen.
Amen!
This is an amazing conversation! Yes, it is very painful, but THAT is the value of it. I congratulate Jake for his courage to connect with Jonathan. Back in 2016, I was in precisely the same materialistic spot. It took me an unbelievable amount of time and effort to START digesting Pageau's content and I am still working on it. This video just became the best example I’ve seen so far on the clash of these two worldviews.
thanks for saying all this! I hope that you subscribe to my channel and that you continue making comments like this.
Hi Jake, I’m curious what you wanted to get out of this conversation and if that’s what you got. You might want to talk to Bernardo Kastrup. Seems a bit more up your alley. He’s also sympathetic to Jonathan’s viewpoint but has rigorous analytic philosophical arguments for it. (though he also differs from Jonathan in significant ways)
I took your advice and I reached out to Bernardo Kastrup! I'll be speaking with him in July. Thanks!
@@jakenewfield great! He rejects materialism and physicalism, and is an idealist (everything that exists is entirely mental) - should be interesting for you!
The scientific method does not set parameters for what determines evidence. To use the method, those parameters must first be defined as a criteria that is part of the hypothesis, i.e. "If this model is accurate, then this experiment should yield a number x on my measurement device within a pre-determined range of values." If those conditions that are set in place beforehand are met, then this gives plausibility of the accuracy of or validity to the model under certain circumstances.
thanks for the feedback!
You don't even know what the scientific method is. It's not a threshold of evidence.
Thank you for this feedback! A question for you to ponder: If the stories of the Bible are as real and true as other stories in history, then why aren't the stories of the Bible included in history textbooks?
@@jakenewfield Are you just using AI to get comment engagement? KEK
@@jakenewfield I watched a Tucker Carlson interview tonight where he said he didn't know if the questioner was just stupid or pretending. I am struggling with the same question.
@@jakenewfieldthe Bible and a history textbook are different genres. To draw an analogy: the Iliad describes events in what may actually be a historical war.
We do not have a solid historical account of that war, but let’s imagine we did know the order of battle, the numbers, commanders, etc. Raw data in excess of what you can derive from the Iliad.
The Iliad would not be obsolete because it still expresses things that raw data does not. And then you have to ask, if you had to choose whether to have only the data or only the Iliad, which would be more valuable and useful? Some would choose the Iliad, which means the Iliad is actually a more useful description of what happened.
@@jakenewfield I don't think you have enough understanding to offer 'questions to ponder' in this topic.
Let me ask you, honestly wanting to know your take, which textbooks are you referencing and who wrote them? There are hundreds of textbooks on ancient Israel which covers many stories. As far as textbooks of ancient Rome, a handful of early Christians isn't as 'historically relevant' as Augustus and Tiberius ruling millions of people when the book is written from a secular worldview.
The fact that you say 'scientific threshold' just reveals your total lack of epistemological knowledge.
Love your willingness to go there Jake!! Great luck with your journey. The way he explained miracles was REALLY helpful.
Thanks so much!
How did you get the chance to speak to him and john vervaeke? Id love the opportunity to speak with them.
At 10:00 you miss Jonathan's point completely. You ask how he knows something happened and he tells you that it's the exact same way you know something happened - through trust in the social structure you're embedded in. You turned around and started talking about a threshold of evidence but you yourself have never evaluated any of the evidence you talked about after that. It's not you that dug up the fossils and it's not you who came up with the theoretical interpretation. It's not you who read and interpreted the historical sources to know the Mayans have existed or that George Washington was the first president. All you have access to are the social structures that present this information to you. You go to museums, you look at statutes, you read textbooks written by the academic establishment etc. You believe evolution and the Big Bang based on faith in the institutions, the networks of people.
As to your threshold claim. If you'd like to be truly coherent you must go further and ask yourself how does one determine what that threshold is and then ask by what criteria you've determined the truth of that and then ask how you know this is the right criteria etc. Very quickly you'll discover what in philosophy is called the Myth of the Given. There's no such thing as self-evident truths. All claims exist within a web of beliefs. No claim interprets itself. To ask if something is true is to ask if its part of a coherent worldview (web of beliefs that spans the entirety of ones experience/existence).
Science doesn't magically provide you with truth. It's founded on assumptions that are scientifically unprovable. Here're some of the assumptions:
- there's an objective reality;
- we're the kind of thing that can know and understand that objective reality through our reason;
- our senses are a reliable tool for gaining knowledge of the objective reality;
and so on.
