But Did It "Really" Happen? | Alex O'Connor
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- Here is a clip from our most recent podcast with Alex O'Connor. In it, he and Dr. Peterson discuss the Bible through a historic and mythological lens, exploring how both are deeply intertwined.
Dr. Peterson's extensive catalog is available now on DailyWire+: bit.ly/3KrWbS8
ALL LINKS: linktr.ee/drjo...
// COURSES //
Discovering Personality: jordanbpeterso...
Self Authoring Suite: selfauthoring.com
Understand Myself (personality test): understandmyse...
// BOOKS //
Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: jordanbpeterso...
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterso...
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterso...
#JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus
Alex: but did it actually happen?
Jordan: Yesn't
Lol
Maybe an example that is illuminating would be a psychological trip in psychedelics whereby a person sees a snake squishing a person and removing what is symbolic "dark energy", and then the person being free of addiction. Did that really happen? Yesn't. One doesn't need to say that in the everyday sense there was a snake who did that or provide scientific compatibility with literal snakes in our everyday sense, and yet it wasn't merely a symbolic representation of a nothingness, it was the symbolic representation of an actuality which as lived in and had "real" effects. It would be odd to say nothing happened(lack of reality), or that because the snake was not like the biological snakes that it either wasn't a snake, or it wasn't. If asked, the person would probably say it did happen but not in the sense you are asking. Peterson probably sees the burning bush in such a matter.
@Phantom_madman Hahaha😂
😅😅😅
😂
*THERE IS A HIERARCHY OF MEMES*
Was looking for this comment lol
Philosoraptor memes are S tier
The ones on the top are Cat Memes.
I think it's called a "Tierlist"
@someguy4405/// yes indeed.
I live for the day when JP asks "what do you mean by "mean", EXACTLY?"
This was so damn good. I was blown away
lol
"It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is" - Bill Clinton
Technically?
He said it already in some interview
This kid must be certified brilliant. 25 years old and he's the first one to get JP to give an answer on this?? Crazy.
He’s a great RUclipsr
Nope. He's an artificially propped up atheist activist. No different than most "famous" people who push ideas most people dont buy
Uh, how so?..
He spews the same lazy technocratic, materialistic and fatalistic BS Dawkins and others do. He wants to be the next big smug atheist bullshitter that just says:
"No,"
"No"
"No" and
"No some more."
@@whynot1548 I was watching him before this
He’s one of the only ones who is genuinely willing to get JP to answer the question clearly and not mask it in the vague mystery that he has in the past
Ok, as a former evangelical I’m floored by JP saying “well I don’t think it really matters to people”. Excuse me? It definitely mattered to me. I really believed that all of the clearly non-symbolic stuff actually happened. And those beliefs had a huge impact on my life because I took it seriously.
I went into the ministry and later moved overseas to start a ministry because I believed the events in the Bible actually happened as described and it stoked my zeal to serve God. I sacrificed a lot, and I mean a lot, because I believed everything the Bible said actually happened. If I had believed that some of the most theologically pivotal events are symbolism, or archetypes, or what have you, I would have never ever done that.
But that’s the point, I used to believe while salvation is a free gift, being a real disciple of Christ is meant to cost a lot. You are supposed to pick up your cross, die to yourself every day, crucify the flesh, and be a servant (slave) to Christ. You have to love Jesus so much that you are ready to die for him. Why would anyone do that if they didn’t believe the events in the Bible actually happened? THAT is why it matters if it actually happened.
If you are just a Sunday Christian you have the luxury of this approach, but if you actually want to be the real deal and live like the early disciples, it demands everything of you. Again I speak from experience. People who've never been in the ministry just don't understand the load you carry.
When I was losing my faith I looked into this symbolic approach and progressive Christianity but it just seemed like more make believe than fundamentalism. Either shit or get off the pot. So I got off the pot. I had too much respect for that way of thinking to dull it down just because I wanted to cling to something I could no longer believe in.
Now I know that a lot of the church fathers interpreted lots of passages symbolically, but growing up as an evangelical it was drummed into me that unless it actually happened, it doesn’t really matter.
Anyways, people can believe what and how they want, but I guess still in my mind “real” Christianity actually means believing that when it says something happened, you believe it actually did. That’s why I find JP's saying "I don't think it matters to people" so staggering. Yes it matters a whole hell of a lot of people.
Myth became fact.
So you went from “im a sinner” to “im not a sinner”… i wonder why? It’s obvious why people deconstruct their faith, one is you never had the Holy Spirit and knew Jesus rose from the dead because if you did.. that doesnt change yesterday today and forever.
So it’s completely fair to say you never knew Jesus was risen 100% as a real believer. I hope you do..
@@jakeschwartz2514 It's certainly not fair to say that if you read what this man said, On the other hand, it's perfectly fair to say that you're just stuck in a delusion.
@@clintkantor Yes indeed. For as much as religious conservatives in the US talk about how much they love the Constitution and they love freedom, they often want to take away freedom from others because they can't stand other people "sinning".
@@paulbracken6216 Yes and it took me a long time to see that. I have a banger of a quote from Paul Tillich saved in my notes:
"Fundamentalism has demonic aspects, in that it splits the conscience of its thoughtful adherents and forces them to repress knowledge of which they are secretly aware. "
3:55 “I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.”
Exactly what I was thinking
"I have... things to do...." Puts hand in pocket.
@@Isabelle64449 can you explain that expression to my below 70 IQ brain
@@Frodo1000000 Peterson doesn't know Dawkins as much as he would like, but the little bit Peterson does know about Dawkins, Peterson (sort of) likes more than Dawkins deserves.
Not sure if that is what Peterson was trying to say there. I believe he's pointing out that he's more aware of Dawkins knowing things that he doesn't than the other way around. In other, blunter words, Dawkins could use some more humility.
@@MrD3000 Peterson knows about, how little he knows about Dawkins, more than how little Dawkins knows, how little he knows about Peterson. And so Dawkins assumes he knows everything about Peterson, while Peterson understands, he knows only a fraction of the underlying thought processes that Dawkins has, to accumulate his knowledge and worldviews. Which is not a good basis for an open conversation.
Alex is right. Dr.Peterson has a tendency to extrapolate to an extreme degree. When most people ask if he thinks something literally happened, they want to know if it really happened. If he doesn’t know, then just say I don’t know. Dr. Peterson is extrapolating to an extreme degree. It’s useful, and has opened me up religion long after I threw it out. Because he’s talking about it analogously and symbolically, it strikes a chord with me. But his intelligence is a barrier when being asked a simple question by simple people. He sort of answers, no one knows here, at least.
@@CarportCarl maybe. Maybe that plus 30-45 iq points. They’re certainly using their time more wisely than me right now.
@andrewwabik5125 I literally just said this in another video in a way less articulate way. As much as I love JP he can sometimes seem to over think or analyze things, and there comes a time where things become black and white enough for "you" to make a choice about what you "believe" (put faith in) and "trust" to be true. At some point even the greatest minds, like JP, have glossed over information for ages and came to different conclusions...
Dr Peterson, have you had lunch today? "Well that depends on what you mean by lunch"
@@CarportCarl I generally use my own discretion. I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school for 12 years. Anything horrible you can personally imagine is maybe a fraction of what that experience was for me.
In terms of religion in general, I see no proof (what I consider proof) in any of the religions I’ve looked into. Now, admittedly, I haven’t looked as hard as I probably should. I came to believe in God as “love”, in the entire sense of the word. I don’t see God as a man in the sky, or a law giver. I believe in God as the “spirit of truth”, as God says. I worship the god that I believe in by trying to follow my conscience, however hard that is. I do believe in an afterlife, but I don’t think God cares what your religion is. In my view, God cares what you’ve learned and how you treat others, as well as yourself. Another thing I believe in that’ll likely piss Christians off is that we get to come back until lessons are learned. I believe we set them ourselves.
@@O_ohuh that’s your truth. Just don’t stop questioning.
