Everyone Who Criticizes Religion Is Making This Mistake | Jonathan Pageau (Pints With Aquinas) 

I'm a simple man. I see someone criticizing Dawkins, I click.

I am so glad Jonathan Pageau was on Pints with Aquinas.

Jonathan makes nailing down this point seem so easy, I really envy his ability to make this case effectively because it’s something I intuitively understand and try to articulate to people but it’s very easy to sound like a crazy person when you try to make this point, especially because it’s been so obfuscated by the culture and ubiquitous atheist talking points.

I have noticed something similar which is that those who preach relativism, that everything is subjective, hold onto certain foundational beliefs which are not only treated as absolutely objective but are also so "sacred" to them that no one can be allowed to question them at all.

You can’t fashion any morality from an atheist point of view. Dawkins is ironically using Christian sensibilities to criticize Christian behavior as immoral.

Yes, Jonathan is completely right, and it’s so darn obvious once one sees it. As Ram Dass said, “the map is not the territory”. And it’s also like the story of the finger pointing at the moon, in which the student confuses the master’s finger for the moon itself when the finger (i.e. the model) is just that which points to the moon (i.e. the transcendent). And as is explained in a book I read regarding jnana yoga, “all objectivity is merely intersubjectivity”. The worship of the so called objective and the worship of “models” are quite the false idols, the golden calves of scientism/atheism. Remember when the atom was pudding? - Tastes great with some primordial soup I’m guessing. Oh, the religiosity of atheistic scientism...

Thomas Nagel (the famous atheist philosopher who admits that Materialism is insufficient to explain reality) has a book entitled "The View From Nowhere," in which he explores man's strange ability, according to him, to see the world from "nowhere in particular." He spends the book trying to deal with the problems this supposed ability brings (probably the "problem" of consciousness, is from an ought). I'm a recovering atheist/nihlist whose journey back to something like the meaning I seemed to experience as a youth began with acknowledging I was not a detached observer whose job it was to understand the world, but an embodied creature whose job it was to participate in the life of the world (Though you may never know all the steps, you must learn to join the dance). I'm afraid I will lapse back into my old ways of thinking if I expose myself to the old ruts, but I one day hope to be able to argue with someone like Nagel that there is no such thing as a "View From Nowhere."

Astronauts who have gone on spacewalks speak about how amazingly profound it is to "hang" in space and observe the earth, moon, space-station, sun, and everything they perceive just "hanging" in space too. Listening to them, it is clear that the first level perception is so different to the perception of the scientific model, yet all I can do is update my model with that info and feel a tinge of envy. :)

Wow. This is so incredibly dishonest I'm surprised their noses didn't grow, break through the screen and poke my EYES out!

Such a brilliant clip.

I am seeing several fallacies here. The most basic is a straw man about scientists thinking they've "convinced themselves that we have access to any level of reality". Not only do I work every day with scientists (I am a lowly IT engineer working in labs) at one of the biggest, most innovative biotech's in the US, but I am friends with several in other fields also. Not a single one of them has convinced themselves that we have access to any level of reality. This thinking is so ingrained in their scientific studies and practices, that is is like breathing for them. They don't even have to consciously think about it.

I love Jonathan!

There's a great criticism of dawkins on youtube with only a few hundred views. It's called a "clash of words" by EC Winsper

Good explanation of phenomenology.

This is a good collaboration.

Two of my favorite peeps talking

Awesome

I feel like Jonathan is taking a different route than Descartes to explain how fundamental the knower is to reality

I'd like him to finish that thought though. *_“Where is your morality coming from?”_* Yes, where? Tell me.

It happens at other levels, I was talking to a friend about the problem of bitcoin and NFTs in reality and he kept talking about the problem as a disembodied thing, he spoke about abstract concepts like money, currency and stuff like that, kinda like as if he lived in the Platonic realm, a bitcoin is a cryptic code but it is written somewhere physically, it is mined by physical means using energy and material technology, we think of it as an abstract thing and we discuss about things like "money" as if we make abstract transactions without any material reality and without a material consequences. It's so crazy that conceptual abstractions when are not brought back to reality can be so detrimental to our way of perceiving and interacting with reality and we can become blind to it.

It would just be a piece of cardboard.😌

Honestly, Dawkins is a Joke to the Academic World. Even other secular Academics like David Berlinski and Michael Ruse say Dawkins is an embarrassment.

Can’t help but think this went over Matt’s head.😂. I don’t blame him it’s taken me lots of binge watching of pageau’s videos before I started understanding it all.