Science is based on these assumptions so to try and prove them using science would be arguing in a circle because you would need to presuppose them before performing any scientific analysis. So tell me what threshold of evidence you've reached to believe those? The answer is none. You believe them because you're embedded in a Christian culture which has instilled these beliefs in you.
We believe what fits within our worldview. If you're a materialist, your presuppositions will guide you to look for materialist explanations and discard anything that doesn't fit. Your worldview determines how you interpret what your perceiving.
Beautifully said. I always tell my son, take science with a grain of salt, bc if you wait a few years, it will change and most of the things you believed to be true will become false. For example, look at how many medicines get pulled from the shelves each year bc they harmed humans. We trusted that they were scientifically proven to be good for us, but guess what? 🤣 They weren’t.
One thing is for certain. We are genetically coded in an amazing way. God did that 👌🏻
thanks for catching this and pointing it out!! This type of feedback is helpful to me. Would you be willing to subscribe to my channel and continue giving me feedback?
This is so painful to watch. Just learn to listen, and be humble enough to know that you don't know, you don't have all the tools, you don't have all the data, you don't have all the capacity to contain a bunch of aspects of reality neither the methods of analysis you hold dear do, you don't have the openness to accept certain things because of your already predetermined self-disposition about reality and facts (doubts and trusts). Just listen man. You invited a guest, and most of us come here to listen to him because we follow his work. If you want to learn about the patterns of reality then learn from the expert who has thousands of years of tradition behind his claims and not just personal ideas, he is finding new ways to present the same ideas, yet these are not his ideas but the ideas of something that is much bigger and older than you, listen to the elders talking and learn with respect and humility like a true scientist would approach anything.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
Albert Einstein
thanks for this feedback!
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
This feedback is incredibly helpful to me, and I will use it to improve. Would you be wiling to subscribe to my channel (and continue giving me feedback like this?) Thanks in advance.
@@jakenewfield Maybe we could have an online conversation, I am a symbolist myself and a traditional healer from south America, I am currently working on a new project with Jonathan's brother actually.
Jake, study philosophy. This will definitely help you when getting into epistemology and metaphysics with intellectual titans such as Pageau. Secondly, I would suggest to lose eagerness of having to respond, and practice deep listening instead. I do not believe you are ill-intentioned, but you might come across like that by rushing into arguments you do not fully comprehend.
Thanks for the feedback. Want to debate me? If so -- is there a good email to reach you at? I'm Jake.a.Newfield@gmail.com
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
This feedback is incredibly helpful to me, and I will use it to improve. Would you be wiling to subscribe to my channel (and continue giving me feedback like this?) Thanks in advance.
@@jakenewfield Yeah bro, also, let’s program a debate. Are you an atheist?
This was a productive discussion because made Jonathan articulate his points with great clarity. He isn’t just repudiating materialist secular people, he is, more importantly, repudiating materialist Christians.
thanks for this feedback
The host was being annoying. The whome idea of "k owning scientifically" is a funny concept. Can you actually trust your "scientific knowledge," as of today? In the 18th century sniffing tobacco or drinking tobacco tea as medicine was scientific knowledge which you were to trust then. Same now. Whatever you believe to be "scientifically proven" today will be changed and disproven tomorrow. So, can you trust scientific knowledge of the day?
The scientific method boils down to hypothesis testing. That’s how you would figure out both that tobacco has beneficial effects in the short term and negative effects in the long term. The problem is people thinking they have all the information they will ever need, imo, because hypotheses can only be disproven, not proven.
@@brittybee6615 so? The method had been known since Bacon, which is much earlier than the 18th century. There was a presumption of supported hypothesis. Tells you all you need to know about "science". Which btw doesn't exist. Only scientists do.
@@olgakarpushina492 the “so” part was that I was trying to point out that the two different views of tobacco in different time periods don’t even contradict each other (because they pertain to the effects of tobacco on different time scales), let alone discredit science as a way to investigate the natural world. We seem to agree that the latest inferences and recommendations of scientists shouldn’t be taken as a certainty, though. That’s the point where I think people go wrong. I’m not trying to be argumentative, btw.
@@brittybee6615 Just curious: Do you equate science to so called scientific method? Btw I am not trying to "discredit science". I am pointing out that "science" doesn't exist as it is an umbrella term for a bunch of opinions of a bunch of people called scientists. I grew up among people of Academia, mostly physicists, mathematicians and geologists. Let's me give you a real life example. Two people, both with PhDs in geology, both working at the same institute, both well published, claim things that contradict each other. What is "science" in this case? Yes, maybe the future will tell, but at the moment whose opinion is "science"?
