Deconstructing Jordan Peterson on Religion

a man who titled the 10th chapter of his 12 rules for life be precise in your speech Jordan Peterson seems ludicrously uninterested in his own advice anytime he's speaking on the topic of religion or belief in God now granted these aren't exactly the most straightforward areas of study known to man so I wouldn't expect his views to be without detail and clarification but in my view Peterson tends to needlessly over complicate any question he has ever asked about God or religion to an extent that borders on the comic so people say to me what do you do you believe in God and I think okay there's a couple of mysteries in that question what do you mean do what do you mean you what do you mean believe and what do you mean God and you say as the questioner well we already know what all those things mean except belief in God and I think no if we're going to get down to the fundamental brass tax we don't really know what any of those things mean so I want to take a moment to explain why after having listened carefully to a great deal of his recent material on religion and even going to see him talk about it in person my takeaway is this Jordan Peterson is what most people would call an atheist he thinks that God is a fictional character that the stories of religious scripture did not literally occur and that the idea of God and stories about him are primarily a way for people to ground their value structures and provide social and psychological Unity now I do realize that Dr Peterson himself would probably not be best pleased with that characterization I've just given of him as an atheist so allow me to take some time to defend that claim fair warning is going to get a bit wordy and complicated but stick with me I might be wrong but I've tried my best to offer an account of what it is that Jordan Peterson actually thinks before then offering some criticism of course if I do get it wrong then Dr Peterson you're always welcome on my podcast to begin with we have to start with a fundamental question to Jordan Peterson real or not what is God but just before jumping into that a word from today's sponsor this video is sponsored by morning Brew morning Brew is a free email newsletter that hits your inbox every single morning Monday through Sunday it only takes about 15 seconds to sign up and then every morning you'll be up to date with the latest in business Tech and finance news most people my past self included start their morning in a pretty disorganized manner our phone is usually the first thing that we reach for and we can find ourselves just endlessly scrolling through news sites and social media trying to get up to date with what's going on in the world now however when it comes to business Tech and finance all I have to do is check my inbox and I'll find an email from morningbrew which will get me up to date in just about five minutes and look I don't know about you but a lot of the time I can hardly even bring myself to look at traditional news media especially on the tell television it's dry it's dull it's boring morning Brew is designed to be witty and informative and relevant getting you up to date as quickly as possible in a way that isn't going to bore you to death did you know that a blue whale ingests 10 million pieces of microplastic every single day well according to the first ever study of its kind this is the case and it's something that I wouldn't have known if I wasn't subscribed to morning Brew look there's basically no reason not to be signed up to morning Brew if you're interested in finance or Tech or business as I say it's completely free it takes about 15 seconds to sign up and you can read through the entire newsletter every morning top to bottom in about five minutes so if you like what you hear you can go to morningbrewdaily.com forward slash Cosmic skeptic or click the link in the description or even scan the QR code that's currently on your screen to sign up now and if you do so I'm confident that you won't regret it so back to it to Jordan Peterson what is God to begin answering this we need to understand Peterson's views about value for Jordan Peterson our ability to do just about anything requires a belief in some set of value judgments for example even being able to do something as simple as looking at this glass simply seeing a cup requires the Assumption of value judgments and there are two reasons for this the first is expressed here by Jonathan pajao who appears to have had a huge impact on Peterson's thinking we can't perceive and is without a hierarchy of attention and without a hierarchy of perception because the world is is indefinite in detail and in quantity and so for even to be able to say this to point to something to say that is already in this hierarchy of something we could call vertical causation so first there are a near infinite number of ways that we can see the world we could look in all different directions focus on multiple things we can see things as parts or as holes and so to focus on one object at first requires an tension hierarchy the hierarchy of attention what's worth looking at what do we value focusing on but it goes even deeper for Peterson the very ability to even identify a cup as a distinguishable object requires a belief in certain values if I put this cup on a table and why do I still see the cup and the table as two distinct objects why don't I perceive them as one big weirdly shaped object and why don't I see this cup as multiple objects the side the bottom the rim why do I see it as one unified object when there are so many different ways that we could look at it well here's what Dr Peterson has to say if you were a photorealist painter you could spend a month painting all the reflections on that glass it's a very complex thing to perceive but you perceive it as a