“Christians have a metaphysics that’s not Christian.” You can’t end the clip there!!
I agree. By far the most important utterance of the video...
In the full interview, that line of think doesn’t go any further. The point is merely that the Christians who are saying such things are not actually operating on Christian metaphysics when they do.
Don't worry, it didn't get any better.
He basically just throws Christians under the bus for a minute and then word salads back to lobster town.
Just for clarification, I think Peterson says: "Christians **who ask that** have a metaphysics that's not Christian." But yes....point still stands. You are correct.
Oh you mean bcs it is intrinsically of greco-roman origin? or avestan? or even vedic? or sumerian pagan? and on and on until we realize they all were just products of human imaginations.
Alex is my favourite atheist. I dont agree with him but i appreciate his approach to having a calm reasoned conversation.
Especially when talking to a lunatic that can't answer basic questions.
Every time JP talks, it reminds me of when Pinocchio is cornered by Prince Charming and refuses to speak plainly 😂
Hahahaa
Good one! hahaha
Truueeee😂
But did the events of Pinocchio really happen, yes or no answer plainly.
Me, the intellectual thinking for the first seconds of the video that they are discussing the culture of memes😅
They are. It’s just that the candified version is what is happening online and currently.
"Intellectual" is actually an insult, because they were despicable people. Reference "The Intellectuals" by Paul Johnson.
@@3vil3lvis who was despicable?
Me too.
me three.
Finally Alex is the only person who challenged Peterson's question where he says "What do you mean if it happened?". It's a straight forward question that implies whether what Bible claims historycally to happen actually happened!
But did he get an answer?😂
@@reeb9016 Yes he said "No, I don't believe it was real".
No. Thats wasn't an answer because he was contradicting what is in the word as he doesn't see it as real.
He answered these questions many times. But you don't hear his answer you just want to trap him in his words. If you BELIEVE it's real but do the sins they did in your life, you don't believe it's real. If you take them as an example of what will happen to those who live ungodly and repent then you believe it and you will be blessed. Is it real? You have to answer that for yourself. Jordan knows who he is.
It's a dumb question
Like Norm Mcdonald said: "these stories may not be factual, but they are true"
@@lonergraphics4087 R.I.P.
I would love to have seen a Norm Jordan conversation
Oh this one is factual just do a little digging and you'll see.
*WHY* do legitimate academics and authorities give *ALEXIS ZERO,* the *COMIC SEPTIC-TANK,* here, the time-of-day? (S)he's just a mouthy little denier with *NO* credentials/authority of "his" own. 😏
*WHY* do legitimate academics and authorities give *ALEXIS ZERO,* the *COMIC SEPTIC-TANK,* here, the time-of-day? (S)he's just a mouthy little denier with *NO* credentials/authority of "his" own. 😏
Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby. But these things don't matter at all, because once you are Real you can't be ugly, except to people who don't understand.
~ Margery Williams, "The Velveteen Rabbit"
the Velveteen Rabbit. Love it
Beautiful 🌿
good god that's profound for a childrens book
Real recognize real
Jesus said that unless you change and become like a child, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. I love how God hides the most beautiful gems in the small, unassuming places. As the saying goes, he uses fools and little children. 🌿🐇
for anyone scratching their heads when he said "meme" I found out the meaning:
The concept of a “meme,” as introduced by Richard Dawkins in his book “The Selfish Gene,” refers to an idea, behavior, or cultural practice that spreads from person to person within a culture. Memes can be thought of as units of cultural evolution, analogous to genes in biological evolution.
Thank you!
Alex is the brightest person I’ve seen amongst all these communicators
The real GadSaadismyDaad?
I'm more aware of the things he knows that I don't know than he is of the things that I know that he doesn't know.-JP
a puzzle for the ages
I mean...it's not a puzzle...it's a tongue twister but makes perfect sense lol @MsElke11
What a sentence, my people... What a sentence...
s/that he is/than he is/
try to follow it, and it flows just fine
Alex showed the patience of a saint. He couldn't ask Peterson anything without interruption after interruption.
Many seem to think it's ok to interrupt Alex. I've come to the conclusion that he brings out the excitement of conflict with people who have become comfortable sitting confidently in their own paradigm. He is threatening to a peaceful internal existence.
Alex's ability to calmly and reasonably debate people is a real breath of fresh air nowadays, compared to the ideologues of the modern day who interrupt and miscontrue what the other person says
Appreciate Alex asking him this.
I'd appreciate it more if Jordan gave him a straight answer
@@sametheremuircroft5975
It doesn't matter what answer he gives. That atheist doesn't want to hear the answers to his questions.
"Professing to be wise they became fools."
@@romulus3345 but he hasn't really answered the question. As a Christian, I can at least tell people what I believe without resorting to semantics, did it happen or not?
@@sametheremuircroft5975why? why would you assume Peterson should answer the way you do?
why? its a dumb question
The phrase 'Did it really happen?' has a meaning that is immediately obvious to anyone who uses language as a means of communicating thoughts to others. This is what language is all about. And for this to work, people need to agree on how thoughts in your head correspond to language constructs. If you deliberately ignore this, as J. P. seems to do, confusion arises.
Was Alex really born 25 years ago? Did it really happen? Or was he made an hour ago with fake memories about his past? There is no such a thing as really happened in the godless world of Alex. He can't even know if he's real or just a brain in a jar. Anything is possible. Alex is welcome to ask such questions after he solves the problem of solipsism in his worldview. Good luck with that!
@@MarkusGhambari Hm, my comment was about language as a means of communication and the fact that parties using it have to agree on how to do so. I fail to see how your response relates to that.
He is avoiding a corner. He does not want to go on record saying “god does not in the most base literal sense exist at all” He thinks saying that is counterproductive. I think he’s wrong. People can handle it.
I imagine Peterson feels similarly to a physicist being asked, "but did the ball fall?" when defending their thesis about modified Newtonian dynamics. Sure, they could answer "yes" but that won't help anyone understand gravity any better. Now, maybe you're suspicious that the physicist doesn't believe balls fall (but rather, the Earth moves up!), but you're asking this only because *you* don't understand what fall means. They can't answer an ill-posed question! The shortest honest answer they could give is somewhat like, "yes, but I think 'fall' is more complicated than you know."
It seems Jordan Peterson has repeatedly been asked the equivalent of, "but did the ball fall?" and the entire point Alex O'Connor had this discussion was to get to the bottom of this, so it's rather dense to be criticizing Peterson for this.
@jamescamacho3403 in relativity different observers can see things differently, but physicist have defined the concept of an event which all observers agree on. Whether the ball fell, or the ground rushes up, the ball and the ground collided, everyone must agree on that. Whether you claim something is literally true or metaphorically true matters, it's not sufficient to simple insist it's true in an undefined way. This ambiguity, when religious matters are imposed on children, leads to confusions because they don't have the mental faculties yet to make these obtuse distinctions
I think Alex was patient in trying to get Jordan to talk about historical plausibility behind the exodus, and I think Jordan needed to realize he was asking that, not asking about how exodus story survived and can be related today. I think alex was very patient to try to get Jordan to talk about the history specifically.
The issue is anything occurring thousands of years ago can rarely be considered "true", at least not in the scientific concept of truth. JP obviously cannot say, "yes it definitely happened". It's kinda stupid to even ask the question and it's obviously a gotcha question.
@@johnsmithers8913 No, it is him trying to understand if Jordan Peterson sees the story as something that is helpful and meaningful or if he really believes that the exodus as described in the bible is a true historic event.
or maybe Peterson was patient with Alex’s dumbass pigeon-holing irrelevant question - and was politely trying to love the conversation back to the relevant points he IS making rather than feed into Alex’s distraction
@@Peterdeskater100But Peterson doesnt discuss things for that purpose - so isnt Alex being a bit of a jerk?
