Could you honestly see this conversation happening in front of Jesus, when he is surrounded by the sinful. Jesus would verbally smack them for the dis-inclusive, shameful, hate speech. (It would be clear how this is evil paraded as good when it is next to the pure light of Christ.)
Take it from a former devout atheist. It is happening at gods speed. The church will be revivified by the droves of humbled masses bringing countless individual insights and attentions within its walls. The more of us who make it to the doors of churches the darker the sky will grow. The animating spirit that had once captured us hates nothing more than losing peoples attention. Leave a light on for us, will ya?
Yeah Orthodox is the way to go. I've been to Protestant rock and roll church when I was a kid, so when I started going to an Orthodox Church I really felt like a tourist. I still do, my priest's wife stands by my family and I and helps us through the liturgy, but I got to say I really do love going there. I have a different "take" on it, I guess, than some members of the church since I've came to Christianity through Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Pageau, but it is so good to be around genuine people, who love Christ and want the best for people. So refreshing. I recommend it to any of you looking to try out Church. The liturgy, the iconography and the Church itself, in all that means, is truly beautiful.
Jonathan, This spoke to me in such a way.... it gave me hope and encouragement as I am at the point of coming back "into the fold" from spending many, many years as an atheist. It is a battle that I didn't think I'd ever have to go through due to thinking that i'd finally found a way to look at life. My mind is a swirling sea of chaotic ramblings battling for the throne of meaning. I believe I'm similar to the person you described at the end of this clip. I see it like recovery, or as close to recovery as one could get without the substance. My default thinking is that of an atheist but it's like i hear myself saying or thinking things and knowing there is more to it than the shallow facts that come out of my mouth. _I swear I've heard the echoes of a voice_ _Like a dream that you feel, but you don't remember_ _I've known it ever since I was a boy_ _Like a word on the tip of my tongue_ -- John Mark McMillan _"Mercury & Lightning"_
This made me smile on my way to work this morning, thank you both. I'm not yet at the point where I can use the religious terms without any problems or know exactly where I am, but I have noticed this same phenomenon. I can relate to that sneering person, but I'm not afraid of meeting that condescension, I enjoy it since I know I don't fit the idea of a religious person. It's kind of like being in on an inside joke. I only worry about the words with which I speak about these issues, how to do it and be at all understood, since I can still feel the aversion in myself let alone in others towards the typical language. Personally, I really enjoy the "flip the script" moments, the personal paradigm shifts, where... something huge, that I think I had figured out and grounded and that I could trust, gets flipped upside down to accommodate and be grounded into something that I initially thought is an irrelevant, yet annoyingly resistant and conflicting detail. That has happened to me in relation to religion. I got to a point on my own where I had caught a sense of the consciousness reference and I had begun to step out of the materialistic dismissive interpretation, and even that had opened up the world of interpretation so much for me it was pretty amazing alone, but you, Jonathan, and Dr Peterson have helped me to move along so much faster. I think your work is really important and I do too see signs that a greater paradigm shift is on its way.
The best plan for Atheists is to stop treating religious people like fools and even if you do not believe, start assuming you have to share society who believe anyway, and that you aren't better than them, and you aren't more intelligent than them, and you're not in charge of them. Nor are you "neutral." You're just another human on this planet who has to share it with the God people.
First, how is what you just said righteous? Sit next to the stunning beauty, glory, and love that is Jesus. Say what you said it loud. What did Jesus say about it? I bet his wisdom was about loving, caring, understanding, and accepting all of God's children. Secondly, The original statement only makes sense if God and Jesus exsisting. (No proof of them exsisting outside of Christian history.)
I'm still an atheist. But I have been noticing more and more the negative consequences of a society without a common and solid foundation (moral, metaphysical, etc). However, I still can't move beyond my atheism, even though I see a move towards faith would be pragmatically beneficial. But that move would be based on preference and not truth, as I currently see it. So I begrudgingly remain an atheist.
I get what you mean. But there's some strange experiences I have been having recently. The best I can describe it is like at the end of JP's final 2017 Maps of Meaning lecture (i think). Where he says you can't know it until you take the leap and act like its true. Cuz the answer can only be found in the leap. You by definition can't know any other way. At least that how my experience has been.
One of the things that has been interesting with what Jordan Peterson has been saying is that you do not find belief only in a mental acceptance or understanding of something, but belief appears in how you act. That is the real answer to when people have been asking him if he believes in God. "I act as if it were true". This can be the first step, and if done forthrightly, it can lead you into places you have not yet imagined.
