Jordan Peterson and Andrew Klavan Discuss Faith and Religion
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 окт 2024
- Jordan Peterson and Andrew Klavan discuss the meaning of faith, the Word becoming flesh, and the hierarchy of values.
Happy Fourth of July to y'all.
Find the full video here • Daily Wire Backstage C...
Like, share, and subscribe!
Video credit goes to The Daily Wire
Find the full discussion here: ruclips.net/video/uxIeyO_314I/видео.html
Seeing Andrew Klavan interview Jordan Peterson is like seeing one superstar interviewing another. This is awesome, and should be longer form.
1:22 “Good question.”
“Thanks.”
That exchange always cracks me up.
Jordan has a brilliant and concise argument for the existence of God. And yet he struggles...and takes us with him in the growing pains. Have patience, men of faith, with those of us afraid to take a single blind leap.
So much brilliance here.
This is actually unclear gibberish attempting to disguise itself as theology. Messy...
Klavan actually levels a pretty devastating critique of Jordan’s obscurantism. He wants to preserve the reality of God within an explanation of religion as a product of developing human consciousness. Klavan takes the Kierkegaardian view of faith, which does not ask for explication or reason but rather exists as pure belief which any attempt to obtain evidence would spoil. Peterson has absolutely no capacity to level a response to that question and just repeats his boring evolutionary analysis of the phenomenon of religion.
@@michaelsieger9133 yep, and staying within psychology and biology to talk about God is like looking under a street light for your lost keys at night because you think you'll find them there because of the light...
These are probably the two wisest people I’ve ever heard speaking
A room full of real men. What a rare thing :)
"Real men" Hahaha
I never knew real me would be unattractive to women.
Ben looks like he's just staring into the camera trying to look into my conservative soul...
There really is a God, and not just an abstract concept. He became personified in Jesus Christ. And he went to the cross willingly to pay the penalty for your sin. That's Love.
Strong Exorcist
You must be new to these discussions...your statement has been refuted time and time again as a simple fallacy made true by your upbringing or social affiliations. Got to do better than that.
ahhh how the ignorants like to play geniuses, nice.
Mr. C You're approaching it as if I'd proposed an argument for debate. I'm laying down the fundamental gospel message for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear. Clearly you have neither.
Strong Exorcist
God..Jesus..sin..love..fundamental gospel message.....ALL up for debate. Unless this is simply your position on truth, in which case , your going to become subject to the accusation of being dogmatic. Just a heads up...
Mr. C
Not all up for debate. There are some people who conduct meaningful, honest exegesis to determine what the authors of the New Testament were actually saying, and then you have abstract gibberish such as what Peterson is arguing.
And there are incontrovertibly true things in the New Testament. If you dispute that, then why are there constant warnings of pseudadephos, false brothers, and those who spread misinformation?
You don’t think your own positions through, ever. You resort to merely telling other people their positions have been debunked “time and time again.” How lazy?
Bro how come I have never seen this gem after scouring through JP’s rabbit hole many many times?
"GAWD" -Jordan Peterson
Eh? 😂
Titans of intelligence in here
Reading C.S. Lewis’ “Miracles” clarified this issue for me immensely. Everyone interested in this topic should read (or listen for free on RUclips) to that amazing book.
Though he rejects the standard materialism of the average atheist, JP is fundamentally a naturalist, which is why he cannot bring himself to posit God’s existence in a straightforward way. He believes in a “one world model”, whereas “God”, especially the God of the abrahamic religions, requires at least a “two world model” (to use John Vervaeke’s terminology).
After thinking about this a lot, it seems the right question has not been asked of Jordan yet. The clarifying question to ask Jordan is: are you willing to postulate the reality of the supernatural realm with the same (or perhaps ideally with MORE) conviction and certainty as you ascribe to the natural realm? In other words, is there only one “level” of reality, namely the one wherein the flux of history (including the socially mediated evolution of “God”) transpires, which can be summed up with the term “nature”? Or, is there another level which transcends nature, and yet which is also the ground and source of nature, namely a “super-nature”?
My feeling is that he is philosophically a naturalist. He is at best agnostic towards a supernatural reality. He is NOT willing to postulate it as real. He is not willing to grant it any status within his metaphysical framework. Indeed he may obscure the issue by putting air quotes around the word “believe”, relying on the subjective orientation of an existentialist perspective to say “I dare not say I believe until I act it out”, but this evades the issue. His philosophy remains naturalistic, and it will remain as such until he becomes fully aware that it is. As admirable as the ethical/existentialist orientation is, you can’t escape the need to accept a particular world view. Our philosophies will have an influence whether we acknowledge them or not.
I offer this as a huge admirer of Peterson’s. I do not think he’s operating in bad faith. I think he can just be a bit sloppy as a philosopher.
I was trying to write a short comment... an aspiration I perpetually fail at. Oh well.
Perhaps my question would be answered if I were to read "Miracles", but in your own words what basis is there to make for a supernatural component to an ultimate power (whatever supernatural means to you), and perhaps more importantly, why does it matter for creating a foundation for belief?
@@snailmusk9468 hmm, that’s a difficult question, one I don’t have a clear answer to myself. For me, this way of framing it has just helped me to grasp JP’s thought in relation to traditional theism. If you’re interested in the topic, reading “Miracles” would be a great place to start.
