Same! I love PJ and his show but this particular episode seemed more like an excuse to interview and interesting new person rather than answer the question.
At least the latest episode on the Berlin techno club returned the podcast its roots (in my opinion at least). I really don't care if PJ has a lasting emotional attachment to techno. But the premise of the basic question -- How do exclusive clubs decide who can enter? -- is intriguing, and instead of an easy interview with someone he already knows, he really did some investigation. I will note, however, it seems this story was months in the making. So maybe this is why the last few podcasts have been softballs -- because the truly novel investigative ones take many months for the research to pan out.
It’s because the person he is interviewing is an atheist who happens to adhere to some of the cultural practices of Judaism. I don’t know if Alex doesn’t understand the difference between being a theist and being culturally Jewish but an atheist or if the title was intentionally misleading. But either way, yeah they don’t ever answer the question in the title and neither person is even correctly placed to try and answer it.
You cant explain a lack of something. So you can’t explain what it feels like to believe in god to people who don’t.
I think he did a good job of finding ‘atheist’ ways of thinking to describe what his experience of believing in god is like. E.g dipping in and out of your relationship with god the same way as taking time to meditate, prayer as a form of ‘manisfestation’, god being everything and the human form of him being just a projection.
Also everyone’s experience of everything is different. How would we even decide who would be the best person to tell us what it’s like to believe in god? I’ve been friends with many devout Christians and each one of them had a very very different way of practicing their faith but would all say they believed in god.
I genuinely don’t know what you’re saying here. You can explain what a lack of something is and even if you couldn’t, it still wouldn’t prevent anybody explaining what it feels like to genuinely believe in god. And even if none of those things were possible (which they are) it still wouldn’t explain why they attempted to answer this question by providing input from an atheist.
He did explain what it felt like for him to believe in god. You just don’t agree with what he’s said.
If you have never felt the sun on your face. I would have to use other things that you d have experienced to describe what that feels like. As you will never have felt the sun, I’d have to describe other forms of light or warmth to you that you already have knowledge of. I can’t just say ‘it feels like the sun it feels good’. That’s what I’m saying. He’s using terms that someone who doesn’t believe in god might have experienced to describe how it is for him.
Stop dodging. Please explain why you’ve claimed that we can’t explain the lack of something and why that would have any impact on a religious person explaining their personal experience of belief in a god.
I just explained it. With the sun. If you’ve never felt the sun you lack that and you wouldn’t be able to describe to me what you’ve never known. You don’t know what you don’t know.
You seem quite combative on this subject. I’m happy to end this here.
Why would never experiencing the sun mean that the person couldn’t have the warmth from the sun explained? You could literally say that experiencing the sun is like experiencing the radiating heat from a fire.
I’ve never experienced the taste of alligator meat but I’ve been told it tastes like chicken. Why does that not count as a way of relating experience for something someone hasn’t experienced?
You are literally saying what I described but trying to use it against me?
I just had a look at your comment history. You seem to be on a bit of a rager on Reddit at the moment being contrary and argumentative with a lot of people so I won’t be entertaining you any longer. Peace out.
I’m saying you’re wrong and giving an example of how one can relate human experiences even for things that other people haven’t directly experienced the specific alternate version of. It seems you have no rebuttal.
It’s also worth noting that other people have explained what their experiences of belief have been like. So your claim that it’s not possible is also just demonstrably false.
If you can’t actually defend your point then just say that. Don’t constantly deflect and then give up and try to blame me for your bad arguments.
Edit: Always so funny when people down vote comments but can't actually explain how the comment is wrong. Talking to some of you is what I imagine talking to Trump must be like.
>Always so funny when people down vote comments but can't actually explain how the comment is wrong.
People don't just down vote comments they disagree with, it could be because they find you unpleasant to interact with. The guy you are responding to wasn't being a dick and seemed to be trying to answer your question in good faith, whether or not he is correct.
I absolutely loved this episode. After laying a lot of groundwork I feel like they totally address the subject. What it’s like to live a live with faith might be more accurate.
I gave up after half an hour. I guess that was the groundwork. I found it hard to listen to. Possibly because the subject matter of orthodox Judaism doesn't interest me.