unity and we know this neuropsychologically we know this scientifically you perceive it as a Unity because you can grip it and because you can raise it to your lips and because you can drink it and because you need to drink water to survive and you are willing to drink water to survive because you believe emotionally and motivationally and perhaps rationally that survival is a good and that's dependent on your belief that human existence in some sense is good and that it's striving towards some sort of higher unified order and you might think well you don't need all that to perceive the glass and the answer is yeah as a matter of fact you need all of that to perceive the glass so the reason my brain perceives this cup as a single object is functional because I can use this cup to drink things and the reason I see it like that is because I want to drink things because drinking things is necessary to my survival and so I must in some sense value my survival in order to see the cup so in order to perceive the world around us according to Peterson and objects within it we need to believe in a hierarchy of values but we don't just need to believe in this value hierarchy to see anything we also need it in order to do anything here Peterson gives the example of writing an essay I used to ask my students why are you writing this essay and so and that's a variation of the question why do anything but let's make it concrete why are you writing this essay well so that I can get a grade for the class why are you taking the class so that I can finish my year at University why are you finishing your University and motivated to do that to get my degree why do you want the degree and then that's a whole hierarchy of value that is definitely governing either in an integrated manner or a disintegrated manner the actions of the person who's writing the essay so this is a little bit more straightforward whenever we do anything someone can ask why are you doing that why am I making this video right now well so I can share my views with you and why do I want to share My Views with you or to contribute to a meaningful conversation well why do I want to do that because I value such meaning and so on and so forth and this can go on up this hierarchy of things that I value until we get to the very top the thing that we value most of all upon which everything else is predicated okay so in order to see anything or do anything we must be motivated by some hierarchy of values so here's an important question what is at the top of that value hierarchy what is the fundamental value upon which everything else is based here's where it gets really interesting and you might say well how hard are you going to try when you write this essay and the answer to that would be well it depends on how well integrated my view of the ethic is all the way up to the highest place and then we could say well the highest place is the Divine place and we could make that a matter of definition the Hair It Is did you catch that it was so quick that you'd miss it if you blinked but Jordan Peterson just told us what God is in his View listen again and then we could say well the highest place is the Divine place and we could make that a matter of definition the highest place that is the highest place on this value hierarchy that we were just talking about is the Divine place and we can make that a matter of definition wow the word divine of course means of or relating to God and Peterson has just told us that for him it's a simple matter of definition that the Divine is just whatever value is at the highest place on the value hierarchy so let's go back to that essay that we were talking about writing the essay requires a value hierarchy why are you writing the essay to get a good grade why do you want the good grade to get a good job why do you want the job and so on and so forth up the value hierarchy Peterson says that we can simply take as a matter of definition that wherever we end up when we follow this hierarchy whatever happens to be at the highest place is the Divine so what is the nature of this thing at the top of the value hierarchy what takes up this Divine Place how do we characterize it Peterson's answer here is astonishing and so then we might say well what should be in the Divine place and I would say Well it has to be something that you can look at the world through and it has to be something you act out and then we could say well that still leaves residual mystery and then we might ask well how do we characterize it I would say we characterize that using fiction because fiction is the abstraction of hierarchies of attentional prioritization and action and so we could say that in the highest sense in the biblical Corpus God is the ultimate fictional character ding ding ding one more time please we could say that in the highest sense in the biblical Corpus God is the ultimate fictional character God is a fictional character God is the fictional personification of the highest value held by human beings let's break down how we got to where we are human beings simply find themselves unable to function without values that's where we started to see things or do things we need to Value things whatever the fundamental value is at the top of the value hierarchy is for Peterson by definition Divine and God is just the fictional personification of these values and then Peterson adds just one more thing God is the ultimate fictional character and and here's and then we're trying to characterize his nature as that which should be emulated that unites us psychologically and socially so in my view this is the proof Jordan Peterson is an atheist he's just described God as a fictional character whose existence is simply a characterization of value made by the human mind for the purpose of uniting us psychologically and socially