I'm getting increasingly frustrated listening to JP as time goes on. I imagine sitting in a room with him when we hear a loud crash in the kitchen. I'd ask him if a dish fell and broke. I imagine he'd go on at length about how it's a pointless question as he tries to deeply analyze my motivation for asking such a thing, eventually terminating in me having no real answer. Dammit, it's MY question. It's not pointless to me or I wouldn't be asking. Why doesn't he understand the question the way I'm asking it?
"Did X really happen?" is akin to "did a glass break on the floor just now?" He doesn't seem to process the question properly, a question a kid would understand immediately, which is frustrating. Alex isn't being a jerk. Quite the opposite: He's very patiently trying to illustrate this problem of JPs to him, to get him to answer what just about anyone else would immediately recognize as a very simple yes or no question. JP is just not getting it. It's the very thing Dawkins complains about too.
Geeze, JP, just tell me if a glass broke in the kitchen. A kid would instantly know what's really being asked there. Why doesn't JP? If instead you ask me what I mean by "glass" or "floor" or what I mean by "broke" and launch into a several minute long thing about anything other than what I'm asking instead, ugh... Next thing you know he'll be asking what I mean by "mean." It's frustrating.
This has been my one hang up with Dr Peterson for years, and I mostly ignore it bc so much of what he says is brilliant. I have to think either he deliberately doesn’t give a straight answer to this because he doesn’t believe it actually happened and that would eliminate part of his religious audience, or he does believe it actually happened and that would eliminate a portion of his non-religious audience. He probably feels that giving a straight answer to these questions is a lose-lose either way and would distract from his core messages. My gut feeling is that he doesn’t believe most of the biblical accounts are historically accurate and I highly doubt he believes in the supernatural aspects such as resurrection and virgin birth. The Pangburn talks with Sam Harris were basically 9 hours of Sam trying to get Jordan to answer these questions directly and he wouldn’t do it. Honestly I don’t think it really matters what his private views are but it is a bit frustrating.
He answers the question all the time, even just in this clip.
The problem seems to be that it doesn't fit people's binary resolution. It's not either this or that. It's probabilities. Also it depends on the which part of the text you're reffering to. He's just far beyond most people. Must be frustrating for him as well.
or maybe he wants to keep bringing a message or powerful Biblical meaning to a broad and wide audience of people who have abandoned seeing any value in it. And such shallow questions only exist to reduce his message and purpose. Why would he want to be pigeonholed as a Christian author or thinker when that is not his goal for his work? The expectation he should pin this down when it is irrelevant to the points hes making is stupid
@@user-kt7rs4wf6uyeah, you’re a genius. good lord
Agreed
Can't bring a powerful Biblical meaning to anything if he doesn't have a biblical belief.
@1:32 Peterson doesn't know wtf Alex said. LMAO
😂😂😂😂
Please do a part 2, if you think it'd be productive and useful! I'm 26, and I've been watching Alex O'Connor's content since I was 16 and still in high school. You two clearly have synergy and rapport, despite your differing beliefs on religion. I think it'd be a great service for those of us who, in the words of your latest book, "wrestle with God." I never would've considered Catholicism or religious apologetics had it not been for the content that you both produce. Thank you both very much.
Really?
Alex O'Conner......that's ur guy? 😐
Now you know that you can be much more smart than the GREAT, the GOAT Jordan. Because YOU can feel and believe in Jesus and in your resurrection, and Jordan didn't believe yet. You are more smart than Jordan Peterson, what a beautiful life.
He seems to be very intelligent, polite, open to discussion.... if you're looking for a young person to admire, I can't think of anyone better than Alex.
@@eduaguiaro if you can recognise that Jordan is really smart, why not stop to question WHY a smart man like him doesn't believe in the historicity of Jesus, or in the idea of resurrection?
@@eduaguiaroits not very hard
He won't answer the simple historical question because a man as smart as him has to say no, since it's not possible to make a historical case here, but he's also aware of his massive Christian following and doesn't want to lose them.
Remember when he cried when the called him Rabbi?
Do you believe that genghis khan or napoleon existed ?
Yep, the reality is, god isn't real, so he falls to pieces on stuff like this
@@delver1857 explain to me your reality and prove that there is no god
I think any rational argument falls apart when you're talking about divinity. It's very easy to tear apart the contents of the Bible and find contradictions but it would be equally as easy to tear apart an attempted proof of the opposite. If you had to prove definitively that God does not exist and the onus was on you to provide the evidence, would you be able to? Certainly atheists have tried but most of their attempts only succeed to undermine Christian beliefs without providing "truth" in its place. It's easy to find problems but not easy to find solutions - and a solution is what we're all after.
1) I like Alex's super calm energy while maintaining his objective stance throughout the conversation.
2) I find that part laughable where Alex asked Dr. Peterson "But did it happen?" and he responded "Well what the hell does that mean?" as if he was trying to grasp the source of the intention of the one asking that question to see whether the question was meant to provoke him or if the questioner was genuinely curious about the certainty of the historical event.
3) How Alex was labelling Dr. Peterson's responses is the energy I need when I'm trying to be objective with my cognitive biases and blind spots haha
He actually gave a very clear answer it’s just he went into other things when finished. He fairly clearly said, “probably according to the historical evidence.”
Then why cant he just f*cking say that?
@@bkorodi1797 He literally said it, and he added important context. Wanting short answers to complex questions is shortsided.
@@bkorodi1797Peterson explains his reasons for not just saying that in this video. But even after hearing his reasons, I still think it’s been a bad call for him to refuse to do so for all these years. I’m glad we’re finally getting some clarity.
@@bkorodi1797 He did answer it. Just because it wasn't of the STRICTLY YES OR NO VARIETY doesn't some how make it wrong. He answered.
Getting Jordy to actually answer a question is a sisyphean task. Props, Alex.
Sometimes it boggles my mind that people so intelligent and verbose can spend so much time talking in circles.
I'm at minute 13 and they've just arrived at the conclusion that truth can mean different things. I don't understand why Jordan can't just respond to questions about truth in the Bible like your typical everyday citizen would. He obviously knows what is meant by the question, but it's like he tries to be purposely obtuse.
Maybe he should just respond to these questions with a deep explanation, rather than going on a rant that confuses everyone.
He's making a very important and subtle distinction and then acting like it's the most obvious thing in the world. Dude. People are not going to pick up on that. That's why you're here to teach them.
The comment I was looking for
He's trying to elevate Christianity beyond a point where it can even be criticized, reduce questions about biblical accuracy to absurdity... Like... we get it it's actually not nearly as deep as he tries to make it seem either. Someone who isn't trying to pull the hood over your eyes could explain it in a much more clear and concise manner. I could go ahead and learn all about the literary traditions of this and that so that I can properly appreciate the good book... What does it matter though? Even if he's right it does not provide a shred of substantiation for the literal existence of God, it's still every bit as unbelievable and preposterous to me as it was before he opened his mouth. If anything, the fact that you can't even so much as make statements about its literal truth value just serves as further evidence that it's a work of fiction. So why should I make the sacrifices religious systems would have me make? It's 2024, not 1204.
Alex is so cool calm and polite. So far all i see is jordans attempt to evade a straight answer using his usual tactic of trying to complicate the straightforward question.
The Word became flesh, and dwelt amount us. We got our metaphysics figured out just fine. It’s both and… really not as complicated a you want it to be, but at the same time completely mysterious to us and beyond our comprehension… miraculous. The relationship between God and man bridges the gap between the physical and the spiritual. It also transcends time and space. They are both true, and happen in concert with one another. You can’t have one without the other. Past, present and future.
Bang on . Couldn't have said it better myself.
Someday dreez28, you might know yourself as the world having become flesh and dwelling amongst us.
Exactly the problem with imprecise language. Anyone gets to create their own "correct" word salad
Who likes this hot shit over 50 times? This is meaningless drivel is chopraesque
I'm guessing that only the exact same God that you believe can truly bridge the gap?
