I found this episode really interesting. JBP played a significant role in my personal return to the Catholic faith, precisely because of his rational, existential argument for God. But this only leads to a certain point, namely the point where it is ostensibly a matter of deciding whether God is real or not, which has been very well elaborated in today's discussion. JBP's argument for faith as a pre-rational, not irrational, act really resonated with me. It is the personal experience, the trusting surrender to God or the great adventure of life that makes the experience of God's presence possible in the first place. God is there and he is waiting for us - with open arms...
I can't get enough of these discussions. It's so nice hearing people have discussions instead of arguments.. especially about topics as important as these. Thank you Dr Peterson as well as your guest. Both of your points of view built on each other very well.
@@ryand1404 I did not see your reply, I assume it was well-reasoned and gentile. Ahem. I am generally in favor of Dr. Peterson however I am skeptical of his followers' "belief", I think he's actually an atheist.
@@-TriP- Yeah he’s a great help to people. He just sometimes tries to narrow God down too much to the point his conception of God sometimes seems purely psychological. On the other hand, since he’s a psychologist, maybe that's just the way he approaches everything.
Really wish JP would invite a Bishop Robert Barron into these discussions. Or at least to reflect on this interview. Please upvote to see that happen...
He has had Bishop Robert Barron on already, but I can see you mean as a regular thing. You'd have more chance getting in touch with BRB to do response videos on his own channel.
Matthew 5:44-45 King James Version 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Dearest Dr. Peterson, what you were saying about imagining yourself as the Auschwitz guard… and I’ve heard you say that many times before… reminds me very poignantly of a spiritual, emotional, and intellectual exercise we Christian fundamentalists used to do in order to prepare our hearts and minds to receive the sacrament of Holy Communion, which we called “remembering the Lord in His death.” An unspeakably holy and sacred thing for us. We identified ourselves with the jeering crowd who called for Christ’s crucifixion. We identified ourselves with the onlookers who mocked His sufferings. We knew ourselves to be at one with the Roman soldiers who swung the hammer and pounded the nails. We knew in the deepest part of ourselves that we were guilty of the death of our Lord. And we knew that His death was for our redemption and our forgiveness. With St. Paul, we knew ourselves to be crucified with Christ. With Ruth Anne’s love
Thats deep, I never knew that was a thing christians did, but I can see how that would compel one to find the revelation and spiritual awakening in christ that so many christian have. Is that what we are missing?
The conversations where someone pushes back on jordan with some really compelling arguments are the best. And this may be my personal favorite, Jack Symes is a very respectful and intelligent man, I hope we can hear more from these two
I would posit that there's a difference between definition and truly understanding what you define. Defining something doesn't by nature make it greater or lesser but the level to which we accept that we truly and fully grasp something definitely says something about you. ❤
@@grietjie93 I strongly suspect that the reason nobody defines what their "God" is, is because they don't have understanding. And if they were to attempt to define it then their lack of understanding would become apparent. So they are living in darkness while attempting to appear that they are living in light.
@@KevinSolway a) that doesn't mean the Christian God whom they are mostly speaking of here by definition is undefineable :) and also I think nobody is a pretty strong term :) why do do you say nobody?
@@grietjie93 "the Christian God whom they are mostly speaking of here" I have no idea what "the Christian God" is, since it is never defined. And I know for a fact that different Christians have completely different ideas of what God is. I say "nobody" because I've watched hundreds of videos such as these, and nobody ever defines what they are talking about.
I feel like that too. When JBPs views are opposed to a nihilistic and agnostic one, the meaning shines through even stronger. I do wish JBP would’ve opposed him harder though. I think he’s trying to interrupt his guests less since the Elon Musk interview, but in this instance it meant he couldn’t crystallise his views as well as he might’ve. For example, when the guy compares the Bible to Harry Potter… of course the Bible is more real and more full of truths. Because it documents thousands of years of moral wisdom and western society and culture have been closely linked to it for hundreds of years. He kept strawmanning the belief in God as this nice lie that makes you feel better instead of the crushing moral obligation that JBP believes it is.
@@shawnshahpari8681why do you think they think their God is superior to others? That's not even coherent since by definition there can be only one God.
@@barry.anderberg People think this is a war between your God and their God or Gods... It is not, Christianity is a great manifestation and hierarchization of the divine structure of reality through the human experience of good and evil. It is not the only one but probably one of the best if not the best (its the basis of western values and society which encompasses human rights and freedom or atleast the ideal of such concepts). So it is not their God thats superior, is their interpreation of the evidence of right and wrong paths that humans, with their inherited agency, can choose to follow.
