Seen & Unseen magazine helps you discover the seen and unseen. Discover a world that is greater, more full of meaning and sense than you ever imagined. We can be both a window and mirror to the societies we live in. We're opening up a much more expansive and energising space. Covering topics like: culture, society, theology and philosophy. Watch out videos. Read our articles. Listen to our podcasts. Expand your thinking. Feed and satisfy your curiosity. Seen & Unseen is a project of the Centre for Cultural Witness, founded by Bishop Graham Tomlin, and is based at Lambeth Palace Library, in London.
Thank you! One thing I am missing in this conversation is that it is impossible to protect girls and women if a man can call himself a woman and get away with it, even legaly....
Poor David, brainwashed into thinking being miserable is the greatest calling on his life, you can’t even prove the book is the word of a God, Let alone who or why homosexuality is a issue or why I should or anyone else care
I love this man's work, and the stand it and he take against the mechanical view of the world. His grounding in a scientific understanding of the left and right brain hemispheres makes his observations that much more compelling. Add to this his encyclopedic knowledge and Iain McGilchrist is an indispensable thinker for which we should be most grateful. But a few things he says perplex me, and one of those is the idea that freedom taken too far becomes tyranny. One might as well say that too much truth is a lie or too much beauty is ugliness. Freedom is a transcendental, like truth and beauty and justice. There cannot be "too much" of those things. Thank you for this.
Having had dealing with the vicars in three different churches it is no t wonder to me that people are leaving they were bloody hopeless completely empty of any empathy or interest in another human being.
Why is she allowed to go against God's will and order (females are not to lead, preach etc) but others cannot. F3min ists and happy men think their evil is just fine but nobody else's.
My dad was strict ex military Coptic Egyptian man I hated it and him even now I was standing waiting for green at 46 thinking why am i waiting every time?. I had moment and realised that it was because of him. I am disciplined in every area of my life. He died 2 years ago and just at that moment I wanted to cry. My mum is English and she was more laid back but she only had to look at me with those big piercing blue eyes if she was annoyed and I was scared.
Ian's concluding comment, that wherever god builds a church, the devil builds one right next door, describes well the tragedy of humanity. I recently read accounts of the trials by religious authorities, and subsequent murder by them, of Joan of Arc, and of Socrates by the assembly. Its interesting to consider them in the light of Ian's work. All church authorities are ultimately demonic and the predemoninance of analytic thinking about church narratives has been precisely to undermine the demonic power of superstition in the pursuit of the intellectual freedom required for a more profound understanding. Perhaps a price for this has been exacted in the disillusioinment of ordinary men and women who now struggle in a world of fragmented commercially driven narratives. The answer to this is not nostalgia. How do you resolve this meaning crisis without bringing back the devil of anti-rational superstition with it? Once you concede that a belief has a truth beyond words and reason, you empower an authority which collectivises that belief beyond words and reason, and this power is the demonic nature of churches from which the enlightenment allowed our escape. From a religious perspective, I'd say that Ian's work is best read as justification of radical uncertainty. Acknowledging the mystery admits of intellectual humility. It opens up poetic attempts to capture our experience within that uncertainty. It validates a precautionary approach to nature whose systems we are trashing without knowing. In the metaphor of the master and his emmissary, a church seeks to portray itself as the emmisary of god, or truth, and suffers from the same delusions that Ian's work explains. Lets not fall for that one again.
From personal experience when the right brain hemisphere becomes more developed one proceeds to increasingly to fully appreciate, rather than “enchantment “ ,with the wonders of the Cosmo & the truly awesome planet we inhabit- No Ian we don’t need any Religious type faith in what you call the Divine- We need a lot more scientific inquiry especially in neurology ( like your studies) psyche-ology, metaphysics & physics, & far less ancient institutional Religion, to address the problems we all face as humans - A marvellous animal species who have evolved by way of an incredibly intelligent Cosmological process, a combination of Mind & Matter, which has nothing to do with “ faith “ or any mythological ‘god’ or Biblical deity
Alternate Opinions incoming: 8:26 "These are the experiences that we live in and if we can get back to those experiences, then everything in religion is available to us again. Even the descriptions that are the most strange (...)" - I take issue with this, as I feel this is not honest as everything means EVERYTHING. Everything includes misunderstandings of biology within religion (Although I accept most of this can be written off if you look at everything as symbols, however I would argue these incidents observing the universe wrongly are used for more than symbolism in the Bible because these misconceptions are then used to dictate behaviours). Everything includes what I would consider the moral failings of the Bible. For an illustration of this, my recommendation would be the read every word of Deuteronomy, but first read up on the context in which it was written. (Yes Deuteronomy is old testament, but the Old Testament is a presupposition of Christianity). 10:40 "It's taking the perspective of experience first, rather than this kind of abstract perspective" - Science is a tool agreed. Science the tool has proven that experience is often objectively wrong. Our senses are based off patterns yes, these same patterns can be demonstrated to cause an individual an experience that is untrue. 12:09 "You have to go into the religious realm to understand the idea that being has a tenancy to persist and to perpetuate itself" - Only if meaning is a prerequisite assumption as opposed to an objective assessment of truth. The need for meaning is specifically a human trait, it's origins understandable from Carl Sagan's musings that "The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.". A universe governed by physics. A physical world with the capability of life. Life propagating. An accumulation of organic life processes resulting in organisms with higher order thinking and creativity . A higher order thinking locked in a moment in time resulting in the pursuit of meaning. A higher order thinking locked in a physical body that interprets the world around it via senses, senses which interpret patterns in it's environment. Humanity that uses those senses in it's pursuit of meaning resulting in religions with ideology explaining the symbolism of these patterns (The same religion that carries forward other aspects of human nature - whether for good or ill). Understandable, and the creation of religion is real, maybe inevitable based on human nature. It is scary to know what it is to be alive, while also knowing our identity is temporary. It is comforting to believe there is overarching meaning bigger than us, especially with the fruit of everlasting life. But that doesn't make it true or that there is any indication within our universe outside of our flawed experiences that it could be true. With that said, I don't want to underscore the feeling of wonder behind Carl Sagan's quote. We are here and we have a very special opportunity to be alive with our own identity of self. I myself would rather look at the world as it is and accept it than believe a comforting lie steeped in truth.