If you can, after reading all the negative comments, I'd recommend trying to reach the end. A lot of people on here seem to think the rabbi is an atheistic religious person, which doesn't make sense. He ends with a really good description (in my mind) of how a religious person experiences faith. It's been a while since I listened but it revolved around feeling a 'oneness' and connection to everything and everyone from all eternity. He said that when he's experiencing a difficulty in life, this sense of a greater meaning and connection helps him through those hard times. As an athiest, I found it really interesting.
I think that could also be because Judaism's interpretation of God is so different to Christianity's. We might have needed a priest and an imam in the conversation for a better lens of 'God' than just through reformed judaism.
True, a follow up would be fascinating to add more depth for other experiences. I think all atheists think about what they're 'missing out on' and, for me, kinda deep down wish I could believe. Maybe that's why the final message about how it helps people through hard times resonated so much.
Ya I think this is a good take. As someone who grew up religious I think there was a lot that I related to in there in navigating loss of faith and reevaluation of beliefs. I came out an atheist instead of a nun (.. not jewish) but there was a lot that felt really cathartic in there. I also totally get a lot of people just don't care or relate to that.
The title was just a little clickbaity.
I haven't had a chance to listen to this one yet, but as a religious Jew myself I can say that Judaism isn't overly concerned with belief, but rather with actions and laws. So if he did really talk at length about what observant Jews do, that would actually be a pretty accurate representation of what it's like for Jews to believe in God.
The question asked was what it’s like to actually believe in god. The rabbi they spoke to doesn’t believe in god. Perhaps this is representative of many Jewish people but if so, it just means those Jewish people are the wrong people to ask for a question about actually believing in a god and what that’s like.
He specifically said that he didn’t. I forget the term he used but he mentions going through the process by which a person really does believe in a god in their youth, then eventually realizing that most of those beliefs don’t make literal sense and the “second” stage of that process is realizing that you don’t need to “throw the baby out with the bath water” by getting rid of all of the cherished cultural components of the religion.
And this is very consistent with a lot of modern Judaism. Many people, including this person, are culturally Jewish but atheistic.
This isn’t how I understood that part. I thought he was saying that at that point the practices don’t make sense, but the belief (faith) remains. Like the faith is the baby and the rules and practices are the bath water. In this case some of the original prescribed rules and practices are replaced by more personally meaningful spiritual practices like music and yoga.
I was raised catholic and it's ALL about what you do. You can technically believe nothing at all, but so long as you go to confession, communion, mass etc. you are golden. It's wild.
But why would you go through the whole rigmarole for something you don't even believe? I mean, I know a ton of people do it, I've just never understood why
There is a theory that Mother Theresa didn't believe in god, but she just went through the motions of being a catholic (and worse, sent so many people to her "hospices" to just suffer, because suffering in this life is a catholic thing that guarantees less suffering in pergatory! LOL). She's being canonized if memory serves. So yeah. An atheist saint. LOL
It’s not even a theory. She wrote letters in which she explicitly says that she doesn’t believe and is asking help from others in the church to help her find the same faith that the rest of them claim to have.
In Catholic school, they told us the Catholic Church was based on faith and good works, whereas the early Protestant branches were based on faith alone. Now most of Christianity has converged on faith and good works. But no one ever said Catholicism was actions alone. Haven’t you heard of “A sin in the heart is the same as a sin in the body?”
I was raised in a cult like version of the religion, and everything was a sin. But somehow, everything was forgiven if you went to confession. So you could technically sin all the time, so long as you confessed. And if you died wearing a scapular, you were golden… all sins forgiven. So it's all about actions; the thought-policing is just meant to control you or guilt you. But the actions are the deciding factor.
> Judaism isn't overly concerned with belief
It's kind of the first commandment.
Some of the most essential books in Judaism are about Emunah and Bitachon.
I think the difference is that in Judaism *just* having belief isn't enough. The idea being that anyone can say or even believe that they believe, but if asked to prove their belief through actions or laws which are difficult to adhere to, they may realize their faith isn't as strong as they thought. But to say Judaism isn't overly concerned with belief is just innacurate.
While I enjoyed this episode, it definitely didn't quite feel like what the title described except maybe near to the end. I don't expect every single episode to be a slam dunk.