this is exactly what atheists say God does not exist except as he is invented by the human mind and the reason why the human mind invents God is to provide some psychological and social stability if this is not atheism then what is so now we can understand that when Peterson talks about God what he's really talking about is something like the fundamental value that human beings hold whatever is at the top of their value hierarchy now we can actually begin to make sense of a lot of the things that Peterson has said in the past that seem bewildering upon first hearing for example listen to this clip from a recent Lex Friedman podcast bearing in mind that Peterson uses the word secular here to mean something like non-religious even secular people go to museums I'm secular well are you in a museum yes are you looking at art yes well what makes you think you're secular then hold on what the fact that you're in a museum looking at art means that you're not secular while on Earth would somebody have to be religious to look at Art well if by God and Divinity Peterson is simply referring to fundamental human value then since to enjoy art requires some sense of valuing art or beauty then of course you can't be secular and enjoy art the problem of course is that this simply isn't what most people mean by God or Divine or secular Christians are generally asked to believe in God not as some fictional representative value judgment but as a real entity existing independently of the human mind who really came to Earth as a human and was really crucified by the Romans as a historical fact if Peterson thinks that God is a fictional character and that these stories contained in scripture are fictional in nature then he is simply in almost anybody else's terminology an atheist so does Peterson think that the events of the Bible are fictional or does he think that they really happened well let's take a listen the Old Testament reports in the book of Exodus that the Jews were enslaved in Egypt before embarking on a journey through the Wilderness after being liberated from their slavery Moses is said to part the Red Sea during the Escape which he then drops on the Pharaoh and his soldiers drowning all of them and facilitating the Jewish Escape quite a specific series of events so Dr Peterson do you think that the events of Exodus actually happened or are they just fiction you might ask well did the events in Exodus really happen and our conclusion was well not only did they they happened in a in a meta manner they're still happening okay they happen so in they happened with such reality that they haven't stopped happening and so and what does that mean well everyone still struggles with the spirit of tyranny and everyone still struggles with the fact that when you escape from a tyranny you you don't hit the promised land you hit the desert and then when you're in the desert of your imagination or with your lost peers then you need to struggle with what guides you and what should guide you when you're lost and then you have to Grapple with the problem of appropriate and uh uh reliable forms of governance because that's all part of The Exodus story and so it didn't happen the way a happening would occur if you just detailed it out as a camera holding empirical Observer it happened in a way deeper way that just doesn't stop happening so when asked did The Exodus really happen Peterson says it's still happening what the Jews are still wandering in the desert Moses is still moseying around and parting Seas look I get what Peterson is saying the story of Exodus describes a struggle with tyranny and the aftermath of Liberation and these are themes that are still relevant and true today but Peterson is smart enough to know that he's being asked a simple historical question did the events historically occur regardless of how true the message is today did the events described actually happen and for some inexplicable reason rather than simply saying well The Exodus didn't actually happen it's a fictional story but it contains themes that are universally true about human nature Peterson refers to it as a meta truth they happened in a in a meta Manner and claims that it's still actually happening today they're still happening and I haven't just cherry-picked a bad example of Peterson failing to properly explain his views this keeps happening here's another example this time on the story of Cain and Abel from The Book of Genesis this time taken from a recent podcast that Peterson conducted with my good friend Mohammed hijab I did a lecture last night at the Apollo on the story of Cain and Abel yes and one of the things that I proposed was that not only did that story happen but it's it's always happening yes it always happened it's happening right now and it's always going to happen into the future and so I would say to some degree the mirror reduction of these profound stories to a historical reality is an underestimate of their truth because they're a strange kind of truth because they're the truth that always happened and is happening now and always will happen so you're thinking Bible story for example you have a story of the eternal battle between something like the spirit of joyful and appropriate sacrifice which is characterizes Abel and the spirit of resentful resentment against the structure of existence as a consequence of thrownness and the shaking of the fist at God and that's always happening once again Peterson is simply describing good fiction did the events occur no but the story describes truths about human nature that have always been true that's literally what this reduces to I mean imagine if someone were to ask me did the Battle of Hogwarts really happen like was it a historical event and I said it happened with such reality that it's still happening because the importance of sacrificing