@donepearce ah, so this is all your fault 😉. The more atheists there are, the better the country is run, the more prosperous the inhabitants, the more just the laws?
In he late nineties I returned to my 1950ties senior school i ( Plumtree) in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe to teach- it had been white it is now "universal" and white and coloured kids are just the same ( some briliant some not so!). Some naughty some nice !
Boy there are a lot of atheist podcasters I watch that just cannot grasp a non binary real/unreal mindset. They think objective reality is "concrete", for me its a superstition that they are fearful of, or chose not to indulge their intuition. At least I hope that is why they have such a huge blund spot.
😂 very right-brained of you to admit it! I'm constantly wondering how he knows all this but I suspect explaining the evidence would be pretty long and dry.
In 1971, when I was 5, my father asked me what team I would support. Me, being totally disinterested in all sport, (which is why I support Arsenal, I hear you cry ! 😂) replied Liverpool. Astonished and deeply offended, my Cockney father asked WTF, Liverpool !! I replied because they play in red. My father, a keen all round sportsman, who was a boxing champion, county runner, soccer captain, rugby captain, cricket captain, and did shot putt, javelin and discus; told me that if I was stupid enough to chose a team based on the colour of the home kit, then I should at least chose a LONDON team !! Hence I ended up with Arsenal. They did the double in 1971 as well. Unable to tell you anything about football, other than they kiss each other when someone scores, and they have mixed bathies afterwards. Hence, it never appealed. Rolling around in the mud with 22 ladies, umm !
As an Anglican(Church Of Ireland) Christian living in Northern Ireland I must say I really enjoyed this interview with Milton Jones. I didn't know that his Mum was from Northern Ireland and belonged to the Brethren denomination. I can see where Milton is coming from when he mentions his Mother's Christian faith and the fact that he is a Christian comedian. Over here in Northern Ireland I have heard Christian Denominations and not just the Brethren saying things like"Don't do that on a Sunday* and"That type of secular entertainment is unchristian" as if the Bible is some kind of a rulebook. Anything I do is done whilst I have my Christian faith. Comedy means laughing at myself even about how I live my Christian life. Heck people of other denominations have teased me about how often us Anglicans get up and down during services. I reply by saying that we do get a GOOD work out excercise wise😅😅 I have also said"I'd better get out of this church building/hall before anybody realises that I'm an Anglican" 😅😅 Does anybody take offence? Heck NOOOO!!! I'd love to see one of Milton's shows. Any chance of him coming to Northern Ireland eg Grand Opera House, Belfast. Personally I think a writting clean comedy that you can"Tell to the Bishop" is harder. God bless you Milton.🙏
In light of the bigotry facing those who choose to live lives of worship, especially Christianity, I think it’s beautiful that Suzannah is opening up in this way. When you have others out there foaming at the mouth and wanting to be accepted for things as wild as identifying as a bowl of blue spaghetti, why is it that religion and theology are what set people off? Some of the people in this comment section are disgusting.
He worked with my half cousin Gareth Richards on his radio show. It's good to watch on you tube and see or hear him. Gareth was raised in a religious family and wonder if any conversations over religion occurred.
Ian's final remarks speak directly to the moderators' repeated acknowledgements of which team (being christian) they are on as well as questioning him as to why he's not on their team. The instant you "believe" your team is the best, most correct team you've lost the point of his work.