@@olgakarpushina492ohh, I see what you mean now.
My goodness… I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone so out of their league while at the same time being so confident in their lack of understanding. The saying, “You don’t know what you don’t know,” is the summation of the hosts interaction with the guest. I genuinely got second hand embarrassment when he said that angels and intelligences are “physical.”
It was made worse by looking at the hosts interaction in the comments. Claiming that he “refuted” the guest and agreeing that the guest is “incompetent” is beyond intellectual arrogance. This guy is clearly a midwit who thinks he’s a genius… Not a good idea for a YT channel based around discussions.
Thank you for this feedback! A question for you to ponder: If the stories of the Bible are as real and true as other stories in history, then why aren't the stories of the Bible included in history textbooks?
@@jakenewfield Why would you assume that a history textbook and a story from the Bible are remotely trying to accomplish the same thing? That’s like asking me why Emerson’s “Rhodora” isn’t included in gardening textbooks. Emerson’s “Rhodora” and a gardening textbook both accurately convey and describe reality, just in different ways.
I think your biggest problem is that when I say something like “reality,” “real,” or “true,” you think about correspondence with the physical world. That’s why the comment about angels or intelligence was so goofy. When Pageau said that angels are real, you assume that real = physical reality, so angels must be physical.
If you’re struggling to grasp non-physical truths, I want you to try to prove the proposition “reality is physical” using only physical evidence.
My suggestion: Read some Plato dude
The problem here is that one is acustomed to believe in "objectivity" as a direct relation between a proposition and an objective reality, that is not how things really work. But to get out of that cage can be hard because it is such a common practice and it has become almost subconcious.
Question for you: why aren't the stories of the Bible in history textbooks?
@@jakenewfield Because text books are meant to build something else, national identity or something alike, based on the prevalent modern ideology at the time. But they used to be there.
I’m Christian and enjoy Jonathon’s work. I enjoyed the interview. You were honest in the beginning about how you were going to push back. You let him explain himself. It’s interesting to see how some people handle the pressure of getting pushed when challenged. I think Jonathan handled it well.
Also, I liked your honesty at the end of having a reason not to convert. I found it interesting.
Godbless bro
Thank you! This type of feedback is helpful for me. If you're willing to subscribe to my channel and give me more feedback like this -- I'll be able to learn and improve my videos.
This host is so obviously a grifter trying to chase debate clout.
thanks for this feedback!
Am I the only one who is finding this debate hysterical 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
It is full of stupid questions with confused answers.
It isn’t a debate. The young fella is confused.
Lmao
All these people are shit talking the host, but he actually asks the questions that any layman trying to test the apologetics of christianity would.
Personally I’m a christian, but seeing Johnathan not fully answer the questions was like listening to Peterson when someone asks him if he believes in God
There’s too much footwork around the conversation.
It’s either you believe it or you don’t. Did they literally happen? Simple as that.
Thanks man! I hope you subscribe to my channel and continue making comments!
Hi Jake, this was a rough conversation to get through, both for me the listener and seemingly for you guys too. Then again, I'm more of a conversation guy than a debate guy.
I'm conflicted, as I enjoy Pageau's work, but I felt he wasn't exercising a certain degree of patience and kindness that I would have hoped for. I did feel that you were putting in genuine work to find common ground, and backtrack when the discussion risked falling apart. For what it's worth, I used to be much more orientated towards your position (albeit still Christian), but have since drifted more towards Pageau/Vervaeke/etc. But I do wish you had a better experience and that Pageau hadn't gone from 0 to 100 as quickly, it's hard enough re-orientating oneself from materialism to this understanding of the world, let alone trying to do it in real time while on blast.
As for this comment section, some of these commenters are embarrassing. If any of you are coming from Pageau, what's the point of all this intellectual thought if we're not working to act out the ethic of Christ, even in internet comments?
Hey @Nspeckles, thanks for this feedback. I do hope that you subscribe to the channel and continue giving insight like this. Thanks
You have a “peronal motivation to not believe” in something YOUR WIFE believes? 😮 next level troll! I can’t imagine what it must be like to have to live w someone who argues for the sake of arguing yet claims he’s “just trying to figure it out” 😂 I’ll be praying for you and your wife
Pretty honest though
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
*Clash of The Worldviews! Interlocutors Talk Past Each Other on the Internet*
JN argues from a strong nominalist/empiricist position (with a healthy dash of utilitarianism), while JP holds forth a radical conceptualist position.