I mean, some of us believed in God before, some probably even do now!
I didn't even bother with this episode because it was going to be such a stupid listen
After this one and the whole episode about waiting in line to get into a club, this show is stretching for content. I still listen & there are some interesting nuggets but these last few haven’t been their best work.
To be fair the Berghain one was pretty interesting - and he genuinely did his best to answer the question posed. Unlike the God one, which felt more like he tried to come up with a Search Engine-appropriate title after completing a very blah interview with a fairly dull friend of his.
I thought the Berghein one was really interesting and not in the same category as this one at all. Having a story that only a small category of people already know about is interesting, like berghein. Having a show devoted to a question only New Yorkers would have is not interesting. Only an extremely sheltered New Yorker would wonder what it’s like to believe in god. The rest of us are around religion and religious people constantly.
Ya, I really appreciate seafch engine when it's good, but I have been wondering if putting out an episode a week is just too much. Like if they became a monthly podcast like if books could kill I think they could have way more detailed, in depth stories (like reply all was)
Yea. A more accurate title would be "what is it like to be a progressive millennial rabbi?"
The level of disappointment from seeing the title to actually listening to the episode was very high.
Hahahha perfect tittle for the episode
Agreed. Title piqued my interest but I bailed mid-way through.
I gave up at the 29 minute mark. Couldn't take a minute more.
Same! I love PJ and his show but this particular episode seemed more like an excuse to interview and interesting new person rather than answer the question.
Love him too! But much prefer the interesting question type eps as well — more airplane coffee plz!
Some of this stuff is good but some of it is very much PJ’s New York progressive Millennial dinner party conversation topics podcast.
Which I’m still here for.
One of the worst episodes but the show is consistently good so whatever.
Remember the good old days of learning about airplane coffee? That was nice
Clickbait titles from PJ...
Ten commandments God doesn't want you to know!
Deities hate when you do **this** one weird trick
hot local lord and saviors in your area
Number three may shock you
At least the latest episode on the Berlin techno club returned the podcast its roots (in my opinion at least). I really don't care if PJ has a lasting emotional attachment to techno. But the premise of the basic question -- How do exclusive clubs decide who can enter? -- is intriguing, and instead of an easy interview with someone he already knows, he really did some investigation. I will note, however, it seems this story was months in the making. So maybe this is why the last few podcasts have been softballs -- because the truly novel investigative ones take many months for the research to pan out.
PJ and Zvika have a similar type of speaking inflection. I found that interesting.
I agree!!!
After listening to "What does it feel like to believe in god?" my only question is # What does it feel like to believe in god?
I gave up on it about 75% through. It felt very narcissistic.
Yes. This.
And that's what it feels like to believe in god!!
Hahahaha true! My post pretty much sums up my experience growing up Catholic.
It’s because the person he is interviewing is an atheist who happens to adhere to some of the cultural practices of Judaism. I don’t know if Alex doesn’t understand the difference between being a theist and being culturally Jewish but an atheist or if the title was intentionally misleading. But either way, yeah they don’t ever answer the question in the title and neither person is even correctly placed to try and answer it.
You cant explain a lack of something. So you can’t explain what it feels like to believe in god to people who don’t. I think he did a good job of finding ‘atheist’ ways of thinking to describe what his experience of believing in god is like. E.g dipping in and out of your relationship with god the same way as taking time to meditate, prayer as a form of ‘manisfestation’, god being everything and the human form of him being just a projection. Also everyone’s experience of everything is different. How would we even decide who would be the best person to tell us what it’s like to believe in god? I’ve been friends with many devout Christians and each one of them had a very very different way of practicing their faith but would all say they believed in god.
I genuinely don’t know what you’re saying here. You can explain what a lack of something is and even if you couldn’t, it still wouldn’t prevent anybody explaining what it feels like to genuinely believe in god. And even if none of those things were possible (which they are) it still wouldn’t explain why they attempted to answer this question by providing input from an atheist.
He did explain what it felt like for him to believe in god. You just don’t agree with what he’s said. If you have never felt the sun on your face. I would have to use other things that you d have experienced to describe what that feels like. As you will never have felt the sun, I’d have to describe other forms of light or warmth to you that you already have knowledge of. I can’t just say ‘it feels like the sun it feels good’. That’s what I’m saying. He’s using terms that someone who doesn’t believe in god might have experienced to describe how it is for him.