Alex and Petersen go very well together, Alex pushes back with proper vigour and doesn't let him get away with little oversteps, (as we all do) But it's just really great lines of thought well executed
Love that Jordan has found his favorite jacket for all of his religious chats. He's all in.
Did he lose a bet ?
he needs one with just many images of salads.
Good reference! @@purefoldnz3070
Catholics present the material as actual FACT! You can not question it. That is the main problem I have with religion.
Well you cross them off your list. Only a few hundred denominations to go by this method. Or you can figure out what the bible actually says about which ones are false and which are Christian.
@@CarlWitherspoon-ni4rm it is all false. Not one once of proof. People are truly sheep. So easily lead. They will believe just about anything.
Of course they believe it's fact. Why would they believe in it if they didn't think it really happened? Why would you believe something if it has zero evidence? Why would the early church have persisted and thrived despite extreme persecution and lasted 2000 years if it was all a scam or built on lies?
It's not that you can't question it, it's that there's far more validity to these things than people realize.
I highly encourage you to look at Eucharistic miracles. This is where Catholic communion bread starts spontaneously leaking human blood. This has happened multiple times throughout the centuries, and even still in the modern day, even when current Pope Francis was still just a bishop in his own parish. The church has allowed these samples to be tested in labs, and what they find is it is indeed human blood of type AB from an Israeli male. Guess which Israeli male... :)
@@jamesoncross7494 Lack of proof is not the same as being false. If a person says "God doesn't exist", there is not an ounce of proof for that either. The concept of people being sheep is inherently Christian, so your assertion of such would suggest that you also share at least a part of the Christian beliefs.
Great discussion! Appreciate the distinction between memes and archetypes. Finally articulated what felt like it was missing. Also, the truth vs survival!
Why do I feel as if people who enjoy discussing whether there is truth in religion are wildly being taken over by those who are fanatically FOLLOWING their actual RELIGIONS!
What distinction? They were equivocated
Peterson has needed to be called to task on a few things. "Really happened" has definitely been one of those. Hehehe. I thought Fry might've done this when he was on, but I suspect he was being polite to his host. He would be another guest I would love to have back.
'Do you think it really happened?'
Yes.
Okay, but what do you mean by “yes”?
Thank you
@@lemasteraustin12 what kinda d*mb question is that?
Jesus died on the cross...? The bible is history regardless of what anyone thinks about it. I rather know the bible then anything because it's a endless story that we need to revisit it often.
Magic isn’t real. It’s time to grow up.
Haven't seen much of his content but from this it would seem Alex is really well-spoken. He knows what to push and he knows how to listen.
Alex is the kind of interviewer who always brings out the best in the people that he interviews.
As an enjoyer of his content, I highly recommend you checking him out. He gives excellent views and perspectives on important issues, and he always probe the opposition to give precise answers without coming off as condescending or confrontational. On this topic, you should watch his old critique of JP, a very interesting watch!
I bet u think anyone with an accent is "well spoken."
@@whynot1548 "i BeT u" listen to yourself. Can't even take someone else getting a compliment.
The thought process both of them are capable of, is amazing. I can see it in their eyes. They are way above my level.
You can reach their level if you put in the work
Same here.
@@HIMMBelljuvonot me lol. But I appreciate watching people like Alex. He has an amazing way of putting concepts across in a simple way for someone like me to understand!
@@DrenwickificationAnd that’s really dangerous. And treacherous. Read my friend, the most you can, then nobody (not me that’s a fact), will need you to explain you something for you to understand it. And you will need nobody in the same sense.
One of them is not that way above you, trust me. Peterson also had this “phase” and start to telling himself “shut the f up, that’s a lie” and he had to “burn” everything he believed it was true but knowing it wasn’t. 98% “of his thoughts”, he says. Not making this up.
“Why do you think it matters to people”??? 🤦🏼♂️
Something either “actually happened in history” or it didn’t actually happen. There’s no middle ground. I’ve always been a fan of your work in Psychology, but this is just embarrassing for you JP. This is the type of postmodernists gibberish you so often rail against. I thought your conversation will Dillahunty made you look silly (God is real because some guy quit smoking) but this exchange in particular has really upped the ante. There’s no historical evidence outside of the Bible (which is the CLAIM) for the Jewish exodus. Props to Alex for trying to drag him back to clarity.
That's a bold claim for someone who has never studied the archaeological record outside of a few Google searches.
@@xiaoliu7071
I’m appealing to the consensus of experts that HAVE studied the archeological evidence moron & if there was evidence outside of the Bible (any type of evidence) surely you can’t point me to it right?? I’ll hold my breath… 🤦🏼♂️
@@xiaoliu7071 that's a bold claim for someone who doesn't know anything about the person they replied to
you're right that something either did or didn't actually happen, but the middle ground I guess would be trying to prove which of those two options is true.
@@theslugboiii5969
I disagree. There is no middle ground with respect to the historical & archaeological evidence. Either the evidence points to the conclusion or the null hypothesis is that it did not happen especially if appealing to anything novel that we don’t any empirical evidence for: magic, mythical creatures, ghosts, demons, Gods, spirits, etc.
Sam Harris said something like this to JBP: "I've been debating this with you for years now, and I *still* don't know what you actually believe..." And JBP still dodged on what he actually believes.
And I don't even mind that at all. Call it belief. *Don't* call it truth.
maybe you dont know what is meant by truth.
And yet JP has answered the question many times. Not understanding his answer doesn't give you ground to accuse him of not answering.
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue I can tell you have some obscure esoteric elusive definition of truth.
@@thegrunbeld6876 how so?
@@MegaMerdeux Not directly he hasn't. And as we can see here, in his discussions with Harris, etc...he's almost delighting in not answering directly. He's being deliberately evasive. O'Connor does the best I've ever seen at not getting frustrated w JBP to the point of basically just giving up.
JBP is really coming across as a guy who's done way too much acid, experienced way too much different stuff, expanded his brain too much in ways that we mortals just can't understand, etc that it's hard to have a conversation with him. Substitute "acid" with "decades of internalized intellectual rabbit holing", and I think here's where he's ended up.
It's quite frustrating to try to follow him nowadays. He's not more brilliant. He doesn't have better insight. He just seemingly refuses to be direct on questions like these, insisting on stunning "so open minded your brain falls out" levels of open-mindedness. Except when he's being the exact opposite...incredibly direct and *closed*-minded. Climate change, Trudeau, and several other topics on which his mind is just made up and the venom is evidence of that. It's a really weird Jekyll and Hyde dichotomy. Too direct on some topics vs, whatever the polar opposite of direct is.
My favorite part is when a man who can't even publicly state "I believe that Jesus is God" or "I believe in God" generally, then tells me as a Christian what is wrong with me asking a very straightforward question. If every single human conversation went as Jordan thinks it should in his mind, we'd all be standing there with our brains whirling like dial up modems trying to find the best way to ask if we're hungry or not until we all starve to death.
It doesn't NEED to be this complicated. Did the Jews historically leave Egypt? Yes. Did the bush Moses heard God's voice through actually appear on fire? Yes. How do I know? The Bible tells me this happened and I have no reason to believe that: 1. it's not historically possible (because it hasn't been proven to be impossible, at the least) and 2. it's not metaphysically possible, because if I believe that God came into the world as a man through a virgin birth, performed miracles, suffered, died, went to Hell, came back, and rose to Heaven, I sure as hell can accept a burning bush.
Like come on, man.
It needs to be complicated if you have any hopes of winning large numbers of new converts. JP’s psychological-evolutionary approach to Christianity is far more palatable to modern audiences than “It’s true because the Bible says so”.
@@thylabyrinth The only people who try to convince you of the truth of Christianity because "the Bible says so" alone are modern Protestant denominations. Catholicism is the fullness of the faith, intellectually rich, and the arguments for our faith abound. My point was I believe x simply because it's written, but in light of zero evidence to currently prove the contrary, having faith because the Bible says so - and I have ample reason to trust the Bible - is in fact good enough. What Jordan will bring is a bunch of converts to accept the abstract ideas of Christianity as "sort of" true, while rejecting them at the same time. Did the resurrection ACTUALLY happen, or "sort of" happen, for example? If we make everything into some abstract symbol that can be broken down into a "Jungian archetype" then we lose what God actually did for us behind some faux intellectual nonsense. God really and truly did die on the Cross and rise again for us. There needn't be more to it than that.