Yes, because we all know that the 2 billion Christians in the world live in the rust belt, and we all know that 2000 years of theology, philosphy and mysticism can be resumed to 19th century style evangelical puritan literalism.
An update on my own journey since Jonathan and I had this conversation. I spent about two months writing a history of my religious experience (if you’re interested, you can find that on my blog at nathanmeffert.com/blog/religion-skepticism-spirituality). Since that post and since this podcast episode was released, people from around the Internet have been reaching out to me. These are people who have gone through a conversion experience, and people who are still on the fence so to speak. As for myself, I have trouble imagining what a true conversion experience would be like. My thinking around it is that it has to make sense. I’m reading CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity, and that is leading me down some interesting rabbit holes. So far, I understand his observation that there is a natural law and I understand that humanity knows this and fails to act in accordance with it, but I am really struggling with the leap from that to some form of universal mind that is administering the law. To be fair, I am only a few chapters in. This is all very interesting discussion to me, and I certainly have a hunger to be a part of a spiritual community, but like I said: it has to make sense. Great to read that Jonathan and my conversation is having an impact and I look forward to more.
I appreciate your suggestion to focus on liturgy and contributing to the continuity of the tradition of which we are a part so we can enrich it with our own understanding and participation. This has been a stumbling block for me in my attempts to fellowship within my own Buddhist community.
The crux truly is humility. I'm a recovering atheist, going on 2 years now. I was subjected to some pretty dark stuff in some pretty dark places. I was humbled by evil in a weird way. I needed to make sense of all the depravity. I knew I wasn't capable of it. Why not? How was I able to recognize evil? How could I be repulsed while others thrived in it? The world became complex beyond explanation. Christianity had some answers. I just followed the bread crumbs.
Well, it is pretty amazing if you were able to rise out of these dark places. Keep following the bread crumbs, at some point they turn into communion. 🙂 All the best on your journey.
I just a few hours ago stumbled into an exceedingly disturbing quarrel with a new kind of Nihilist, one that accepts all the fundamental precepts of the old German Pessimist philosophy that Chesterton rallied against, that life is (almost) nothing but godless, meaningless, suffering, and we have a 'moral duty' to have no more children and aim for self extinction. There is one crucial difference, however. In "Manalive" Innocent Smith was able to snap the German Pessimist Philosopher out of his insanity by making him realize how much he wants to live. The New Nihilism gets around that sort of epiphany by rationalizing that "fear of death" is an instinct that few can overcome and pressuring oneself to overcome it to commit suicide as an individual causes "too much suffering", therefor, live the most comfortable (selfish) life as you possibly can and die of old age childless. Everyone in the world should do this starting immediately: live long and die out. When I realized how insanely resolute she was, my skin began crawling with the insanity dripping from her words, I just could not take it. It is one of those moments when we can really appreciate why the Church needed an inquisition.
Religion is the worship of God. An Atheist who has reasoned himself out of religion will be familiar with this logical fallacy; a belief in God to fill the fissures of human knowledge. It is nothing more than intellectual fragility that leads a man who once commanded himself with reason to fall back into the dark caves of ignorance. In Jordan Peterson's new book, 12 Rules For Life, he declares his eighth rule to be "Tell the truth - or, at least, don’t lie". Is it not self delusion to pretend that such a God exists, or have you honestly stumbled upon some glistening new evidence? Are you not lying to yourself? Is lying to oneself not more pernicious to the spirit than throwing off the obsolete ideas of Christianity? There are better places to find an identity. Japan, for example, is a highly irreligious country, and yet they enjoy a cultural richness. And if you concede that God is not an existing being, and say, instead, that God is a psychological axiom, or an archetype, then you are not really returning to religion, but playing a semantic game. God, as an archetype, is an unpopular pseudo-religion, and the Bible as a source of morality is at best out-dated. You can make a good argument for the didactic richness of scripture, but ethically, and intellectually, it does not surpass the Greek philosophers in content, or Shakespeare in style. Western civilization may be someway predicated on Judaeo-Christian morality, but Judaeo-Christian morality was itself predicated on earlier philosophies -- unless you believe that scripture was literally bestowed unto man by God. No, the Bible is a work of man, and Western civilization has improved upon that early work. I would wager than an average eight year old could quickly pen a morally superior ten commandments. Superior at least by the standards set by the modern zeitgeist. It is such a pity that man is so spiritually weak that he must bow his head to superstition, forgo reason, and stumble back into the damp, dark caves from whence he sprang.