Assuming I understand the early part of Pageau's argument correctly, Matt Walsh used much of the same argument when discussing the non-binary transgenderism issue when trying to get his debate opponent to define what "woman" is. Words and concepts don't just exist in a vacuum with no discernable meaning, because they always refer to something with the assumption that we understand what the thing being described is.

This is great thank you two so much. Much love

This is genius, and the fact that I've seen this since I was a child made me feel like I had a little bit of genius in me. But it's not that I'm a genius, but that the Holy Spirit gives good gifts to his children. This is so obvious that it's almost completely insane to me that no one articulates it this way. Bravo on this. I plan to listen a couple more times to inform the way I present these ideas in the future. Thanks a lot, gentlemen.

So our perception is the “real” reality?

Although a brilliant scientist, Dawkins is a terribly sad tragedy somehow.

Names are purpose driven; they are not just descriptions of things. Names are teleological or purpose driven. So the idea that we have an identity of a cardboard box means that we know what it’s for. There’s a reason why we give names to it and it’s like that for everything. Everything that has a name is named for a reason like it’s named out of purpose and it usually has to do with human level of interaction or human level engagement that’s been messed up a lot because of artificial seeing like because of telescopes and microscopes. We have convinced ourselves that we have access to any level of reality but we still see the world through this frame of experience that we have. Solar system is a secondary system compared to the sun going down at night and rising up in the morning. You know why it’s secondary because everything is structured around that reality. The trick of science is to move the level of perception through mechanical means and trying to pretend it’s the bottom of reality. but you are still perceiving it from you, you are the one who looks at it from the microscope not down there. Human level engagement Names are teleological or purpose driven; they are not just the description of things.

Can we say that phenomena are facts? I'm not sure if I have the right vocabulary, but I'll try to ask a question. It sounds like Johnathan is saying that critics of religion are conflating "facts" with "truth." Am I on the right track?

I used to do astronomy (or ology? I get them confused but I mean the looking at planets one) with my pops and we saw Venus, Mars and Jupiter. But yeah I guess it is an abstract reality because you have to go out of your way and get special equipment to observe them, plus almost 0 people care about the movement of the planets it’s a hobbyist thing. Whereas the rising of the sun is everyone’s business.

They might say their moral sense evolved from being a social species

I think the problem Dawkins has is a lack of appreciation for the fact that religion is not only a product of evolution but also subject to it. It's a tool for recalibrating our salience hierarchy as a collective, so we can function as a community. And now that all the tools are mixing and we are all calibrating to these new experimental religions (science) brings the kind of situation and conflicts we see in the world today.

Christian apologists don’t understand that Atheists have no issues with Jonathan view of reading the Bible. If this was how Christian have always viewed the Bible there would be very little need for debate. The only thing they want to make sure that does not potential happen is to use the Bible as an authority over others, therefore creating a super authority to justify any actions against others even if it goes against reason and logic. Richard Dawkins makes the mistake to put Jonathan in the fundamentalist group, therefore straw-manning him. Jonathan needs to do a better job of clearly articulating this point at the beginning of all his lectures, therefore clearly drawing a line in the sand so Atheists understand his point of view. Jordan Peterson is also guilty of this. The only issue Atheists have with Jonathan is his pre-supposition of God to create objective morality out of thin air. Remember all that a belief in a God does is not allow atheists at the debating table, so instead of having a million other religions leaders debating what is right and wrong, now they only have one less. You’re still left with moral relativism.

I find belief in God is not sufficient to not be labelled "atheist". Rather, one must subordinate oneself to the moral ststems of the bronze age jewish tribes. That would be fine were i jewish, but i am not. Most xians cannot make this distinction, but it's mostly a function of their limited intellectual gifts. I do not punish my cat for vomiting on the rug when she eats too much of her own hair, so too, i give xians latitude to be righteous in their wrongs. Thank you Jesus. 🙏✝️🇺🇸

I wasn't sure what was agitating me about this guy (I can listen to many skilled apolists like WLC for hours). I have come to conclude that he relies on an intense degree of specificity while managing to be incredibly reckless with his language. Example 3:39 "You don't perceive the solar system" being a good example. I know what he is *trying* to say, but the problem is that he is describing a circumstance in which he is *correcting* the person in his hypothetical dialogue. Attempting this against an even slightly seasoned debater will put him on the defensive, as that statement cannot be taken seriously without a specifier of objectivity.

Pageau is right, except for one thing - only people who aren't astronomers can say things like "you cannot perceive the solar system". I have watched Mercury and Venus transit the Sun... I have seen all of the outer planets, and watched many of them as their moons orbit them. I now have a first hand perception of our solar system. I think there is a point here that he missed - that science does not just falsely demystify our structures of meaning; but it also, at times, extends them.