JN's position lacks integrity in that he regularly uses the nominalist term _'truth(s)'_ , and (capital T) Truth interchangeably. His fallback to utility belies the rigidity of his position, which is categorically incapable of apprehending the concept of truth beyond particular instantiations.
JPs Weltanschauung organically integrates the contingent and particular with the universal and transcendent. He sees Truth as a person, Jesus Christ. I find no fault in his assertions.
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
Did the Bible Stories Really Happen?
It's important to understand that there are many ways to recount an event, and these ways are influenced by the purpose of telling the story. The question to consider is, "Why do we need to tell this story?" If the goal is to ensure the story is remembered forever and that the metaphysical truth of the event is conveyed, then this purpose shapes the way the story is told.
Because of this, it's impossible to go back through the text alone and uncover exactly what happened forensically. Therefore, asking whether the stories really happened is a non-starter. It's far more important to ask, "What does it mean?" The existence of the story itself indicates that something significant happened.
Thank you for this feedback! A question for you to ponder: If the stories of the Bible are as real and true as other stories in history, then why aren't the stories of the Bible included in history textbooks?
I like this question because it opens up many avenues for discussion. However, the question needs to be more specific. For example, what time period are we talking about? What part of the world?
I'll answer from a Western perspective. The Bible has been included in historical textbooks, particularly during the medieval and early modern eras.
In modern times, particularly in post-Christian contexts, the Bible is still included in history education, especially when studying ancient Israel and the Roman Empire. However, it is generally treated within a religious context. This is likely because the texts include accounts of miracles. It's important to remember that the Bible is a collection of books spanning multiple genres. Additionally, the inclusion of biblical content in historical textbooks is influenced by the worldviews of those who determine what is historically accurate or important. In a secular world, if the parts of the Bible that resemble historical records did not include miracles, they might be more readily accepted as historical accounts
As an orthodox christian, I would like to say thank you for taking the time to do an interview with Jonathan Pageau.
Thanks!
Watching this interview, I'm reminded of the ancient proverb
"If you're going to hunt a tiger, make sure you are prepared to face a tiger."
THIS is the type of feedback that helps me improve. Would you be willing to subscribe to my channel and continue giving me this type of feedback? Thanks in advance!
This guy aint got a clue what Jonathan is talking abouts
you don't think so?
@@jakenewfield it appears that way or you're not really paying attention to what he is saying
It does appear that way, there is a veil that is clouding a section of your brain. Once the veil is removed things will make more sense .
Sane people don't have a clue what Jonathan is talking about.
Your good faith argument is appreciated man , you genuinely put your points forward and equally listened and admitted when you were wrong or felt like you were still right.. too many times arguments between sceptics and christians result in sceptics questioning but not being interested in reflecting and actually listening to the answer , you're different Nd are a breath of fresh air. You dont have to agree but a good faith argument is so awesome to engage in , if you're gonna be a sceptic at least be one willing to evaluate both sides equally, i think you try but at the same time at your core still struggle with treating some things like that , particularly the metaphysical. If you were to weigh and evaluate,and the miracles and metaphysical part of life as equally as you do the physical, you'll be surprised to find that the two don't have to be mutually exclusive
I get the impression toward the end that you are trying to establish rapport in order to build a relationship with a potential repeat guest on the show. If so, clever. It's important if you want to build a channel by bringing on high profile guests. Harder to bring them on again in the future if they don't like you and have a bad taste in their mouth after the conversation ends. Smart to do the confrontation at the beginning and the rapport building toward the back end.
yes, exactly! However, I'm not sure I did a good enough job at this
Bro just decided from now on his name is John. Rough start.
lol
I demand you answer my questions within the structure of my beliefs!
Thank you for this feedback! A question for you to ponder: If the Biblical stories are as real or true as other stories in history, then why aren't the stories of the Bible included in history textbooks?