I am Pentecostal, but quite scientifically minded one, and I have had close encounters with atheism. Following you and Jordan Peterson has opened my eyes to how much power there is in a symbolic interpretation of the Bible, and has infused how I talk about religion. We could learn much from this kind of view as Pentecostals, even though the movement has it's strengths. I gave a small sermon on a Chapter of Romans in our youth evening a while back, and ended up going through some of the symbolic ideas depicted in icons - the ladder leading to heaven, and so on. It's quite intriguing - once you start appreciating the symbolic interpretation more, you will inevitably come to the question "How much is it historical, exactly?" I have no clear answer so far, but I have a few hints. Overall, the process has strengthened my faith, It's quite interesting to talk about, since that means showing honestly the areas where you don't have strong answers. I am not sure how much heaven is a physical reality yet, and I had to address that issue in my sermon. I chose not to lie, and said honestly I don't know that yet, and that is quite scary to say when you are supposed to be teaching the youth - but I reckon that the symbolic view is invigorating enough to be worth exploring, even when it raises some deep questions as part of the process. I guess what I'm trying to do is revivify the community and faith I am in, with careful speech. Thank you, Jonathan, for your work. I'm following you closely. Waiting eagerly for more uploads.
Happy to hear the process has strengthened your faith. I never talk about "how much of it is historical", I am too excited to talk about how beautiful and powerful and meaningful the stories are. If you haven't seen the video "what is symbolism" with my brother, you might enjoy it as we discuss this dilemma.
I really enjoyed that video, definitely a good watch, and worth revisiting as well. As far as I can tell, the historical and symbolical indeed do not need to be in conflict. I knew C.S. Lewis had that kind of an approach, but it was not until now that I realized the full implications of it. I just still have to formulate my thoughts further, so that I can talk about it properly. But I'm glad both your and Peterson's videos have introduced me to this new way of seeing things - I virtually know now, that there is a solid foundation to rest on, and it has opened the Bible in a new way to me - it's like being given a key to a lock that you did not even know was there, and finding a wine cellar full of good wine.
A problem for us atheists is the concept of Faith. I've said this here before. I personally have come to see that Faith, belief without sufficent evidence, lies at the base of all belief; that every belief resolves back to other beliefs and so on until you reach the assumptions/presuppositions that are shaping your interpretation of the world. This is a hard pill to swallow and what immediately came to mind when you mentioned humility. These two quotes expressed what my intuition was telling me about Faith: "At the foundation of well-founded belief lies belief that is not founded." Ludwig Wittgenstein "Everyone's morality is predicated on Faith." St. Bucko Peterson I'm not a writer or a philosopher so I apologize if this seems scattered. I was part of a group of atheists that call themselves Street Epistemologists, who liken their approach to something like Street Preachers for Atheism. They attempt to use polite questions to highlight the flawed thinking of religious believers in the hopes of changing their beliefs. In my travels through this group, I began to look more into just what the hell are beliefs so as to make this method of talking to believers more succesful. I just needed to know why people are motivated to hold religious beliefs and then I could dislodge their belief and sort of cure their thinking from the Faith "virus". There was always this problem of dealing with moral beliefs within the group. I then stumbled upon Jonathan Haidt, the Cognitive Science of Religion and eventually St. Bucko. This attempt to understand how to tackle religious beliefs completely changed the way I thought about religious belief and, most importantly, Faith. This was not well received by the group who are committed not to cede any ground to the concept of Faith. I have to stop here because I'm getting confused again and feel way out of my depth but I wanted to get something down here even if it's not articulated very well. Thank you for your continued work and I really enjoyed the Pentecost of the Zombie Apocalypse.
Almost all action is based on trust. Faith is trust. The idea that faith is opposed to reason, or is some irrational movement is something that came along with Kierkegaard. Faith is the "is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" as said by St-Paul, that means it is the confidence and trust which makes us move forward. In a higher way it is also the commitment to those invisible things, like patterns, like truth, like love, etc. And ultimately it is acting in confidence that the Infinite is Love.