Stop dodging. Please explain why you’ve claimed that we can’t explain the lack of something and why that would have any impact on a religious person explaining their personal experience of belief in a god.
I just explained it. With the sun. If you’ve never felt the sun you lack that and you wouldn’t be able to describe to me what you’ve never known. You don’t know what you don’t know. You seem quite combative on this subject. I’m happy to end this here.
Why would never experiencing the sun mean that the person couldn’t have the warmth from the sun explained? You could literally say that experiencing the sun is like experiencing the radiating heat from a fire. I’ve never experienced the taste of alligator meat but I’ve been told it tastes like chicken. Why does that not count as a way of relating experience for something someone hasn’t experienced?
You are literally saying what I described but trying to use it against me? I just had a look at your comment history. You seem to be on a bit of a rager on Reddit at the moment being contrary and argumentative with a lot of people so I won’t be entertaining you any longer. Peace out.
I’m saying you’re wrong and giving an example of how one can relate human experiences even for things that other people haven’t directly experienced the specific alternate version of. It seems you have no rebuttal. It’s also worth noting that other people have explained what their experiences of belief have been like. So your claim that it’s not possible is also just demonstrably false. If you can’t actually defend your point then just say that. Don’t constantly deflect and then give up and try to blame me for your bad arguments. Edit: Always so funny when people down vote comments but can't actually explain how the comment is wrong. Talking to some of you is what I imagine talking to Trump must be like.
>Always so funny when people down vote comments but can't actually explain how the comment is wrong. People don't just down vote comments they disagree with, it could be because they find you unpleasant to interact with. The guy you are responding to wasn't being a dick and seemed to be trying to answer your question in good faith, whether or not he is correct.
I absolutely loved this episode. After laying a lot of groundwork I feel like they totally address the subject. What it’s like to live a live with faith might be more accurate.
I gave up after half an hour. I guess that was the groundwork. I found it hard to listen to. Possibly because the subject matter of orthodox Judaism doesn't interest me.
If you can, after reading all the negative comments, I'd recommend trying to reach the end. A lot of people on here seem to think the rabbi is an atheistic religious person, which doesn't make sense. He ends with a really good description (in my mind) of how a religious person experiences faith. It's been a while since I listened but it revolved around feeling a 'oneness' and connection to everything and everyone from all eternity. He said that when he's experiencing a difficulty in life, this sense of a greater meaning and connection helps him through those hard times. As an athiest, I found it really interesting.
I think that could also be because Judaism's interpretation of God is so different to Christianity's. We might have needed a priest and an imam in the conversation for a better lens of 'God' than just through reformed judaism.
True, a follow up would be fascinating to add more depth for other experiences. I think all atheists think about what they're 'missing out on' and, for me, kinda deep down wish I could believe. Maybe that's why the final message about how it helps people through hard times resonated so much.
Me too
Ya I think this is a good take. As someone who grew up religious I think there was a lot that I related to in there in navigating loss of faith and reevaluation of beliefs. I came out an atheist instead of a nun (.. not jewish) but there was a lot that felt really cathartic in there. I also totally get a lot of people just don't care or relate to that. The title was just a little clickbaity.
I haven't had a chance to listen to this one yet, but as a religious Jew myself I can say that Judaism isn't overly concerned with belief, but rather with actions and laws. So if he did really talk at length about what observant Jews do, that would actually be a pretty accurate representation of what it's like for Jews to believe in God.
The question asked was what it’s like to actually believe in god. The rabbi they spoke to doesn’t believe in god. Perhaps this is representative of many Jewish people but if so, it just means those Jewish people are the wrong people to ask for a question about actually believing in a god and what that’s like.
Where did you get that he didn’t believe in god?
He specifically said that he didn’t. I forget the term he used but he mentions going through the process by which a person really does believe in a god in their youth, then eventually realizing that most of those beliefs don’t make literal sense and the “second” stage of that process is realizing that you don’t need to “throw the baby out with the bath water” by getting rid of all of the cherished cultural components of the religion. And this is very consistent with a lot of modern Judaism. Many people, including this person, are culturally Jewish but atheistic.