He is a public figure. He can't just say yes I believe, because he understands that everyone is out to get a soundbite from him with a gotcha question. Besides, his questioning of the word belief is a legitimate one, since belief requires proof. A statement like I have faith in God, or I know God exist is a better statement than I believe.
Cant wait 70 years from now when some person hears for the first time about Peterson and goes about looking into him and then is greeted by his suits. Love it!
I was raised as a Catholic in Spain and I learnt that the only difference between something really happening or simbolicallly happening was the convinience of the Priest. Mary, the mother of Jesus was REALLY a virging and Jesus REALLY died for our sins, but the words "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”… Those where just SYMBOLIC. It strikes me that this is JP strategy.
Huge congrats to Alex for navigating Jordan's angry and irritated disposition so masterfully. So much so that he manages to extract a near actual answer from him! Jordan is exposed here to be really quite ridiculous and evasive over the topic of whether events historically took place or not. He is intelligent enough to be able to parse his answer into 1) "I don't know" and 2) "this isn't the most important aspect of this though".
The world needs more conversations between these two.
Yes it did really happen. -Paul
Citation needed
@@johnjameson6751
APA Style (4th ed.)
The Holy Bible: King James Version. 1995 (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
Сору
If the poster is St Paul, my response is Paul you were not there and are relying on a hallucination that you had which is an extremely unreliable source, in fact nowadays if people have hallucinations and keep insisting they are true they tend to be locked up.
@@kevinbateman9929which his men had as well? Didn’t know collective hallucinations was a thing
Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.
John 20:29
Does that rule go for anything? Like, you should believe things without being critical? It sounds like madness.
Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe, so long as by pure chance the thing you’re believing without evidence happens to be good and true, otherwise you’re really going to wish you had required evidence
This is one of the best conversations I've ever seen with peterson... This needs to happen more.
Alex O'Connor is one smart man ! Also good to see Jordan not getting angry and projecting it that ive seen so many times .
This is one of the most important questions to nail down with Dr. Peterson and Alex has done a fantastic job at it!
Very interesting discussion .. thank you.
However, respectfully, Dr Peterson should really make an effort to come down to our level, the rank and file and communicate (give and receive understsnding) at that level.
Sometimes, simple questions require simple answers (no matter how complicated the subject may be) .. however onerous they may seem to them being asked to give a response.
I'm afraid that I'm starting to think that the problem isn't that he needs to "come down to our level" but that he is being deliberately cagey and refusing to be nailed down to any position, almost to the point of dishonesty. I'm afraid he wants to have his cake and eat it, too.
@@tammyschilling5362 This is my assessment as well as someone who has listened to him as well. I believe that he is a man who unwilling to truly take a hard stance on Christianity and truly come to Christ due to the implications (i.e., he can no longer idolize his intellect, he must give up control of his life, he may lose subscribers, etc.)
And then we have the issue where simplyfying the answer causes people to misunderstand. "Peterson declares God isnt real!" "Peterson admits he believes in Jesus!"
It solves nothing because then we have to get the clarification we removed in simplifying things.
I'm a Christian and some of the most brutal people are Christian, Peterson doesn't want to take any leap and I get it.
Maybe he just has realized that you aren’t “owed” the kind of simple “hard stance” explanation you seem to want from him, and that no one else is owed that either.
There's an old saying: "He who wants to obscure the truth muddies the water."
Nietzsche
@@EstatesOfMinds I'd like to think that was my "old" saying, but it does sound Nietzhean. I'm a big fan, and he certainly influenced me greatly, but I don't recall N saying that exactly. Could be wrong. N inspired my short story (PARABLES AND PARADOXES) BEHOLD THE MAN: " Blessed are those who satisfy their own hunger, for they shall never go without..
Alex: but did it really happen?
JP: what do u mean by really? what do u mean by happen?
The argument that say Dawkins isn't qualified to talk about religion because he hasn't studied x, ignores the fact that 99.9% of believers haven't either and the vast majority do have a simplistic level of belief.
I love conversations like this. Very fun.
It was a simple yes or no. Do you think this happened is a pretty simple question.
it's true.
I absolutely love that Dr. Peterson has chosen to "Wrestle with God". His study into the deep weeds of the text, has really helped me enjoy Christianity again. The world seems to be collapsing into dakness, and these types of talks, help me see that proverbial "Light at the end of the Tunnel"
I'm glad someone is finally pushing him on this. Yes, the archetypes matter. Yes, it applies to this day. Yes, to say whether or not something happened does have nuances.
But the promise of Jesus's message is that it is for everyone. Not just the intellectual elites. Not just those who can parse out all of the different themes and nuances while applying them both to the story of the past and the story of the present. It is for even the simplest of simpletons. And to dismiss their question as irrelevant is to miss, in many ways, the very heart of what Jesus has offered
To Alex’s point, you have a guy like L.A. Marzulli (known as one of the Godfathers of his niche with ancient biblical history) who actually goes to ancient historical sites and/or megaliths where he SEEMS to collect actual evidence of some of these biblical stories being true/historical. For example, he personally owns multiple elongated human skulls that have been professionally analyzed. It lines up with the giants in the biblical stories. Then he also visits the people groups and learns about the ancient histories around ancient architecture that would SEEM to be far more advanced than an ancient civilization with almost no technology would put that much effort into building/ is even possible for them to do so. Some people groups, like the Aztecs, admit that they didn’t build a number of ancient structures, but they just came across them and chose to inhabit them. Now whereas this doesn’t automatically prove everything, the correlations are ASTONISHING! (In my opinion). So to back Alex’s point here, if Jordan Peterson looked more into this kind of evidence that Marzulli presents in his channel and conferences in particular (which are both here on RUclips), he might be able to make up his mind on this question for once! Whatever his decision was at that point is his alone to make, but he would be making a much more informed decision on the topic
JP is a smart guy. Smart enough to not believe in Christianity, and smart enough to know it’ll hurt his $ if he tells his audience he doesn’t believe.
Im sure JP had a blast talking to Alex. Hopefully the first of many talks 🙂
I certainly hope so. This is the first time I think I've ever seen Jordan so apprehensive and defensive. He clearly had 'shields up' during this. I didn't see that kind of respect for who he's being confronted by for anyone else that I can think of. Alex is a very clear, articulate and focused speaker. This was almost like watching a chess match.
O'Connor is still a very shallow thinker and I know his fatal flaw because it is exactly what I studied as a psychologist. It's the inability to surrender control so as to allow anything else besides his already shaped conclusions. It's an insurmountable confirmation bias which points to a very strong Left hemisphere in control. Just like Dawkins and Harris. They are both Left hemispheric dominant which makes them blind to the bigger picture (which Kierkegaard definitely nailed). Harris's case of Left hemispheric pathology is so profound that he stated that he'd preferred Biden over Trump even if the former had chopped children parts in his basement which is bonkers and got ridiculed for that absurd statement - as he should. It was ridiculous.
@@markd3250 Not sure I saw shields up, I genuinely feel like he had loads of fun. Just look at how many times he actually smilled and laughed during the conversation. He was being pushed, pushed to think deeper and explain more clearly, and that is hard, but I think he enjoys that. I felt zero combativeness between both, and Im pretty sure JP will speak to Alex many many times in the future. They will become good friends for sure.
@@silverfox8484 Combat? No. Competitiveness? Yes. It was like a tennis match between two very capable players. Jordan is always 'deep' thinking. What I saw was Alex trying to get him to prioritize meaning into one frame at a time instead of the whole movie. It was very entertaining to watch, and I hope they get together again.