Jonathan Pageau, A possible path ahead must take into account how *atheists* define Faith, as belief without sufficient evidence. The "conviction of things unseen", Faith, rests at the foundation of all belief, which is wrapped up neatly in the Wittgenstein quote above. (That one quote was the death knell in my hostility towards the concept of Faith.) Faith can also mean trust and confidence, but even that definition resolves back to just another conviction, a belief. My Trust or Confidence that something is true is a *Belief*. I'm trying to help you understand the crux of an Atheist's hostility to religious belief here. Give them their definition of Faith and their complaints will still fall apart on closer examination. They can't bring themselves to admit that their own beliefs, all beliefs, reduce back to the Presuppositions/Assumptions which are at the foundation of their belief structure, especially when it comes to moral beliefs. I clearly need to work on articulating this better. It's frustrating to me because the atheists biggest complaint is right in front of your face but you won't concede the definition of Faith to them. Listen to how Dawkins, Peter Boghossian, Dennett, Harris define Faith and give them their definition! They hate the fact that human cognition is bounded by Faith/Assumptions. If you don't respond here again, I understand. I'm not trying to be hostile. I just wish I knew how to lay this out more clearly. Thank you Jonathan for this platform. I'll stay tuned.
uPsIdEdOwN, maybe it's because I've read too much Steven Pinker, but I don't like the blurring of definitions that seem designed more to cause confusion than relieve the resultant anxiety of conflicting references. Thus I felt the need to clarify what "faith" is in a pragmatic manner. Faith, unlike belief, is an *emotion--a welcomed sense of wordless, and often just plain unavoidable, well being. It's the brain-based bahavioral payoff for experiencing the truth of a belief. Belief is a cognitive, communicable, intellectual, event/experience which may or may not be rewarded with the soul Ibalm of faith.Therefore, faith experienced as the result of in an objective setting is exactly the same as the pleasant reassurance conjured up by a purely subjective mental frolic, such as 'admiration for, or love of God'. The faith we have in Algebra performed correctly is no different than religious rituals aptly staged. Faith is faith, and belief is belief, but they are willingly confused by far too many people. Succinctly, science is but the 'religion' with all the objective evidence.
Indeed, all action which is voluntary is based on trust: trust that one's perceptions, memories, judgements, information are accurate, or at least sufficiently accurate to be the basis of a chosen action. One does not need to invoke St. Paul or any other religious pundit to be aware of this.
Thanks for this short but decisive help Jonathan, you remind of the need to be humble, to be saintly and to not cease in my process of becoming a member of Christianity
I listened to this clip before going to bed and as a consequence I saw you, Jonathan, in my dream last night. I remember you walking into a lecture hall and once you got to the podium, I saw you transform. You clothed yourself in golden and absurdly imaginative vestments. As you did this your face transformed. It became less personal, sterner and darker, but not unkind or hostile. It felt like you willingly melded with something and became a conduit for a ‘spirit’ far larger than any one person.
More like the spirit of determination with eyes fixed on what needs to be done, I think. It was a positive kind of darkness I saw, it that makes any sense...
I became Orthodox from atheism and THEN discovered Pageau and the Ortho-net. The part where he talks about encountering the sneering person and thinking it's okay and knowing exactly where I am is RIGHT ON! :D
Your example of the family and how if you keep taking in people, the idea of the family falls apart was a really good example of postmodernism/sjw ideas in action. A+
I have definitely been feeling what you were talking about Jon. lately I've been going through a genuine religious conversion. first, with understanding the problems with evangelicalism and the exaggerated emphasis they put on the afterlife. first, I realized: what a useless religion. all it seems to be focused on is the afterlife. I'm 21! I need some help in the current life...like, lots of it! so, my exegesis changed a bit. I couldn't throw out religion entirely, ESPECIALLY not the Bible. it seems too complex to nonchalantly cast it aside. so, like I said, my exegesis changed. Jordan Peterson introduces me to the idea of Logos, I start to think "ohhhhhhhhhh yeah, that makes sense!" and so now, instead of seeing the world through the lens of heaven, hell, sin and damnation, I see Logos in everything. i can read Hindu philosophy and go: yep, Romans 1:20 was right, the Logos is here too!
I go to liturgy in an orthodox church but I'm not sure how I'm supposed to orient myself in such a setting. I try to pay attention to what's being read or sung and avoid thinking about what's for lunch. Not sure what sort of experience I should be having or what I should be thinking. Then again, something keeps drawing me back to the church. Maybe it's just being around other people, or that I'm attracted to someone there, or maybe there is something in the ritual that I'm unconsciously absorbing.
can someone please explain to me what this channel is what is it offering ? i am a skeptic orthodox christian and i have been struggling badly with my skepticism lately :(
You might have come to the right place. I talk about how symbolism and religious perspective is at the base of human consciousness. You can watch my video "what is logos" and also "Symbolic vs. Literal interpretation of the Bible". I am also Orthodox. All the best.