our safety to protect good against evil and the notion that like evil is always pressing up against the walls of our Castle man that's a deeper truth than calling it mere fiction can capture I would sound like an idiot and this is my utter confusion with Jordan Peterson why is he so hesitant to answer the question that everybody wants to know do you think these events actually took place did a man literally rise from the dead as a historical fact did the Jews once enslaved in Egypt travel to the promised land through the wilderness and since Peterson sees these stories as fictional or sorry meta truths in a meta manner the answer is clearly no sure the ideas contained within the stories are real and pertain to the ongoing Human Condition okay that doesn't make the events meta true it just makes them like any other story of a historical events that yet speak to an important aspect of Human Experience fiction this is something that Douglas Murray actually points out to Jordan Peterson comparing religious stories with the stories of the novelist Dostoyevsky Dostoyevsky obviously if you say is Dostoyevsky true you need to say in what sense but then I mean the issue with the Bible the issue of Christianity the issue with faith is that it's obviously different it must be in a different realm it's clearly in a different realm because it claims different things for itself it doesn't demand that we believe that was called nikov lived the Bible if you're going to be a believer you have to be able to say in the words of the Creed that that you that you believe in the Virgin birth but you believe most importantly in the resurrection and and and and and as you well know Jordan many of us can walk 99 of the way there in terms of belief in the in the in the truth of the story or as Benjamin puts it but is it true is it true and then stumble on the last thing quite right and listen to what Peterson has to say about Dostoyevsky when I read something like a novel by Dostoevsky I think well is this true and the answer is well those precise events never happened so on that basis it's not true but then there's something wrong with that description because the characterizations in Dostoevsky are so true that in some sense they've never been surpassed see how hard was that those precise events never happened but the characterizations are deeply true why can he not say the same thing about Cain and Abel or about Exodus I mean just compare these two responses when I read something like a novel by Dostoevsky I think well is this true and the answer is well those precise events never happened when I look at a story like Cain and Abel I think well the question did that happen begs the question what do you mean by happen because when you are dealing with fundamental realities and you pose a question you have to understand that the reality of the concepts of your question when you're digging that deep are just as questionable about as what you're questioning for some reason when the fictional story in question is a scriptural story Peterson becomes unable to describe it as fiction in the way that he would describe literally any other meaningful but a historical story as fiction indeed he appears to become unable to string a meaningful sentence together at all when he's talking about this stuff if the Exodus is still happening then on the same justification that Peterson gives raskolnikov murdering aliona ivanovna is still happening too but that would be a ridiculous characterization of what fiction is and so if somebody asked me if the events of Crime and Punishment actually happened I'd simply say no okay next I want to give you a specific example of something which I think demonstrates how Jordan Peterson uses language in a deliberately vague and Elusive manner to support his strange claims about belief in God the specific example I'm going to give here is an incredibly bold claim made by Peterson in both his podcast with Jonathan pajao and with Lex Friedman Peterson claims in these clips that a prerequisite for being a scientist is having some kind of transcendent and deistic that is relating to a deity a god assumptions here it is in his own words and then I was thinking well what's the precondition for being a scientist and I thought well in some sense it's a deistic pre there's deistic preconditions because one of the things that characterizes scientists and this includes people like Dawkins who's a real scientist is that the scientist presumes axiomatically that there's a Transcendent realm outside the domain of epistemological theory okay so why is it then that to be a scientist you have to presuppose the existence of some Transcendent reality that is deistic in nature well let's listen to him explaining this to Lex Friedman do you believe in the Transcendent if you're a scientist and the answer is well not only do you believe in it you believe in it more than anything else because if you're a scientist you believe in what objects to your theory more than you believe in your theory now we've got to think that through very carefully so your theory describes the world and as far as you're concerned your description of the world is the world but because you're a scientist you think well even though that's my description of the world and that's what I believe there's something beyond what I believe and that's the object and so I'm going to throw my theory against the object and see where it'll break okay so Peterson has just described the process of scientific inquiry and he makes an important point which is that scientists spend more time trying to disprove their theories than really trying to prove them or at least they try to prove them by failure to disprove them science usually involves testing a hypothesis against things that might disprove that hypothesis so that if something does we can adapt