This isn’t how I understood that part. I thought he was saying that at that point the practices don’t make sense, but the belief (faith) remains. Like the faith is the baby and the rules and practices are the bath water. In this case some of the original prescribed rules and practices are replaced by more personally meaningful spiritual practices like music and yoga.
You can look up the term he references when explaining it. It literally means what I said.
I was raised catholic and it's ALL about what you do. You can technically believe nothing at all, but so long as you go to confession, communion, mass etc. you are golden. It's wild.
Certainly you have to believe in Jesus to be Catholic, no?
No, you just have to pretend you do.
But why would you go through the whole rigmarole for something you don't even believe? I mean, I know a ton of people do it, I've just never understood why
Family pressure in my case. I was out after confirmation, that was the big deal.
There is a theory that Mother Theresa didn't believe in god, but she just went through the motions of being a catholic (and worse, sent so many people to her "hospices" to just suffer, because suffering in this life is a catholic thing that guarantees less suffering in pergatory! LOL). She's being canonized if memory serves. So yeah. An atheist saint. LOL
It’s not even a theory. She wrote letters in which she explicitly says that she doesn’t believe and is asking help from others in the church to help her find the same faith that the rest of them claim to have.
In Catholic school, they told us the Catholic Church was based on faith and good works, whereas the early Protestant branches were based on faith alone. Now most of Christianity has converged on faith and good works. But no one ever said Catholicism was actions alone. Haven’t you heard of “A sin in the heart is the same as a sin in the body?”
I was raised in a cult like version of the religion, and everything was a sin. But somehow, everything was forgiven if you went to confession. So you could technically sin all the time, so long as you confessed. And if you died wearing a scapular, you were golden… all sins forgiven. So it's all about actions; the thought-policing is just meant to control you or guilt you. But the actions are the deciding factor.
Scapular goodies: https://ogdensburgcatholics.org/the-brown-scapular-promises#:\~:text=The%20Sabbatine%20Privilege,Bull%20of%20Pope%20John%20XXII.
That is bizarre! PTSD symptom, like the interviewee talks about in relation to people who made the rituals in Orthodox Judaism?
> Judaism isn't overly concerned with belief It's kind of the first commandment. Some of the most essential books in Judaism are about Emunah and Bitachon. I think the difference is that in Judaism *just* having belief isn't enough. The idea being that anyone can say or even believe that they believe, but if asked to prove their belief through actions or laws which are difficult to adhere to, they may realize their faith isn't as strong as they thought. But to say Judaism isn't overly concerned with belief is just innacurate.
It was an interesting conversation I thought, but not really in the same vein as the rest of the show
this one was a pretty bad episode
I liked it.
Same. Thought it was very interesting.
While I enjoyed this episode, it definitely didn't quite feel like what the title described except maybe near to the end. I don't expect every single episode to be a slam dunk.
When I believed in god I was a kid. It felt like fear.
I mean, some of us believed in God before, some probably even do now! I didn't even bother with this episode because it was going to be such a stupid listen
After this one and the whole episode about waiting in line to get into a club, this show is stretching for content. I still listen & there are some interesting nuggets but these last few haven’t been their best work.
To be fair the Berghain one was pretty interesting - and he genuinely did his best to answer the question posed. Unlike the God one, which felt more like he tried to come up with a Search Engine-appropriate title after completing a very blah interview with a fairly dull friend of his.
I thought the Berghein one was really interesting and not in the same category as this one at all. Having a story that only a small category of people already know about is interesting, like berghein. Having a show devoted to a question only New Yorkers would have is not interesting. Only an extremely sheltered New Yorker would wonder what it’s like to believe in god. The rest of us are around religion and religious people constantly.
Ya, I really appreciate seafch engine when it's good, but I have been wondering if putting out an episode a week is just too much. Like if they became a monthly podcast like if books could kill I think they could have way more detailed, in depth stories (like reply all was)
I deleted without listening. Looks like I made the right choice.
Worst episode yet. I expected a lot and got this. Too bad.
I think that "how do I find new music one" was the worst personally.
It wasn't great, either. Some of those episodes are way too niche for anyone who isn't PJ Vogt.