@@jakenewfieldGermans came up with the “scientific approach” to history. All modern histories function in a different paradigm than ancient histories, which did include the Bible stories. That being said, much of the Bible is still accounted for in modern histories. Lee Strobel’s Case for Christ is probably more what you’re looking for, (but still written in a somewhat different paradigm than the medievalist, symbolic paradigm.). God bless you on your quest for the truth
I think many of these comments are lamentably uncharitable. I appreciated the boldness of your questions and the vulnerability of sharing your motivations in conversations like these. Thankyou!
thank you, I appreciate this! I hope that you end up subscribing! I have a follow-up video coming in out about 1 hour
1. Ultimately, the fundamental problem with a strict materialist worldview (and i'm not saying yours is, this is a general statement) is that epistemology itself, logic, truth, are meaningless categories and invalid in this worldview, MEANING itself is a non-existent category in strict materialism, since they are not measurable quantities. You can't even have an epistemology as a materialist, since epistemology itself is imaterial.
You cannot measure truth itself as a category, you cannot measure meaning as a category, and you cannot prove logic, so by necessity, your worldview has to include the transcendental categories alognside the material, physical categories.
So you cannot de-facto be a strict materialist, you have to presuppose that truth, logic, meaning are all valid categories that you pursue. Denying this would mean you are making *ought* statements in a world of strict *is* states, but you cannot derive an *ought* from an *is*. The universe by necessity must have *ought* states, it must contain or be circumscribed in some foundation of *ought* states, of meaning.
2. You cannot prove logic and meaning in a forensic scientific way, the laws of logic are unproven, they simply must be assumed in order to make sense of anything else. But since *truth* is itself unprovable in the largest framework, that means that ANY sense/forensic data about the material world is also subject to same *truth* claims.
Thus, you cannot have absolute truth from scientific data, it follows that you will always base even the simplest truth statements on trust. You have to trust that that's air you're breathing, you have to trust that your machines can prove that air contains oxygen, you have to trust that more advanced microscopy techniques can prove that the oxygen atoms are real, you even have to pressupose *real* as a valid category to speak of.
Thus, if you accept #2 to be a correct statement, be neccesity you cannot then claim that forensic/scientific measurements are the ONLY way to make truth statements about the world, since the world is circumscribed and subject to meaning, truth, etc.
Thanks for this feedback! I have a quick question for you: If the stories of the Bible are as valid as historical events like Christopher Columbus sailing across the Ocean, George Washington becoming the first president, and the fall of the Roman Empire -- then why aren't the events in the Bible also included in these same history books? Curious to hear your thoughts.
@jakenewfield Why ought i trust modern academical history textbooks and not 12th century history books that DO contain the Biblical narrative?
How is that even relevant to the argument?
Let me ask you, how do you know Plato lived if the only surviving texts are 9th century AD texts? Why ought Plato be in "the textbooks" and not Christ?
This Jake guy is incapable of thinking outside of his paradigm & examining his epistemological presuppositions.
This is why we need transcendental argumentation. Logic itself is beyond science, and users of it are burgling from metaphysics
Tbh, he is trying closet to the end. But in the beginning he is very annoying.
I appreciate this feedback! Please subscribe to my channel (if you haven't already)
@@jakenewfield That's the spirit. 🙏
Dont be surprised by a lot of negative comments. Most people who watch this will be Jonathan Pageau fans, and there is significant distance between your worldviews. Sadly I think you ended up talking past each other, but it was good to see JP faced with some very fundamental questions.
Thank you! I appreciate it
Per the requests of my subscribers, I'm releasing the UNEDITED version of the debate tomorrow at 1pm PST: czcams.com/video/jqlZlAYMon8/video.html
I feel like a good analogy for the biblical stories is the description of a football game. I could watch a game and I could theoretically give you a description of the down and distance and resulting play for let’s say all 100 plays, but if my purpose in recounting the game to my friend is to give him a high level understanding of the game I may just recount the highlights. If that friend tells another person about the game as a secondhand account (having never watched the game himself), he might add embellishments relevant to the purpose of his description like “The qb threw a touchdown pass at the last second for the win!” Maybe the touchdown pass technically happened with 2 seconds on the clock, but that doesn’t mean the friend gave a poor description of the game. Also the game still “happened” it has just been slightly mythologized. Now apply that same thinking to the biblical stories which have probably been recounted and remembered thousands of times if not much more. That’s how you get Genesis.
Beautiful example.
I once just missed driving a miata up the ass of a donkey, and I only missed it by flying the miata into a corn field. I'm not sure what the drone footage would have looked like, but the oral tradition is epic.😊
Thanks for this feedback! I have a quick question for you: If the stories of the Bible are as valid as historical events like Christopher Columbus sailing across the Ocean, George Washington becoming the first president, and the fall of the Roman Empire -- then why aren't the events in the Bible also included in these same history books? Curious to hear your thoughts.