For me, human nature points beyond the merely naturalistic realm. We each have a divine spark, which manifests in many ways, but ultimately the most direct manifestation is the reality of the “self”, the “I”, the self-conscious center of experience that can recognize itself and also recognize others. This is the locus of all solid moral reality as well. Good and evil aren’t substantial without the reality of this “I”. This “self” is the mysterious source of free choice, the thing that we point to when we hold ourselves and others to account for their actions. It is also the seat of all reason, which to me clearly points beyond the realm of mere nature.
A purely naturalistic account of the origins of these indispensable human realities cannot help but explain them away, pointing to origins but missing the essence of their reality. We may not have proof that they point to a transcendent reality which is their source and ultimate fulfillment, but it does seem that failure to acknowledge that source leaves you unable to claim that they are anything but illusory.
For me, Nietzsche is the best writer to read to grasp the fullest extent of the impact of denying God’s existence. Most atheists don’t have the courage or the clarity of thought to draw out all the conclusions of denying the reality of the supernatural (which is the denial of those “indispensable human realities” I spoke of.
Off the top of my head, that’s the best I can do I guess!
@@kendallburks Very interesting answer. On the one hand I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you're saying. This 'divine spark' as you call it is certainly one of the great mysteries of life; we do tend to hold humanity and those who make it up to a different standard than everything else. An animal may act out, or engage in behaviour we would consider maladaptive for different reasons, but few would claim that this animal is "immoral" or "evil," which then begs the question of why we not only feel able, but intensely compelled to hold fellow members of our species to a different standard.
Truly consciousness is a mystery beyond what we can fathom, though subjectively I would say there are good reasons to assume that at least certain animals also possess a certain, albeit reduced/less enlightened form of consciousness. Obviously, there is only so much one can do to rationalize the phenomena of the world and the universe, and we would drive ourselves insane trying to find the bottom of it, but still one could make an abstract rational case for creation, human consciousness, etc.
I've been recently thinking about the significance of "faith," as someone who pays a certain amount of attention to religious ideas, I could never really wrap my head around why faith is considered a virtue. What's so virtuous about believing in something you can't fully explain? In some sense, this is what the "supernatural" means to me, and what would hypothetically make it important. There are higher, or you could call them divine forces at work in the world, yet they evade the full breadth of understanding, and yet we can still feel them within ourselves. Striving towards these ideals, despite lacking the basis to explain them fully, takes courage, and I believe that this is how goodness comes about in the world.
I really need to read Nietzsche, hah. That's on the bucket list.
@@snailmusk9468 I’ll just respond to the faith issue real quick… from what I can tell, though some believers may take it this way, historically faith is NOT taken to mean simple unthinking intellectual assent to a given intellectual proposition. It has more to do with your personal commitment to an unseen and yet fundamental reality. It’s like your capacity to endure in your pursuit of “The Good” even when it’s expedient or tempting to do otherwise, and despite the fact that this “good” is not concretely manifested before your senses.
For me, free will, and the self from which it springs forth, cannot be grasped intellectually, because if is the thing that does the grasping. It cannot get fully a hold of itself. As such, this central and fundamental reality will forever remain a mystery. Furthermore, the commitment to “The Good”, as it flows form this mysterious core, is also basically mysterious and cannot have a rational or logically derived basis. You could claim, therefore, that this commitment comes from faith. Try to derive it by other means and you’ll go insane. It is simply the basic reality that must be asserted axiomatically, prior to everything else, and additionally this assertion is utter nonsense if it is purely intellectual, it must be personal and pervade the whole shape and course of your life. And if one can maintain this commitment to “the Good” in an unswerving and thorough fashion, wouldn’t it plainly be a virtue? Couldn’t it become a feature of your character like every other virtue, and yet be also the most fundamental of them all?
Now substitute God for “The Good” and you get a sense, perhaps, for what people have meant by faith in God. It’s not simple unthinking assent to a given proposition, it’s a personal commitment to a reality which you have good reason to believe in, but which also requires the full commitment of your whole life, the continual “turning towards” that constitutes the basic choice of your spiritual and moral existence.
I’d like to see Andrew talk to Peter Hitchens about faith politics and the nature of power.
I feel like peterson just shattered everything i knew then reassembled it in a better yet more complex way
I know Christians want Jordan to say he believes in God more than anything, but the fact that he won’t has brought so many people to look at Christianity that wouldn’t have. He just has a different purpose
1:16 "Good question" - "thanks" Andrew Klavan is so fast and witty there 😄
i really like jordan but omg he dances around the faith thing
How's it possible that this has so few views?
What show was this, and is there a vid of the full discussion?
Check the pinned comment.
@ 2:20 Klavan’s question, straight from CS Lewis.
Gnosticism ?
That’s a question not a criticism
source?
Check the pinned comment.
I would give the cost of a bag of groceries to be in that room and sit at the alter.
Load of mush, avoidance, diversion... etc.
Ecstasy
The minuet Peterson says the evolution of religion he shows how much he doesn't understand the religiouse claim while simultaneously undermining it by calling it valued fiction because its practical application.
He can’t give a straight answer...‘always the dance.
Ohh so u want a one line answer to what is God ?? That figures !
"I am an atheist czz I want a straight answer to everything"
Peterson needs Jesus.
what a bizarre answer. Jordan says such nonsensical things sometimes. So many words, barely any wisdom spoken