I so badly want J Peterson to listen to R.C. Sproul's "The Consequences of Ideas." Not for discussion, not for content but just for his own personal enjoyment. I really found Sproul's treatment of philosophy helpful for my own understanding of reality.
The reason this is an important question is that Jordan Peterson is appealing to a version of truth, but unwilling to commit to it. If the Bible is true in every sense, then we have a correspondence view of reality, if not then we have a cohesive view of reality.
He’s arguing against an atheist, subjective cohesive view with a biblical worldview but stops short, like Dawkins and memes. He’s arguing counter points for his own secular objective worldview, appealing to a biblical objective worldview.
I imagine the majority of listeners, who don’t have a scrupulously methodical and argumentative mind, highly experienced and efficient through clinical practice, and extensive academic background, will not be able to comprehend the high level of thinking and epistemic structuring of argument, which makes JP’s arguments comprehensible, logical, and innovative. If you have flat concepts, single dimensional thinking, and no substantial intellectual background, you won’t notice the pedigree of JP.
There is much respect between these two and you can tell they are doing everything they can not to offend each other with their challenging questions.
A true interaction of people of different thought.
The Atheist / religious debate is very repetitive.
I agree.
All debate subjects are repetitive past a certain point
The answer is no. Jordan does not believe the literal claims to the supernatural of the Bible. He only believes in their psychological significance, their usefulness to society and MAYBE he believes in God, but certainly not in the claim that Yahweh is literally that God and Jesus is literally his incarnation.
He might believe the kind of thing where God is the universe itself as such we are all "incarnations" or "avatars" of God seeing as we are made of the matter of the universe, Jesus included, he just happened to be a more enlightened incarnation of God more in tune with some specific aspect of an underlying greater will. Aspects that Jordan Peterson aligns with, greater good, certain morals and that type of jazz.
@@Cobbido Yes, I suspect Peterson is a Pantheist as well. Specifically, a Gnostic.
well, not so sure about the resurrection of Jesus, which is a supernatural event. He suspects that it is a historical event and that it literally was very possible to have happened, go and watch the whole video brother. Alex: "If there was a camera at the Tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, would we see a man walk out? JP: I suspect yes" Start at Minute 25 in the interview.
The problem is that people are trying to understand spirituality through materialism because they don't actually know the difference. Supernatural does not mean magic and super powers. Those are Hollywood/materialist depictions of the supernatural.
@@Zevelyon You know certain gnostic texts like the Gospel of Mary are written around the same time as The Gospel of John (100 AD)? According to most scholars, the gospel of john has as much historical relevancy as a gnostic text, which is why they reject it entirely and rely on the "Synoptic gospels." They also reject the notion it was written by John, just as they reject the notion that apostles were the authors of various gnostic gospels. So gnosticism has about as much historical validity to it as mainstream Christianity, which is to say, not allot.
"was JFK the president?"
JP: "he still is"
Yep, still happening 😂
The reason this question matters for Christians is because Christians feel concern for the salvation of big celebrities. That’s “point blank” why the question matters to them.
And it’s not a bad desire, since it’s born out of desiring goodwill for the celebrity, but often I wish Christians could simply appreciate Jordan for this new branch of psychological theology that he has blessed us with. Peterson has single-handedly expanded our understanding of the Bible from angles we hadn’t noticed before.
As a Christian myself, Peterson’s work causes me to praise God even more; to me, it’s a visible synchronicity of God working across time, sort of like leaving His fingerprint on the Bible. And for non-believers it causes them to become very intrigued with the Bible.
And Peterson understands that he functions best when he stays in that lane, unpacking the psychological significance.
Whether Peterson will ever “believe”, Peterson has made it very clear that it is none of our business, because it detracts from what he’s meaning to tell us. Any orderly Christian should respect him by no longer annoying him with that question and simply pray for him privately.
Peterson is already aware of all the reasons to believe; he’s even surrounded by believers within his own immediate family. So, now just simply pray for him, Christians.
If Christians want the historical veracity of the Bible to be widely known, there are already many great Christian apologists and also Bible archaeologists. You can make them famous by watching and commenting on their content, and then the RUclips algorithm will push their content more. But Peterson won’t be that person for you, at least that’s what it looks like to me.
most sane Peterson commenter
I would argue that the “did that really happen” question matters so much to people is because THESE STORIES ARE TOLD TO TINY LITTLE CHILDREN AS IF THEY WERE UNDENIABLE HISTORICAL FACT.
To pay the devil his due, the Christians concerned with his salvation are concerned because they already appreciate what he has brought to the table. It's why they pay attention to him at all.
People worship God for their own selfish reasons. Everybody wants to go to Heaven. Humans are selfish by nature. Self preservation is a natural trait in humans.
What the heck does anything in this discussion have anything to do with celebrities? Do you seriously think Peterson has celebrities in mind while answering questions about God?
The reason a lot of Christians ask this question is because what they are trying to ask is, _"Is the Bible a verbatim account of past events?"_ Now, you might ask "Verbatim from whom?" You might say "verbatim from those who lived the events." You might say "verbatim from those to whom the events were recent history." But the "yes"es and "no"s to those questions are not what Christians are interested in.
They want to know _"Is it a verbatim account from God?"_ Is it "God's Word"?
This is also why people ask _"Do you believe in God?"_ or _"Does God exist?"_ Because it's a prerequisite assumption to the above questions. Now, you also might ask what people mean by "believe" or "exist." And what they are asking is "Do you believe that God is a person with whom you will be able to speak face to face some day, just as you and I are doing now?" Is He someone from whom there can be a verbatim account of His words? Because these are key tenets of Christian theology.
They want to know how closely you relate to them. Mostly because they love and admire you, and want for you to go to heaven. But also because they think these beliefs will enrich you in this life.
No. I would ask because I want to know what motivates his theology. If he's a believer, I am more likely to take his theological teachings seriously. Since he is not a believer, I take his theological teachings with a grain of salt.
Christians should just read Qur'an then
@@yesenia3816 I would want to know, because if he actually believes in the supernatural, I’d take his lectures about religious matters far less seriously, as I would with anyone who believes Zeus, fairies, Allah, etc..
The layers and depth of assumed meaning that allows us to flow effortlessly through our daily lives is astounding. Which is why we need deep thinkers like Dr. Peterson and Mr. O’Connor to hit pause on assumptions and dive down to first principles. Would be too inefficient and exhausting to do all the time but worth examining still.
Diving down is the only way to be sure that what you are standing upon is unshakable. It must be done fervently, consistently, and openly. Otherwise you build upon shifting sand and could waste your life and the lives of those you lead from some future clarification that destroys all you strive for.
Mr. O'Connor is still a shallow thinker. He's a Left hemisphere powerhouse (which means analysis and then more analysis about details and then some more details!). That IS exhausting and at the end of the day futile. Kierkegaard had done the same but with the philosophical freedom (open mindedness) to arrive to his "leap of faith" conclusion. O'Connor just isn't comfortable with surrendering control. That's a psychopathology I'm quite familiar with.
Pretty simple stuff, as your faith in Jesus strengthens, it becomes more difficult to deny that Exodus happened. But Dr. Peterson answers this perfectly. From a logical perspective, he mentioned that some parts are verifiable and others, not as much. But what most people tend to do is lean more on one side and completely disregard the other side. But he's clearly paying full attention to both sides, taking the texts for what it is and not forcing his beliefs on the texts. Definitely watching the full episode.
Jesus is alive and there is only one way of finding that out, speak to Him with reference and fear and He will show you, keep on seeking and asking Him.
If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, then does that mean Mary is the mother of God and therefore the true God?
Alex is dangerously Brilliant, i'm glad my generation has a mind like his.
He does seem to be quite an exception in being able to follow through on conversational prompts and queues. As well as following through on clarification.
Also fortunate to discover his talent very early on and refine his verbal skills.