@@jakenewfield I think it would be a mistake to read the Bible like a history book for the most part (though some books are likely more historically oriented than others). I’m not really claiming that events like Adam and Eve are as historically “valid” as the events you mentioned above, all I’m saying is I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe the story started off with an event, even if we have no idea what REALLY historically took place. The point of that story is to capture the meaning of the event.
If you take it a step further, I think you’ll realize that all accounts/descriptions of events are made with the meaning of the event in mind. For instance, we will never know the exact quantity of cells in Christopher Columbus’s left hand when he was exactly halfway across the sea because it is not relevant to the purpose of the historical account. Not sure if that helps.
@@jakenewfield because the *purpose* of the stories in the Bible are different than the purpose of history. We study history to examine past events and through cause and effect understand the present. On the other hand the Bible has a much higher purpose, it contains the meaning of life and insight into how to have a relationship with our Creator in a deep personal level.
I thought this was an interesting discussion, despite how contentious it was!
You can take the faith argument Jonathan made even further. John Lennox famously argues that the intelligibility of the world is necessarily taken on faith by scientists. And similarly, if you do any mindfulness meditation, you likely come to realize pretty quickly that everything other than our abstract conscious experience is taken on faith, which includes our sensory input and our thoughts.
My view is: either we DO have a system for discerning historical truth, or we DO NOT. I argue that we DO. If you think that we DO NOT then that means you don't believe that evolution/gravity etc are any more valid than the theory of a flying spagetti monster.
@@jakenewfieldLOL read Quine,
"Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer [...]. But in point of epistemological footing, the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conceptions only as cultural posits."
16:40 - "The reason we know that Mars is a planet next to Earth, we dont go based on trust, we go based on a scientific process."
You're predisposing that this scientific method is trust worthy - why?
Are you also not just trusting this process?
The scientific method is rooted in trust.
We trust the scientific process. That is the bedrock of our trust. If we CAN'T trust the scientific process then we CAN'T trust anything.
@@jakenewfieldI don’t see how the scientific process can be the bedrock of our trust if it can be broken down into believing in a collection of unfalsifiable things that require a trusting. Like what our senses tell us for example.
@@thenero9493 There are two options:
Option A: We, as a society, have an established set of standards (scientific process being one of them) that we use to ascertain historical and scientific truth. Using these standards we have learned things about our species, our planet, and our universe.
Option B: These standards are bullshit, the scientific process is just a silly heuristic, and we don't really have any way of discerning truth. According to Option B, evolution is just a silly theory.
Option A means that there IS a standard.
Option B means there is NO standard.
According to option A, the theory that the Bible was divinely created does NOT have sufficient evidence to be deemed historically true. According to option A, the theory that the events of the Bible Happened does NOT have sufficient evidence.
If you want to know the specifics of option A, then you can research the methods and frameworks and data that were required to ascertain that:
1. Confirm that Christopher Columbus did in fact sail across the Atlantic Ocean
2. Confirm that George Washington was in fact the first President of the US
3. Confirm that the Earth is round... etc.
@@jakenewfield that's a false dichotomy. There are other options between either pure scientism and believing that we "don't really have any way of discerning truth". Pageau just presented you with one.
@@jakenewfield you don't trust only the scientific process. You trust the scientific communiy. You trust their conlcusions, their management of the data, and the way they report findings. If you apply the scientific method to the scientidic community itself, you'll see that there are several ways in which they can produce biased conclusions, from corruption, to mistakes in stablishing correct parameters, to biasing of hypothesis. You could only say you trust ONLY in the scientific method if you at the very least veryfied the methodology of every single paper before considering it true. Most of the time you can't verify the methodology fully or understand the field enough to understand the significance of the data. You trust in authority, that's it.
Constructive criticism: First, stop interjecting "um um uh yeah" every couple of seconds. It is distracting, all around annoying, and makes it seem as though you are not actually listening. Second, you came in with talking points but don't seem to be genuinely engaging with or understanding the opposing position. You respond in ways that don't match the conversation that should be happening. Lastly, you are not debating whether-or-not the stories in the bible are true, you are debating (trying to anyway) epistemic justification. I'm not a Pageau fanboy or apologist, but this was frustrating to sit through. I hope you can take constructive criticism and do better in the future. I'm not trying to be mean.
thanks for this feedback!
This reminds me of a conversation between a father who is well versed in Christian apologetics and a son who was once a Christian but went to college and was converted by an atheistic professor who was a terrible philosopher.