A simple question: as most people will never be able to be spiritual, be versed in nuance and be sophisticated - how to have a soul in the world of democracy and individualism? I see this an impossibility. Democracy, individuality and capitalism are not conducive to society that is not full of self centered "apprehenders". As much as spirituality is good how do we even see the possibility of having that in a world without an organized religion (that is left-hemisphere dominated and somewhat dogmatic or anti-individual to a point). Democracy also looks like a hindrance as in my opinion this right-hemisphere "comprehension" is not a thing that most people will ever be able to do. Most people are unfortunately just NPCs. They will never be "enlightened" and all deep understanding will be extremely limited.
I'm on the side of the Bible being very funny, but take Milton's point that a lot gets lost in the change in culture. What about the greeting to the frightened rabbit known as Giddion,'the Lord is with you mighty warrior'. That may have required a change of pants😂
An excellent discussion! How good it is to acknowledge uncertainty and complexity within the sacred. Modern Christianity fails by emphasising binary belief ( I believe vs I don’t believe) at the expense of discipleship. Discipleship is a gradual process of transformation.
Thank you, Mr Iain McGilchrist! You are articulating what I have always known to be the truth. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart for awakening the blind, and for giving voice to what we have been doing in the West, and is now reaching its crisis point. Thank you for your great capacity, intelligence and fortitude to persist in your work in revealing the truth. I believe the tide is only just beginning to turn. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. Forge on, for all of us, we are lost in a desert of sorrow and despair in a world created by the dead, and inanimate objects of the insane materialists.
So, when people stop drinking the coolaid we necessarily need to mix up a different flavor so we can start hitting the coolaid again? How about we just stop drinking the coolaid altogether?
Materialists will never get it. We are in a material age (atomic age) and it will be some time before we move into the next age. Some are ahead of the curve and some are not. Richard Dawkins is one who will never get it and Danial Dennett was another.
Her interview of Peterson was embarrassing!!!!!! He is such a smart self aware person,just such an interesting mind. Just shows you a diploma o "reading" doesn't not make you self aware or have an ability of abstract thought, introspection or complex thought.
Jonathan started well enough by pointing out that scientific language and reality are linked but different. 'We don't experience H2O, but wet and cold'. That's direct experience which matters more. However, as he continues, Jonathan's argument falters. As Justin, posing as an atheist, points out, religious beliefs can be seen as a valuable fiction for some. They guide us through life and provide comfort but do not necessarily reflect an objective, tangible reality. They are like a map without a corresponding territory, a construct purely of our mind. If it's merely useful, Christianity doesn't point to anything real; it is still fiction. But here is the crux: theists can't let it be a useful fiction because that would mean other religions are also valid. So what you get is a one-ring-to-rule-them-all mentality. This is the unflattering side believers; they have to be in the right; they are the ones with the capital T Truth, 'There must be a bedrock; it must be discoverable, and we are the ones who describe it. We are in the right because we have a bedrock; others, like science, don't because they don't deal with reality, only abstract concepts. All truth will be subsumed into Christian truth. This is why Christians seem obsessed with claiming everything comes from Christianity. Some religious thinkers, like Jonathan, persist in their attempts to ground knowledge in a tangible reality. Much like Plato, they argue that a fixed reality exists as directed by imagery. But the question remains: where is the evidence for this reality? Where is the territory that our maps of knowledge point to? Jonathan is committing the most common fallacy I attribute to theists, that of _Hypostatisation_- or the fallacy of Reification. The Christian symbology is a set of abstract(ed) ideas, just like scientific language, which he initially dismissed. The obvious response from a sceptic is to 'prove it', demonstrate this bedrock reality does exist, and your symbology points to it. Buddhism disagrees with the attitude or belief; there has to be fixed grounding. It accepts there is no bedrock of certainty to our ideas, perhaps even to our existence. Another example is his language of hierarchy, which he uses as if reality itself has one, but this is another example of Reification. Hierarchies are artificial; we make them and there is no reason to think that reality bends itself to fit anyone's language. Jonathan tries to move Christianity away from the view it's merely symbolic or functional (_Instrumentalism_ in philosophy.) into the concrete and certain. But he fails because he constantly insists that reality fits inside the language he has adopted and that the world also fits into it. Other religions also make the same claim, and Buddhism rejects it altogether. What are we to make of them? Pageau has joined other thinkers of history in failing to see the paradox. Our efforts over millennia to prove the existence of a bedrock reality have only resulted in the creation of cognitive tools that refute those same claims. Along with a better understanding of our limitations. We now understand fallacious reasoning and cognitive biases. We know emotional neediness drives our reasoning. (An argument from emotion). Epistemology and scepticism taught us that the only thing we can be certain of is that nothing is certain; the illusion of bedrock crumbled. The bottom fell out of the western worldview.
WHEN YOU'RE THE FIRST TO DO IT THE WORLD WILL ALWAYS COUNT YOU OUT EXCEPT HIS PRAISE DOESN'T COME FROM MAN HIS PRAISE COMES FROM GOD HIMSELF. LEFT OR RIGHT IM RUNNING THE SHOW ASK GOD. L.A. 👑