What if one is not a recovering atheist but a Christian nomad? (Shout out to you recovering atheists, by the way.) I appreciate and can't denounce the evangelical/charismatic Christian sect (your comment that the "quiet Uncle keeps the world together" applies to these communities, too). However, I have found it,personally wanting. How does one become acquainted, so to speak, with Orthodoxy? Interested while not yet committed?
As someone who is currently attending an Orthodox church without being Orthodox, I can tell you how I've done it so far. There are a lot of ways to get acquainted with it. Ancient Faith Radio has some good podcasts, I personally enjoy The Areopagus. And there are many books you can read. I personally recommend Timothy (Kallistos) Ware's book "The Orthodox Church" to learn the essentials. I also recently finished Alexander Schmemann's "For the Life of the World," which is both an exposition on the liturgy and a book on a "Christian Worldview." I found it breathtaking. Lastly, if you want to put a foot in the waters, find an English speaking Orthodox Church nearby (some still do all their services in their ethnic languages) and get in touch. When I became curious, I found a local church, got the priest's contact info off of the website, and emailed him. He advised me to visit a vespers service (that is, the service they do on Saturday nights) to get a feel for orthodoxy. He's also met with me several times to talk and let me ask questions. For my own experience, it has been strange (the icons and the incense and all), but I keep going back. No one is pressuring me to convert, I've met a wide variety of people from all sorts of backgrounds, and everyone has been very gracious in explaining things to me. Best of luck on your journey friend, from one Christian nomad to another.
I’m heading in the opposite direction, trying to hold onto my Christian faith. I just don’t see evidence of a “personal” God that “wants a relationship” with me. Look at the world and human tragedy. It continues on as if God does not exist. I’ll watch these.
Charles Vokrachko, it just so happens that my parish is doing a study on the Book of Job. This week we are going to discuss the difference between theodicy and the mystery of suffering. This is, of course, the difference between Job's comforters and Job himself. Job, the one who is actually suffering the tragedy and pain of loss wants to explore the mystery of suffering; how we might begin to understand the wisdom of God in the midst of our own pain. His comforters, by contrast, are not interested in exploring anything at all. They are not in pain themselves and think the whole problem of Job's suffering is simple and obvious. Because they have the luxury of relative ease and comfort they can afford to treat Job's issue in the abstract and reduce it to formulas and rules, none of which is helpful to Job or comes close to the truth. But what is most interesting to note is that Job, the suffering one, never loses his conviction that God is his friend or that God is good. He doesn't understand intellectually but he knows, in some other way, that this is so, even as he speaks angrily to God about his pain. Job's comforters, with their abstract problems and pat answers seem so flat and insipid compared to him. And this brings me to my point, part of the mystery of suffering is that it is not inimical to great faith and a sense of God's closeness, experiences that are often unavailable through abstract reflection.
I can understand, and indeed have some sympathy with, your attraction to Orthodoxy. The music and the iconography can be quite intoxicating. But surely you must have some concern about the resurgence of the Russian Church since the Soviet Union collapsed. They are increasingly conservative in ways which make Savonarola seem almost mild; and their cynical dance-of-death with Putin is quite alarming. No good can come of it!
ortodoxy is not the same as Russians you know. It define thear identity, as other traditioanly orthodox nations(macedonian here). If you are from north america you can see the antiochian and OCA churces where you will not probably see too much russian politics.
You have the Greek Church, the Georgian Church, the Serbian, the Bulgarian, the Antiochian, the Romanian, the Ukrainian, etc. Way way more than just Russian...
I'll be a theist the day I see compeling evidence for a god/gods. There's nothing remotely close to that at the moment. Was an evangelical christian for 25 years.
You were an evangelical Christian, I guess that explains all your other comments. I was going to answer your different comments one at a time, but I guess I should do that all at once. I'm sorry your understanding of religion was perverted by the very limited horizon of the evangelical faith, but I would warn you to not think this is what religions are. For example, I don't know any traditional religion which says that you will get your treasure only after you die. There will never be "compelling evidence" for God, in the same manner than you cannot find the origin of a set within a set, for the same reason that they will NEVER prove the big bang by looking within the universe only. LIke I said in this video, how can you find evidence for something that is beyond existence?