the theory a quite straightforward observation but listen to how Peterson characterizes it and so I'm going to throw my theory against the object and see where it'll break and then I'm going to use the evidence of the break as a source of new information to revitalize my theory so as a scientist you have to posit the existence of the ontological Transcendent before you can move forward at all well hold on all a scientist needs deposit to do science is the existence of truths that we currently don't know about we have a theory or set of theories but there are lots of true things about the world that aren't encompassed by our theories so we have to take our Theory and test it against this unknown world to learn new things but Peterson opted to describe this unknown world as the ontological Transcendent so as a scientist you have to posit the existence of the ontological Transcendence but that's not justified at all I think Peterson is confusing epistemology with ontology epistemology is about our knowledge of things whereas ontology is about the way they actually are for an example of the difference if I flip a coin then epistemologically it could be heads and it could be Tails but ontologically speaking it of course has to in fact actually only be one of these things so this world of truths that exists outside of our current scientific description of the world maybe epistemologically Transcendent that is it transcends what we currently know scientifically but it's not ontologically Transcendent that is transcendent in the religious sense of actually transcending nature at least we have no reason to believe that remember Peterson is just talking here about truths outside of our current scientific theories so your theory describes the world and as far as you're concerned your description of the world is the world but because you're a scientist you think well even though that's my description of the world and that's what I believe there's something beyond what I believe but instead of just referring to this as the unknown or something Peterson decides to use the term Transcendent ontological Transcendent why if you ask me it's got something to do with the religious connotations of a word like Transcendence and so instead of just making a simple and obvious claim that scientists have to believe in truths that lie outside of our current understanding which of course they do science is literally the process of uncovering these truths as best we can Peterson decides to claim that scientists have to believe in the ontologically transcendent I hope you can see why this is misleading so why is Peterson making this mistake why is he suggesting that believing in truths that are outside of our current scientific description of the world requires believing in the ontologically transcendent well I think it might have something to do with something that we've just heard him say so your theory describes the world and as far as you're concerned your description of the world is the world here's the problem a scientist does not think that their description of the world is the world they think it accurately describes part of how the world functions indeed to be a good scientist at all a scientist has to understand that there does exist a world beyond their current scientific description to be explored and tested against so to say that a scientist thinks that their theory is the world in its totality is totally wrong and quite bizarre and even more bizarrely what I've just said is something that Peterson says himself right afterwards seemingly contradicting himself immediately so your theory describes the world and as far as you're concerned your description of the world is the world but because you're a scientist you think well even though that's my description of the world and that's what I believe there's something beyond what I believe so here is an apparent contradiction he says that to a scientist their description of the world is the world but then immediately says that a scientist will recognize that there's more to the world than their description of it make that make sense well this is why I think we get this strange Claim about scientists presuming the ontologically Transcendent because Peterson has claimed that a scientist's theory to them is the world then when a scientist considers things that currently lie outside of their Theory they must be considering things that are not of the world or in other words Transcendent in the sense that they actually transcend the world that's where I think he's getting that word from so I said a moment ago that he's using the word Transcendent just because of its religious connotations but here's another option maybe he really thinks that a scientist's theory is to them the entire world and so when they think of something outside of their Theory they're thinking of something Transcendent but that doesn't make sense either because of course to Simply recognize that something exists outside of our current description is not to recognize the ontologically Transcendent it's just to say that there are things about nature that we currently do not know that's it but Peterson actually responds to my objection here as follows this is a very complicated topic right do you believe in a Transcendent reality see okay now let's say you buy the argument I just made on the natural font you say yeah yeah that's just nature that's not God yes that is pretty much what I'm saying this world that exists outside of our current scientific description does not have to be God does not have to be Transcendent it can just be the rest of nature that we don't yet understand and then I'd say well what makes you think you know what nature is like see the problem with that argument is that it it already presumes a materialist a reductionist materialist objective view of what