Jonathan Pageau Vs. Adam Friended | Science Vs. Religion

Jonathan Pageau carves Eastern Orthodox Icons and other traditional Christian images in wood and stone. He has received commissions for churches and individuals from all continents. The rich visual, liturgical and theological heritage found in traditional carving -from Byzantine ivories to Celtic crosses to Romanesque capitals- is inexhaustible. In the gallery you will find carved icons, but also carved Orthodox pectoral crosses and a variety of other liturgical objects. All most work is done on commission, and so please contact Jonathan in order to order something from him.

Join My Email List

Listen on Your Podcast App

Support Our Search for Truth

Find Adam Friended

SECRET VIDEO

My Gear
Mic: Audio-Technica AT875R
Recorder: Zoom H4n

[JackPitts]

I saw this on Jonathan’s channel and wanted to be sure to stop by your channel to express gratitude that you really engaged in this conversation. Thank you.

[numpty]

Science is a method, it shouldn’t be a new priesthood who hand down the “Truth”.

[thethreefates]

I loved the conversation up until the very end when Jonathan said that he didn't hold hope for a second conversation. I really hope he pushes through his frustrations with how to explain his ideas. I thought the concept of trying to "translate" the other person's concepts into language that their own followers would understand was brilliant. I really hope this conversation continues, because I got a lot out of it. Lots of respect to both these guys.

[ZeroCartin]

This was a really good discussion! I think Jonathan is really close to postulating his position a bit more precisely as he has conversations like these. You both did a great job.

[guildmasterskarma]

This was a super interesting video. Towards the end when you guys were talking about what logos is and categories was super interesting to me and I really hope you two get together again to dive deeper into that.

On a side note, it is so nice to see people try and understand each others arguments without getting hostile and actually get to the real meat of argument.

[joseignaciohileradorna]

First time actually listening to Jonathan, very compelling

[ckahlquist]

This was a great conversation. Much better than Pageau's talk with Rationality Rules.

[franciscocaldas]

"We need to work on a system, where we have atheist, and christians, etc."

Well, what will happen, then, when that new "all" encompassing system also starts to breakdown and some people start to reject it?

I think this is Jonathan's point: Christianity WAS that system that afforded many types of people (theologians, scientists, monks, peasants, etc.). Some few people would not fit in that system, but it was encompassing enough to unite all the western world for many centuries, with as many changes and fights as it suffered, which are part of the fight against too much rigidity of the system itself.

Adam says: we need to build a system that is higher in the hierarchy that includes many gods.

Jonathan says: that is christianity and it also has a frontier, as any system will have. But that was the goal of the new judaic conception of god which transcends all gods, to unite all peoples of the earth

[_Eamon]

Hi there, coming from Jonathan's regular audience, thanks for the productive conversation. You seemed to challenge him and I'm looking forward to how he'll grow after these recent conversations. I hope he'll have a positive effect on you and your audience as well!

[GRIFFIN]

The collab I never knew I needed. Love it.

[numpty]

You don’t need to like someone to love them. Think about the members of your own family.

[dirtpoorrobins]

That’s the danger of the breakdown of a cohesive narrative or the breakdown of mythic unity... people will only be left with the default of unity around anger. I think there is good evidence that the world is at that point.

[Musewhisperer]

What is God ?
God is Love.
What is Love ?
Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more...

[SovereignPlace]

You know when people say they got something “down to a science”, it’s not a metaphor, it’s literally down there on the hierarchy.

[DanHowardMtl]

Check Paul Vander Klay who did a great examination of this talk.

[joem]

My biggest problem with the "metaphorical truth" argument is that it could be more precisely discussed as "facts" vs "patterns". Facts are true in that they accurately describe the world in a consistent, objective way. From those facts, we can derive patterns grounded in data, such as the Law of Gravity or the Theory of Evolution. These are not physical objects, but describe interactions between objects and creatures, yet we still consider them true. Once you start analyzing patterns based on behavior or culture, it becomes much harder to single out specific data points that cause those patterns. However, the longer the time frame and the more interactions we have, the more we can identify which behaviors are beneficial or harmful and then make value judgements based on our goals. They may only be loosely grounded in the hard data, but they are based on observable patterns and could be considered "true enough".

[CMBradley]

Adam, this was an amazing conversation, and the ending was actually quite hopeful (considering our cultural moment), despite the mutual recognition of the wall blockading understanding. In fact, since that wall required Jonathan to explain his framework in various ways, it at least helped some of us in the audience understand him better.

Perhaps much of that wall could be broken down by coming to realize that not all descriptive truths are within the scope of scientific investigation, nor can be expressed in scientific language. Science is not the rock-bottom of descriptive knowledge. For example, logic, mathematics, and metaphysics are all descriptive (and non-metaphorical) domains upon which science is built. As such, science itself is grounded on a host of very specific philosophical assumptions about reality that fall outside of its methodological purview.

There's so much more to grab onto with this conversation, because it was so rich, but suffice it to say that continuing your investigation in this matter, to use a bit of your language, has a great deal of potential utility...for all of us.

[sunbro]

When your wife tells you that she loves you, do you explain the neurochemistry? Do you test her oxytocin to see if it is high and indicative off the truth of her statement? The evolutionary explanation can be a useful tool, but for a human no tool supercedes meaning/identity/purpose. You could have all the wealth in the world, all the fame or all data there is, but it wouldn't mean anything without a purpose/identity. Without meaning, perhaps we are just a funny looking monkey. But we do have the capacity to be more.

[paolobarresi]

D00de! every time you would talk to sitch about religion I'd think "Adam should totally talk to Jonathan" and now here we are :D I loved it, you should totally have him back. You are really good at coming up with the right questions

[TheOriginalKaudecus]

I loved this. The way it was broken down piece by piece. In Matthieu Pageau's book, The Language of Creation, he writes something to the effect of traditional cosmology and modern science being on different "terms". "Terms", as you come to understand throughout the book, being very important; not only was the worldview (lens by which the world is seen) different, but the very use and definitions of spoken language were different. I don't remember exactly how he worded it, but I understood it as "it's written in English, but it's not the same English". To me it seems Jonathan is speaking English, speaking English coherently, but from a spiritual standpoint not a material one, so the same phonetics uttered end up being in and of a different World. This point seems like "yea, no duh" but the depth of the chasm that gets created because of misunderstanding these ancient definitions can't be understated.