Beyond Theism & Atheism—What is Non-Theism? John Vervaeke & Rafe Kelley

John Vervaeke and @RafeKelley discuss Non-Theism and how it breaks thorugh the theism/atheism deadlock.

This is part of my series Voices with Vervaeke: Science, Spirituality, and the Meaning Crisis.

[rawadyonus]

This is a brilliant idea, guys! Making short videos from Voices with Vervaeke is just brilliant. Love it.

[firefily]

Why is this not just the argument that we have brain mechanisms built in for mystical experiences and such experiences give us sense of well-being, and therefore, let's press those buttons with our imagination and designed practices.

[vicsummers]

PLEASE bring in some mathematicians (perhaps John Baez?) to talk about the idea of focusing on *relationships* between objects rather than the objects themselves. This is the central idea of THE unifying area of mathematics known as Category Theory.

Specifically, the Yoneda Lemma says that “an object is completely determined by its web of relationships to other objects.”

There are many other category theorists you could try reaching out to, but I’ll not list them here.

[SovereignLove-yf]

I am reminded of Coleridge (and therefore Barfield) and the "polar tension" between the infinite and the finite - between the transcendent and the immanent.
I am and remain a Christian not because of those who domesticate "God" by their theo-logic - but because (for me) in it's loftiest expressions it maintains this "tension" in the mysteries of (above all) Trinity and incarnation - e.g. the "in and beyond" of Przywara's "Analogia Entis", to which I was wonderfully introduced in Rowan William's "Christ the Heart of Creation".
Thank you John for never letting us repose into the stagnant fundamentalism of some imagined "objectified" Word - which always threatens to rob us of the living dynamism of the Logos!

[aimeduquet]

Thanks John. Great idea of cutting your discussions into short clips!

[RecliningFurniture]

The problem I'm finding with this discussion - and I'm including most of the comments in this along with the video - is that no-one seems to be taking the trouble to break down exactly what they mean in as simple a way as possible. It's like listening to random chunks of ideas thrown out at a gallop, in a language I can only vaguely interpret. I want to say 'stop, and start again from the beginning' in the hope that something more coherent will emerge. Frustrating, because I suspect there's a kernel of sense here but the signal is just too weak for me to pick it up. Or maybe it's my wonky reception!

[RainwriterMusic]

I've been trying to find videos of people who have felt similar or like the way I've felt about gods, and while it's not common, at least I know some people seem to think like I do.

[michaelkingsbury]

Thinking of God as an object, a noun, which can be denied or accepted makes no sense. What about thinking of Divinity as action, a verb, describing a process towards integration wholeness and unity?

[IkkoGhecki]

John, I wonder if you have read any of Eugene Gendlin's Philosophy of the Implicit, or Implicit Intricacy, or A Process Model, or Experiencing and the Creation of Meaning? He, also, developed the practice of Focusing from his work with Carl Rogers during his Columbia University era - and beyond.

[billtimmons]

@ 4:27 Help me on this ... you have object, the observer and relationship of object and observer. There is a reality within the relationship. Once you realize the reality you can then break the stumbling blocks. I kinda get that ... but what is the "object"? How can we escape reality of God or God is not real as object? Mankind makes God or God makes mankind - in each case there is God or there is not God. God of faith traditions or Peterson God. Help get out of my dualism brain lock. Can anyone help me on this?

[badoedipus]

I've been playing with a very Foucault like position in viewing theism and atheism as identities.. where I think from time to time I might find myself in any of these places, but that it's very much besides the point. Like Foucault saying he's not gay because homosexuality is an behavior and not an identity. I feel the arguments folks have is something that emerges out of identifying with a position. It reminds me of this notion that the difference between a psychotic and a mystic is that the psychotic is stuck in the water the mystic swims in.. and you get stuck by falling into an identification with, instead of a relationship with, the archetype. It's like which identity you pick is more to do with politics then reality.. or maybe you get sorta possessed by a reality..

Idk, still playing around with it.

[noxot]

whatever is the most fundamental and enduring reality is God. thus both atheism and theism both make claims about what God is like and since we can't escape from an ultimate reality, since it is the syntax of everything, non-theism is also giving an answer of some sort as to what God is.

the general notion is that what is objective is of great value and what is subjective is of very small value. in the spirit people make a decision based on some of the things in the objective universe + their own perceptions, they decide to conform to those kinds of spirits associated with the perceptions of the universe that they accept as truth. they decide for themselves that what is objective is vastly more true than their own subjectivity, than their own mind and personality. they are aided in this by the sheer force of this body and universe they experience, it forces them to believe in it. an exciting game.

[lungfish]

Nietzsche doesn't merely invert Christianity. He is not a Satanist. He supports the transvaluation of all values, he accepts neither master morality nor slave morality. The inverse of Christianity in his opinion would be master morality (as Christianity is slave morality), but he sees problems with that as well. Nietzsche prefers cleaning the ideological slate and starting from scratch based on your own intuition. He does NOT base his ideology on the inversion of Christian values, in fact he goes to great care not to do that.

[Valosken]

Wow, a video under an hour!

But seriously, this is a good idea. Shorter videos are the way to get more people interested!

[Joxxol]

Pretending that God exists so as to get the benefits of belief without actually believing?

[KarimaCynthiaClayton]

A Kairotic moment! What about "Transtheistic"? (Tillich) This descriptor urgently needs to be honed to bring peripheral people of goodwill together, to rise to the next level in cooperation and unity. Great intuitive post!

[badreddine.elfejer]

Such a hopeful idea to go beyond interfaith beliefs

[Orthodoxi]

A good reframe for expressing our current impasse might be transtheism. Or metatheism.

The level that God exists at is in achieving tangible individual transformation. I am currently living that transformation. It seems to provide the meta-transformational requirements you keep attempting to configure repetitively.

I would be happy to discuss this with you.

~Anna

[Max_Doubt]

This misses. To see this, just analogically compare gods to other beings that may exist: martian microbes. The position of nonbelief; of "I'm not compelled to believe either way" is totally rational. If the theist admits that God is not a being, atheism wins.

[meta_noia]

You nailed John. After getting through two Metanoias, I'm convinced that your definition of nontheism is the closest description of a sacred essence that homo sapiens can rationalize.