constitutes nature wait hold upon do you see what's just happened Peterson says first that scientists believe in something outside of their current theoretical description of the world I agree he then says that this has to be Transcendent and deistic I say well hold on why can't it just be nature and he says well can you prove that can you prove that it's just nature how do you even know what nature is well no I can't prove that but I never claim to be able to excuse me but I'm not the one claiming scientists have to be materialists you're the one claiming that they have to be deistic you're the one making the claim not me if I made the claim that scientists have to presuppose naturalism then yes I'd need to give some evidence for this but I'm not making that claim you're making the claim that belief in something outside of our current theories has to be for some reason Transcendent and deistic and can't just be natural you're the one who has to back that up so the first mistake that I think Peterson makes on this science and religion stuff is to confuse facts that are not currently encompassed by our scientific description of the world with ontologic quickly Transcendent truths but then he also as a second step and basically with no justification claims that these Transcendent truths have to be deistic in nature what's the precondition for being a scientist and I thought well in some sense it's a deistic pre there's deistic preconditions where the hell did that bit come from well for all my searching this is the best explanation that I can find from Peterson so as a scientist you have to posit the existence of the ontological Transcendent before you can move forward at all but more you have to posit that contact with the ontological Transcendent annoying though it is because it upsets your apple cart is exactly what will in fact set you free so then you accept the proposition that there is a Transcendent reality and that the that contact with that Transcendent reality is Redemptive in the most fundamental sense because if it wasn't well why would you bother making contact with you're going to make everything worse or better right so Peterson is clarifying that in order to do science a scientist must be motivated they must somehow think that by discovering new truths they're achieving some good or doing something worthwhile of course this is true in a sense in order to do anything we need a motivation to do it but Peterson insists that a scientist's motivation has to be that they'll be set free by it and that this will be Redemptive why would he choose these terms again like Transcendent I think that he's purposefully using religiously charged language to make his quite straightforward observation seem like it has religious significance where it in fact does not one of the most famous passages from the Gospel of John is John 8 32 then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free and of course Redemption is the key project of the New Testament so Peterson is using words that play on Christian themes but as I say I think he's doing this unjustifiably for example why does a scientist have to believe that science will set them free well this is something that Lex Friedman actually asks why does the contact with the transcendent Set You Free as a scientist because you assume that you assume I mean freedom in the most fundamental sense it's like well Freedom from Want freedom from disease freedom from ignorance right that it informs you but do you see how this is a bit ridiculous Peterson just said that it's because a scientist thinks that science will set us free from ignorance or inform us freedom from ignorance right that it informs you but what a strange way to phrase it instead of saying that a scientist thinks that science will inform us or increase our knowledge or something like that Peterson insists that science will set us free from ignorance there's nothing strictly wrong with using this phrasing it's a bit more poetic and pretty but here it's clearly being used in such a way as to suggest that science is religious in nature by making a not so subtle nod to the Bible same thing with Redemptive Redemptive in the most fundamental sense because if it wasn't well why would you bother making contact with you're going to make everything worse or better sure science can increase our well-being by curing diseases and the like but the word Redemptive seems like it's been chosen to inject religious imagery and if you don't believe me just think about it for a second imagine that I were on a road trip and I were reading a map and that map told me where to exit the highway and then I claimed that because this map informed me of something that I didn't already know the map didn't just inform me or help me direct my car no no the map Set Me Free from my ignorance after I contacted the ontologically Transcendent that is the directions that were outside of my knowledge and has been Redemptive in the sense that it's made things better for me I'm now going in the right direction that's right reading a map has deistic preconditions theistic preconditions because to read a map you have to believe that there exists the ontologically Transcendent that which is outside of your current description of the world and you have to believe that by engaging with it you set yourself free in a way that's Redemptive that's the idea that you're being sold here I really hope that you can see through it now the thing that Peterson is actually describing when he talks about how science works is about a straightforward and banal as my description of how a map works but just by dressing it up in this religious imagery he makes it sound a lot more profound than it actually is if you're not listening carefully and not only does he make it sound more profound he makes it sound more religious so just