This makes sense now. People might think he’s still avoiding the question, but he’s not. You can see it when he talks about the word “real” and is very careful to choose the right words. And he talks about truth and articulation being moral imperatives, which to him is a kind of worship. To him, all words should carry the weight of their complete thought. I think what he means is something like this: he does not like to define God in terms that apply to the physical world. When someone asks him that, he’s assuming THEY mean it like that. To him, God is not “real” in the same way a table or a chair is. To say God is would be speaking untruth, the opposite of what a Christian should do. God is not flesh, not bound by spacetime and he’s the source of thought and language, so such words don’t explain him accurately. To Peterson those that try to aren’t truly living up to those moral imperatives and thus he would conclude that he’s more christian than they are.
But in times past, in this interview and others, if you ask him the right questions, with a clear respect to his emphasis on language and truth, he will answer in a way that I think answers people’s questions. One person asked him would there be a God if humans didn’t exist. Good question. He responded with he’s not sure how to answer that. Then he’s expressed emotional reactions towards what he deems to be “miracles” such as when he and his family recovered from illness. He knows they are real (truthfully occurring) in a way but doesn’t know how to answer why or how they happen. Then in this interview he expressed that the events of the Bible, as mythical as they seem, are plausible (and in the case of Jesus’ resurrection “likely”) to have a basis in being historic events that actually occurred and are the source of what the myths are predicated on.
As a student of Jung and Campbell however, the lessons these stories teach carries more value then whether or not the events occurred historically just as they are written and so his certainty doesn’t go much beyond that and he’s candid that he’s not at the point where he can explain what those things mean, how they happen, and why they happen.
If you were determined to categorize him and put him in a box, he could be considered more Christian than a lot of folks that go to church today. I myself have heard churchgoers themselves say the Bible is more metaphor than even Peterson claims here. And these people along with their social circles are confident enough to call themselves Christian.
However, if you took the Bible at face value, and looked at how IT defines a Christian. Not just someone who has respect and tries to follow Jesus example’ as best they can but who also expresses faith and confidence that there is a God being who is the origin of humanity and acted through a real Son, then you would consider Peterson something of an agnostic.
A hybrid term might also be more fitting. A Christianized-agnostic. One thing seems certain. He isn’t an atheist. This interview will hopefully be a step in the right direction of people knowing the right line of questioning when dealing with this topic with Jordan. Questions like “is God just a product of human thought and innovation or are humans the product of God’s thought and innovation?” “If I time travelled back to the time of Moses when he was a shepherd would I see a burning bush along side him and hear a voice coming from it?” “Do you think Jesus thought it’s enough to believe in his words on conduct, but only believe his miracles as being “plausible”?
Awesome interview. Jordan was more clear this time. Hopefully people are able to understand his views better now.
What I would love to *finally* see is Peterson, along with other "New Atheist" rehashes like O'Connor, grapple with the centuries old established metaphysics of the church and deal with church intellectual greats like Aquinas. There is no "Christian metaphysics", there is sound metaphysics.
Such an enjoyable watch. Thank you!
I honestly knew this was Jordan’s position months ago, but he articulated it better than I could.
I appreciate his honesty and humility to say he doesn’t know but also challenge believers. I hope he finds a more conclusive someday soon.
Alex is going to make one great Christian apologist one day.
Seems unlikely. He has been earnestly looking for any evidence of god for a decade and has found none.
Nah he is too smart to be a Christian 😂😂😂..
Amen, he will!😂
imagine he gets a Paul'd moment where Jesus just reveals Himself to Alex lol would be a sight to see
It's always suprising how much disagreement simply stems from a difference in defining words. I would argue close to the majority of disagreements overall have to do simply with differing definitions of words.
But that's because worldviews differ. It's much more than just definition of words. It's a microcosm of trying to argue with someone crazy about a rock when the crazy person sees a tree.
Trying to get a straight answer from him is like trying to “grab” water with one hand.
I think he answered. He doesn`t know what historically happened and it actually doesn`t matter, it doesn`t decrease the value of the message.
The irony is that his answers are probably in the top 0.1% of the most straight answers, but people can't see it because they don't have his high level of resolution.
perhaps you’re demanding he hand you water when thats not the offer to begin with
@@Jordy_NL No they are not. Why can't to the question "Do you believe resurrection happened?" respond "I don't know but i still think that the bible is the right way to seek patterns to live your life" and instead starts questioning the definition of truth. He just doesn't want admit to the public that he doesn't believe because a lot of his audience is religious
@@chilldude5456 That souds like a fine answer to me if that would be your answer.
But dr. Peterson has his own answer.
The point was if his answers were straight forward, which in my opinion they are. Wheter you agree or not is a different question.
It can be hard to grasp why Jordan doesn't like questions like that, but I think he's right the way he responds.
Because the questions are too low in resolution.
the question is designed to pigeon-hole and diminish his discussion. He in not talking about its historicity. So its an irrelevant question. Hes not your pastor
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue The question is designed to learn whether or not JP thinks certain biblical events are literally true or not. That's all. Alex explained that. For some reason this type of question isn't allowed and never gets a simple, straight answer that's comprehensible to simpletons like me.
A question like "did Jesus literally come back to life?" shouldn't have to be phrased with any more careful precision than that for the question to be understood properly, and to get a quick, straight answer. That's a "yes" or "no" question when coming from Alex, Dawkins, or a zillion other atheists. Most Christians will also answer it immediately with a yes or no (or maybe an "I don't know"). This is what Alex was trying to explain to JP: JP appears to not understand what's really being asked when these kinds of questions come to him. I'm not the only one who finds it frustrating and off putting. Notice how Alex has to continuously rephrase his questions in more and more detail just to get JP to even understand what's being asked. These are questions any rando off the street would instantly recognize and be able to answer with one word. Not every question is deep or profound or has nuance requiring 15 minutes of analysis and disassembly.
"Was there a burglar in the hallway?" A simple yes or no will do, thanks. 🙄
If instead you ask what is meant by the question or what the "real question behind it all" really is, or you launch into a 15 minute lecture about what it means to be a burglar or what it means to be "in" a hallway, or otherwise require several minutes of clarification to make it clear what's even being asked there, there's a problem, and that problem isn't on the end of the person asking about the burglar.
@@toddwasson3355 but nothing in Peterson’s mission or message is about history or historicity of the Bible.
So the questions is really designed to be hostile, irrelevant and douchey.
There are plenty of reasons to question motivation.
1. Peterson isnt a pastor or teaching history or making any claim of historicity
2. his message is ALWAYS about meaning.
3. He freaking talks about meaning in Pinocchio. Is Alex gonna ask him if he thinks that’s real or not? of course not. Obviously the question is around Alex’s own obsession and mission to strawman the Bible and pigeonhole Christians than it has ANYTHING to do with any point Peterson HAS EVER MADE.
4. Petersons message is about bringing meaning back to the Bible in a low-thought unserious culture that has lost in moral underpinnings - the largest of those underpinnings: Biblical respect, knowledge and meaning.
5. He is not an evangelist and not trying to turn people into believers. He is trying to show the value and meaning of the Biblical text.
So what good is the question than to distract from all the things Peterson talks about!!!
He doesnt want to be an evangelist.
Or a pastor.
He doesnt want to be a Christian philosopher.
He wants to bring the value of the Bible to the whole culture, even non-Christians. As they too can grow up, mature, and learn a little from the Bible, even without belief in the historical events or even religious importance of it.
That Alex wants to be so reducing as to pigeonhole and diminish Petersons purpose by asking him the unrelated - is immaturity and maliciousness on Alexs part.
Dude went from mid to low end with this one.
And atheists create the largest problem.
THEY are the ones that turn any belief in the event actually occurring into “but-God-not-real-doh” or “you-cant-prove-dat-doh.” So why would Peterson want to do the Dillahunty dive into “where-dah-evidence-doh.”
Peterson doesnt address such things and never has. He is about MEANING.
It is the atheist who say: do you have any non-religious texts that confirm the resurrection.