Nah. You lost me at the opening argument, postulating that there is either god or meaninglessness.

In actually happy I found the evil atheists like Dawkins and others it made my faith much stronger when Satan lost his grip on me and I returned to Christ and the orthodox church ☦

Scientific abstraction is as close to reality as we can get, no matter how insufficient it is.

Science has never claimed to have reached the bottom of reality.

Science doesn't put forth any conceptions on how to experience reality. You seem to be addressing science popularizers but science is akin to mathematics, just trying to reach truth. Concerning that you need to "judge" phenomenon. Just events in this universe, seems like you want to assign some value to them?

the guy in the maroon sweater is just talking out his ASSSSSSSSS

Atheist POV: I think you're stepping too far ahead of yourself when you say that there is no meaning and your purpose is subjective or arbitrary. I think that instead of defaulting to nihilism, it is much better to simply find a means to cope with the uncertainty and doing so requires presupposing various ideas for their utility. What I cannot say is that we ought to presuppose a solution to the nihilism that goes beyond what we can determine with certainty. So when you presuppose a framework for understanding reality such as a religion, just like the nihilist, you are stepping ahead of yourself and what you can truly know to be true. Even if it is 100% true, being that there is no method for us to comprehend that with certainty, it is no different than defaulting to nihilism.

When it is part of a box it is "part of a box" That is what it is called, or the side the top , bottom, top, corner or a part of foremer descriptions, etc, Do these people have some sort of spaghetti inside their heads,-- Starting your reasoning from the very wobbly basis of belief shows how you damage your reasoning by wriggling any which way to make it sound true.

to be fair: removing yourself from reality in order to objectively (the best you can) study reality is what science is about. Thats why we know shit about the universe. Religion can stay in its lane and so can science.

No person or belief system has a monopoly on the truth.

Get an athest to argue he,s own point. see how far the convoluted language gets u. dethating themself from reality my ass. this seems like projection to me.

Non theistic morality is invisible and it’s rough because it’s nearly impossible to set up universal moral standards without the conviction of religion. But that’s also why no one was ever burned alive for being a flat earther. I’m much more ok with having to struggle with relative morals than try to justify a genocidal god and said god then trying to apply different moral standards on humans. That’s no solid foundation for morals.

But you are living proof of mindless matter.

Proof your religion is a ficion: In Reference to Deuteronomy 32:8-9 "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8). With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance.6 It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the sons of El. It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the sons of El, plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, solely according to the number of the sons of El. **Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting."** ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Canaanite pantheon was conceived as a divine clan, headed by the supreme god El; the gods collectively made up the Elohim. Through the centuries, the pantheon of Canaanite gods evolved, so that El and Asherah were more important in earlier times, while Baal and his consorts came to fore in later years. Asherah - early semitic Mother goddess, "Lady of the sea," consort of El, also called Athirat, the mother of 70 gods El - the chief deity, god of the sky, father of many lesser gods and ruler of the divine assembly, also worshiped by the Israelites El Elyon -Special title of El as "God most High" The Book of Genesis itself describes the patriarch Abraham as a worshiper of El-also called El Shaddai and El Elyon -- building altars, offering sacrifices, and paying tithes to him. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Deuteronomy 32:8 When Elyon (El) gave to the nations their allotted inheritances, when he divided the sons of Adam, he established the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of El (El and Asherah had 70 sons and in line with the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 (70 nations) each son (Elohim) received a particular territory or people like the Canaanite god Chemosh in Numbers 21:29) Yahweh’s portion was his people, Jacob, the lot of his allotted inheritance (Yahweh was given Israel by his father, the chief Canaanite god El). Psalm 82 ’Elohim (Yahweh) stands in the council of ’El (chief Canaanite god) In the midst of the gods (Elohim) he holds judgment. “How long will you judge unjustly, and show partiality to the wicked? Selah Render justice to the weak and the fatherless; vindicate the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” They have neither knowledge nor understanding; they walk around in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. I said, “You are gods (Elohim), sons of Elyon (El), all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like mortals, and fall like any prince.” Rise up, O ’Elohim (Yahweh), judge the earth; for you shall inherit the nations! Google "The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins" based on the majority scholarly consensus.

I think the phrase " A bunch of crap " was invented for such meandering wish thinking codwallop,

You can be atheist and be moral. Atheist is just a lack of belief in a deity or deities. That's it. A higher power isn't required to be moral. Just like there are people who believe in God and act immorally. Morality is very soupy and nobody can prove God or Gods and never will. IT's why it's called faith. Ever notice how the 4 horsemen of atheism never criticize Judaism?