Thanks for this feedback
You know what Jake, I of course thought (and think) Jonathan really showed you a lot of truth here that you haven’t yet grasped. And there were many issues with the conversation - BUT you seem like a genuine individual, kind intelligent and seeking.
This is a rough start but it’s a heck of a great one. And as a Christian I believe that there are many atheist who will see themselves in you even if some of your thoughts are unvarnished.
I’m gonna subscribe not just because I want to see how your story goes and I also am secretly hoping that you discover God for yourself, but also because it’s rare we get to be a part of someone’s philosophical and spiritual journey so early.
I think you’ll go far and one thing us Christians always say is “Don’t despise small beginnings “
Thank you!
@@jakenewfield Keep it up. I’m rooting for your success!
Jonathan is amazing. 🎉
If you'd like to subscribe and continue giving me feedback, I would appreciate that (and I'll take your feedback!)
Oof Rationality Rules convo 2.0
His arguments are just as bad, but this guy is more polite
@@mitch0990 100%
@@mitch0990 it’s just another convo where the host needs to spend a little more time listening to early JBP or Vervake to bridge toward Jonathan
@@davidMflores actually unlike RR, this guy's cynicism is already breaking down since he accepts christianity as a pragmatic, useful fiction. He is just naive and needs to question his metaphysical and epistemic presuppositions to see that his worldview is incoherent and baseless.
@@mitch0990 yeah he’s not far, it just seems like lately the conversation has moved farther along. People coming to it now have probably missed out on all the videos Jonathan has done or the Meaning Crisis lectures Vervake did that help make the jump
Sure, ascertaining why the caveman drew the buffalo flying would be important, but so, too, would be ascertaining whether or not it actually happened (which are not necessarily different questions) if the caveman also wrote you a story that claimed that the winged buffalo is the creator god of the world who you have to believe in and give your life to - with all that that entails - in order to be right with yourself, with others, and ultimately, with reality, which involves avoding some sort of eternal damnation in favor of some sort of eternal reward. It seems, then, that ascertaining whether or not this winged buffalo was a real entity would be of the UTMOST importance.
totally. look the whole point is: we obviously shouldn't believe the caveman's drawings as fact.
couldnt this guy have done at least 20 or 30 minutes of research before trying to refute a belief system thousands of years old?
I'm 1 minute in. He goes by JONATHAN. Not John. Good grief
yeah that is my mistake. I spoke with John Vervaeke the day prior, and I got myself confused with "John" vs "Jonathan" to be honest
@@jakenewfield fair e enough. Glad you're asking blunt questions of him.
@@drewmcmahon2629 thanks!
This was so awesome. The look on Jonathan’s face throughout made me giggle over and over. 😂
Because he's incompetent?
@@crushinnihilismbecause he's been thinking these things through for more than five minutes 😂
Incompetent? No. He just looks so perterbed, exasperated and annoyed, but kept smiling and graciously explaining his position. And I wonder if he liked being called Jon? Not sure why it all struck me as so funny, but I needed a good laugh for sure!
@janethorsman194 that's because he has to think for once
@@crushinnihilism He's had these conversations in a more difficult manner before online so your point seems like one written out of disdain for the man.
You're an atheist ⚛, and that's where your paradigm, whatever it may be, stems from. That doesn't mean the person presenting a polar opposite paradigm wasn't thinking before.
Guy when you ask a question of your guests your job is simply to shut up and put your listening ears on. Then after the question is answered ask another question. You've done so much interruption and being preemptive on your part towards the guests here, it's not cool. You are struggling with comprehending his ideas and concepts that are foreign to you. There's an epistemology here that you're struggling with.
thanks for the feedback!
You say (paraphrasing) ‘I think it’s an incredibly human thing to believe these stories’ but then demonstrate zero reason to believe that statement because your fundamental misunderstanding of what science even is- denies it could be true in your eyes.. this seems to be a pattern in your speech where you seem to want to ‘soften’ what you are about to say by throwing some token bone to your opponent. It’s transparently hollow, or at the least, foolish to do in debate.
You cannot speak out of both corners of your mouth to say being human is essentially to believe nonsense because somehow that’s a ‘type’ of important truth to our experience but then say we can’t believe that has any actual ‘real’ basis in physical reality because of human developed reasoning aka science.
Question for you: why aren't the stories of the Bible in history textbooks?
HAHAHAHAHA. You should have just done this podcast backwards and you qould have enjoyed it alot more.
why is that?