But since they label any text that declares the resurrection happened as religious - they define away the possibility.
If anything labeled as “believing” can be disregarded and pigeonholed in such a way - why would Peterson discuss this when that is not his point, his message, his expertise, his goal????
Its just Alex’s goal to fallaciously disqualify him as a “believer.” So screw Alex.
Its a dumb question, its stupid concern, its irrelevant to Petersons discussions, and it was douchy to focus on.
Alex knows the cheap shot BS trap he was clumsily trying to lay. Which says a lot about the low-value fallacious audience Alex must cater to.
Alex gets an F
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue In other words, it's a question he won't answer. You said it yourself: Nobody is even allowed to ask the question unless they want to be an evangelist, a pastor, or a Christian philosopher. Look how defensive, hostile, and insulting (a low-value fallacious audience? Really?) your response to that was. The question itself is dumb, a stupid concern, and irrelevant. Alex wasn't being hostile. You are. You're actually angered by the question. 🤷♂
All the events of Exodus actually happened
But did they happen in the order described in the Bible?
But is the order they happened happened for real ?
What justification do you have to make that claim?
What do you mean by event?
No it didn’t and there is plenty of evidence to prove that.
Wow Alex is brilliant
Peterson does not want to say what he actually believes, if saying what he actually believes would make it absolutely clear to many of his Christian followers he does not believe in the Christian god.
Yes it really happened. It's just that there's more to it than most people realize
Magic isn’t real.
@@JesusFriedChrist No shit sherlock
Definitely not
@@cleftturnip7774 Definitely so
@@JesusFriedChrist Do you think men can become women?
Alex: but do you believe it REALLY happened?
Jordan: I DON’T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS!
-Jordan Petersonology 101.
The question is not mere curiosity about what Peterson believes. It is a method of determining "are you one of us or one of them?"
right. Alex was maliciously trying to reduce Petersons purpose and message. Shameful
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue the dude cannot give a straight answer on whether or not God exists it is absurd
@@S.D.323 Its absurd you think that its part of his message. Its absurd you think he owes you that, at the expense of his message - which is and always has been clearly stated: seeing meaning in the text. Why is that so hard to see?
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue eh its fine if he doesnt give a straight answer but it takes three seconds to say if God really exists
@@S.D.323 It's because Peterson disagrees with a lot of people about WHAT God is and HOW it exists. Saying "God exists" doesn't add anything meaningful to the conversation. By forcing him into this, you're ignoring his actual message and what he really thinks.
I believe when Jordan say, “what is real?” When asked did it really happen. He shifts from solipsism and reality. Inconsistently, you have to choose is reality unknowable and we discover from our consciousness, or is reality knowable and we derive consciousness from the fact that reality exists and is knowable. I go by the latter.
At 11:50 Peterson essentially affirms that he is a mystic (subjectivist) rather than an objectivist. The thing keeping Peterson totally safe from his critics is that he hasn't stabilized the mystical experience. From the point of view of "no self" and a "non-local awareness," he would not find himself as readily in these debates. Sam Harris has pointed both Peterson and O'Connor in that direction. It seems these convos between O'Connor, Jordan and Harris can go on forever, at this rate. What I would be interested in, is 'what happens when Peterson commits himself fully to understanding what Ken Wilber is saying and has said about him. I mean there could be a great opportunity for integration and helping others as well.
Did I eat ice-cream yesterday? Yes, that happend. Did I die and resurrected today? No, that didn't happend but it could happended metaforically speaking. Those too facts are easy to diferenciate. Come on Dr Peterson!
…your shallow understanding reflects on you not Peterson
That analogy doesn't work in the slightly
That analogy doesn't work in the slightest
This made me an Alex O’Connor fan
Defining truth is important
Are there genres of truth? I believe truths are proved evident by fact.
Again, defining truth is important. If truth is a mountain we all have a different perspective and position.
The absolute truth is that truth is relative 😅 ☯️ a belief, a construct of mind and matter agreed upon by our infinite species of consciousness and stuff 😊
@MFletch87 The only problem I have with that is it can devolve into relativism or the "my truth isn't your truth" kind of thing. We can see where that leads with some people's "truth" is 2 + 2 does not have to equal 4 because they claim there is no such thing as objective truth.
@@FarOutKiddthe rules of logic are unrelated to facts and yet are true
@@thetruthstrangerthanfictio954truth and fact can be separate things (and are) and still have zero to do with moral relativism.
Jesus himself taught truths with parables, which were not facts - they did not happen, they were fictional stories and not facts - but they were truths
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue I agree with you that Jesus's parables taught spiritual truths, and very deep ones at that. That is not what MFletch87 was talking about though, because they said you can tell the truth but be incorrect. Jesus's stories were not incorrect because it was obvious to everyone that they were metaphorical. What MFletch87 seems to mean therefore is if I believe something is true then it is true, hence "2 + 2 = 5."
Can't wait for the archeological evidence of a dude coming back from the dead as a zombie flying up to go see his dad in the sky.
Thank you for challenging him on this. For all the things I love about the guy this is the one major point of contention I have with him.
The crux of the issue, and even here it wasn’t stated explicitly enough for my liking - is that Christianity and its child religions raise us to believe that it IS really true. Historically. We are not raised to view religion as mythological lessons like we now view Greek or Norse myths we are raised to view them as objective, historical, reality and that really really matters
Sometimes knowledge isn’t power
Too much knowledge is insanity
Ok sheep 🐑
1 Corinthians chapters 1+2
@@DJeMoexplain more?
Loved this....a good bridge between a skeptic and Dr Peterson's thinking and manner of speaking
I don't understand the issue with having multiple levels of depth of understanding within the same story. Exodus happened. Literally. AND its also very psychologically descriptive of the human experience. BOTH are true
There's nothing wrong with that. The issue is what if it's not true? What if it never happened? Even as an atheist, I'd still admit you can extract meaning from the story, even if it is just a story.
But that doesn't seem to be what Peterson is doing he's really blurring the line between the two here to the point it's very ambiguous as to what he believes.
@@michaelbuick6995 I think anytime you aren't very specific about whether you're referring to the historical value of a story versus the relatability of it presently the lines get blurred. It's why personal belief is so powerful. You discuss a story on various different levels of understanding and still extrapolate meaning
But Jordan can't seem to acknowledge the pure literal
@@sametheremuircroft5975 I agree. I do think his philosophy oriented mindset doesn't allow for it.
There is “literally” zero archeological or historical evidence outside of “the Bible” that indicates that there were any kind of Jewish, Hebrew, or pre- Israelite people who were held as slaves in ancient Egypt, just as there’s zero evidence that those people migrated through the desert en masse after being freed from their non-existent slavery.
Jordan isnt being elusive he just has a clarity and precision most people cant grasp, so when people ask him a 'simple' question he looks at it from every possible angle and lens. Which is a credit to him and a burden, as it can be alienating and frustrating. So people should keep both sides of this in mind before dismissing him.
It's interesting that I actually agree with all that accept the last sentence. The job of a communicator is to clarify, not confuse. Alex is right here that JP must know what someone means when they ask the question. The bit about going back to that area, would one see a bunch of people in a pilgrimage to the promised land was perfect. The problem is it can be dismissed if the answer feels to dwell too much on the side of obfuscation. JBP is brilliant but when it comes to religion, that is where he lives unfortunately. Which sucks, because I like he was he treats them as stories and the memes and so on he pulls out of it
@@boxer12350 i completely agree with you bud, especially with the clarify not confuse. I think that is the burden part, he (Jordan) is tying himself up in knots overthinking things, and therefore making it incomprehensible and so pointless (if noone can get it except you what is the point of going on about it)
What do you do with the burning bush? You recognize the difference between real and metaphorical, first of all, and don’t conflate the two. Did the events of the novel Moby Dick really happen? If somebody said yes, and that they are still happening, you would know that they are operating on a completely separate epistemically plane from your own and that further communication would be pointless.