like when he describes fictional stories in the Bible as meta truths he's allowing himself to sound like he's committing himself to quite profound spiritual Supernatural and religious claims without actually doing anything of the kind all of this serves to obscure a truly straightforward and ordinary secular observation about how science Works behind a wall of religious imagery which intentionally or not is vastly misleading I mean let's put this argument First in Jordan Peterson's own terms and then in more straightforward language Jordan Peterson has given an argument that scientists must assume a Transcendent deistic reality and that's because a scientist Must Believe In A Transcendent realm outside of the world contact with which is Redemptive and sets us free now let's hear the same thing without the poetic terminology and without confusing a scientist's description of the world for the world Peterson argues that scientists must believe in truths not currently captured by our scientific description of the world and that uncovering these truths will make us less ignorant and sometimes allow us to improve our welfare such as in medical research that's it that is what he's argued and somehow this leads to deism I just don't see it this is why I think you have to be duly cautious when dealing with Jordan Peterson by subtly playing around with definitions and by using terms that aren't always strictly inaccurate but in highly unusual context he can begin making bizarre claims like you can't be secular in a museum are you looking at art yes well what makes you think you're secular then well scientists have to presuppose deism there's deistic preconditions or The Exodus is still happening they happened in a in a meta manner they're still happening I think that a good summary of where it is that Peterson goes wrong when talking about religion can be found in the following clip in which he considers whether the Christian logos that is Jesus himself is divine the Divinity of Christ well I would say the same problems with the question formulation obtained what do you mean by Divine and also what do you mean by Christ these are very very difficult questions now I believe that for all intents and purposes I believe that the logos is divine insofar as we if if by Divine you mean of ultimate value of ultimate Transcendent value yes it's divine but who does mean that by Divine I mean seriously when somebody asks if Jesus is divine they're clearly asking if he is God or at least god-like by simply redefining Divine to mean something more convenient and more secular Peterson can then say that the logos is divine but he's simply now talking about something completely different and something that isn't even Supernatural anymore in conclusion I think that we should stop allowing Jordan Peterson to get away with the vagueness of language that we wouldn't accept in any other context he's so loose with definitions and meanings when talking about religion that as Muhammad hijab points out he begins to sound like a post-modernist when I was reading your book you were talking about some psychological theory which I don't forget I forget what it is what it is right now you mentioned something you said this you know the problem with this such and such Theory is that it doesn't have any evidence full stop categorical all this what you're doing now you didn't mention that you didn't say well it depends on what you mean by this it depends on what you're sorry to say again but it depends what you mean by this it depends what you mean you become postmodern all of a sudden I mean just listen here to Peterson asking does God exist people say to me what do you do you believe in God and I think okay there's a couple of mysteries in that question what do you mean do what do you mean you what do you mean believe and what do you mean God and you say as the questioner well we already know what all those things mean except belief in God and I think no if we're going to get down to the fundamental brass tax we don't really know what any of those things mean you become a postponed all of a sudden just imagine that he was being asked about literally any other context say Dr Peterson do you believe that George Washington crossed the Delaware River in 1776. okay there's a couple of mysteries in that question what do you mean do what do you mean you what do you mean believe and what do you mean George Washington and you say as the questioner well we already know what all those things mean we don't really know what any of those things mean in any other context we would accuse Peterson of purposefully obfuscating the question in order to avoid giving a straight answer is that what he's doing here well that would depend on what you mean by is and that and doing but but yes probably yeah so Jordan Peterson seems to me to be an atheist I mean he thinks that God is a fictional character God is the ultimate fictional character and that religious scripture is true but only true in the sense that it contains a meaningful message that speaks to The Human Experience regardless of its historicity I just wish that in future he would take the advice of rule 10 and be a bit more precise in exercising this particular opinion I've been Alex O'Connor or Cosmic skeptic and this video took a great deal of effort and I couldn't have done it without my supporters on patreon especially my top tier supporters if you like my content please do consider visiting my patreon using the link in the description don't forget to subscribe thank you for watching and I'll see you in the next one

Channel: Alex O'Connor

Views: 675,259

Keywords: Alex O'Connor, cosmic, skeptic, cosmicskeptic, atheism, jordan peterson, faith, religion, christianity, bible, jonathan Pageau

Id: 5-yQVlHo4JA

Length: 43min 50sec (2630 seconds)

Published: Tue Nov 15 2022