@@jakenewfield we could talk about it. But the order was
accuse
Confuse
Confess
Digress
Elaborate
Invite
Honestly state your proposition
If you did that. You would have not blocked the discussion by rhetoric that is easily dismissed and oppositional. Challenging pageaus is not recommended. But if you were to do it. Why would you do it as the first thing. Why would you do it to anyone without at.least getting their perspective.
I heard you on mrwesford. What do you think symbolism actually is? It sounds like symbolism is psychology to you?
Oh man, this is hilarious!
I agree
Please offer advice on how to take this as funny rather than maddening.
@@TheGerogero Laugh at all the insane stuff the long-haired loony says.
For me the point of Pageau is like saying that since ultimate reality is not experienced at a historical, propositional scientific level, to say that it became historical propositional and scientific is an easy step, since it is the foundation and fulfillment of historical reality, and since we are part of both aspects of reality, it simply is suitable and true and beautiful that it happened and it happens always.
thanks for this feedback
0:00 You're confusing ontology/metaphysics with epistemology. They're distinct despite being interconnected.
"Threshold of evidence" is a heavily loaded term
Thanks for this critical feedback. It would help me if you could subscribe and then continue giving me feedback. Regardless: I appreciate you leaving this comment.
The angst 😂
lol why is there so much angst?
Golden example of the Western perspective and mindset's difficulty in being seen past or escaped.
This is the type of feedback that makes my channel better. If you'd like to subscribe and continue giving me feedback, I would appreciate that (and I'll take your feedback!)
hey Jake what is your view on near death experiences ?
The Bible and most of religion in general says we have a soul and an afterlife .
Please educate us Jake as to where modern science is currently leaning towards as far as the afterlife and the soul .
Where I am going with this is if science is leaning on the direction of the existence of the soul and the afterlife your trust in religion should increase .
If you say science has no evidence for the soul and the afterlife you need to explain near death experiences , and I’ve been looking into the scientific literature for them for over 13 years , ever since I learned about professor emeritus at the university of Virginia professor Bruce Greyson who is called the godfather of modern NDE science .
I’d like to see if you really do like following the scientific. Method as much as you claim you do in your videos :)
This is a great point that I may have overlooked! I hope that you subscribe to my channel so that you can give me more insights like this.
@@jakenewfieldI just took a chance and subscribed . So Jake again I ask what is your take on near death experiences?
@@jakenewfield i haven’t verified this yet but I believe that there are ndes that happen during a flat like eeg . Most sceptics will rightly argue that the eeg doesn’t measure electrical
Activity deep within the brain .
With this in mind we need to ask the question of where does visual processing take place in the brain ? So far from my research this takes place on the occipital lobe and if I’m right the occipital lobe is on the outer layer of the brain and if this is true then this is an area that the eeg does reach .
And if this is true a person isn’t supposed to be having visual experiences when the eeg reading has flatlined and high means that these visual experiences by definition must be caused by something that is outside of the brain .
I am in email correspondence with an NDE researcher and if I haven’t already asked him I will see what his opinion is on this question .
If I’m right this seals the deal on ndes
Loved that you persisted and got to a good place. Min 43 and onward on art is fantastic and matches my own framework as an artist.
Thank you!
You made yourself look a bit silly here. You aren't humble enough to realise how little you understand.
hmm... say more?
Your threshold of evidence is arbitrary
I wanted to ask, "Who sets this threshold?"
A question for you to ponder: why aren't the stories of the Bible included in history textbooks?
A question for you to ponder: why aren't the stories of the Bible included in history textbooks?
@@jakenewfield who cares?
I actually really appreciated your response to Jonathan and feel you guys were slightly talking past each other. I’d love to have a conversation with someone with your questions and viewpoint.
Appreciate your intentionality and attempts at humility in the discussion!
Thanks for this feedback! I hope that you subscribe to my channel and continue making comments.
I appreciate Jake’s format… these are EXACTLY the kinds of questions that I used to have…but that no one had an answer for.
Jake seems honest, and asks questions in good faith, respectfully…but he does not back down. - Keep asking until YOU understand the answer.
Johnathan was the perfect guest for this show - very nice!
Keep in mind that there are several lines of reasoning that bring about the evidence for this historical truth. It’s hard to come to “evidence beyond a reasonable doubt” just from this one subject. Make no mistake, the evidence is out there..!
Thanks for this feedback! I hope that you subscribe to my channel and continue giving feedback!