@@barry.anderberg maybe because I’m ignorant about Christian beliefs however based on my experience Christian’s have a “Jesus or hell” attitude and they say that Jesus is God.
I really enjoyed this one a lot. Jack Symes is someone who can stand toe to toe with Jordan and also provide great synthesis, which made for a great and fruitful discussion.
As an atheist, recently I have come to believe that the best chance of saving this rotting and decaying society is to return to traditional Christian values. I will never believe in god or the divinity of Jesus, nor will I ever believe in the “miracles” described in the Bible, but I have always held conservative beliefs that would be described by most people as “Christian” and most of my beliefs are in strong agreement with Christianity. For a while I did not believe Christianity should return, but seeing the depraved nightmare that modern society has turned into has led me to believe that Christianity is a much better alternative to whatever filth exists today. I grew up in the church and the best, most morally upright and decent people I know are Christians. Not to say other people are not good, but I have found that Christian’s are the most committed to moral principles and least susceptible to what they might call “sin” and what I would call immorality.
Christianity without Christ is damned. You expect the sheep to shepherd themselves? Even the wise amongst men will call themselves agnostic. You can doubt the Bible for now, but I would suggest studying it. Remember, the world did not create itself. Matter did not create itself.
The coming collapse of materialism: With quantum physics, conscious observation causes the wave function to collapse and information shapes your perceived material environment. DNA information is the primary factor in biology; organic chemistry is secondary. Imagine AI control of avatars in computer games to the extent that avatars exhibit independent consciousness in the simulation and act as if they are living in a material reality. They would be the materialist!
I found your reflection very interesting. As a Catholic, formerly agnostic, I understand where you are coming from, what I would question is, if a particular belief system seems to produce more moral and prosperous societies and individuals, wouldn't this at least be an indication that the beliefs where it all lies may have some truth to them? This questioned me deeply when I was not a believer, and I believe in might be the intelectual honest path to take, to question, hey, Why the hell does this works?
@@conservativewomble1393 how about trying to live like the character of Christ as described in the Bible instead of literally believing all the claims of the Bible. If all people strove to live like Jesus in their moral life, but still adhered to science and reality, that would be as close to utopia as humanity could possibly get
If your christian god decided to transition into a man in the 1st century, then how can you go around asking people: "What is a woman?" You ascribe to God what you deny for atheists. Have you no sense?
I didn't know who Jack Symes was before entering. Now my interest is peaked. Will be exploring this soon. And finally we have a podcast on the problem of defining God. This problem had been my number 1 question to people before I became Christian. What is God? Who is God? We could not hope to find or determine the existence of something that we don't even know.
@@donaldmcronald8989 That's only from your perspective I suppose. Historically, it seems that people have found him in approximations and through the names of God built their societies.
@@SbonisoMMDlamini That's not discovery. Those gods were never found. I can posit the existence of anything beyond my death, and you'll never be able to take it away from me. No syllogism can defeat it.
@@donaldmcronald8989 Sorry but you are saying it as if anything you could posit could hold a society together in any reasonable way or amount. That's simply a gradation in difference you don't appreciate. And why is it that you act as if there is always something beyond death in these stories...
Interesting -- I would have thought this discussion is a demonstration of free will. I believe there's a real logic which requires belief in the monotheistic God ... man is too chaotic to be a result of evolution. That said, free will permits discussions like this. It also dictates that freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of speech are a requirement to live life correctly. Because we don't have all the evidence, and our thoughts only become real when spoken. Thus speaking produces the evidence which leads others (and often ourselves) to seek God, and become saved.
As for defining God, St. John already did that. “God is Light. God is love.” Meaning that the very essence of God is Love and Light, neither of which properties can be defined by our science. Ineffable, as you say.
@@pluff22no they have not. Energy can be observed in it's effects, and characterized or quantified in certain ways, but what it "is" cannot be defined. This is not even a religious position but is manifestly the case, period. Is light a wave or a particle or both or neither or does it depend? And what is "it", the actual thing behind our observations? If you think science knows the answer, you're in fact not familiar enough with the science, let alone philosophy which is necessary for science to be possible and meaningful.
@@KevinSolwaylove isn't so much defined as it is demonstrated, since love is more properly a verb than a noun. If love has no object or action, it is nothing, other than what we might claim as a feeling, but love is not a feeling. Love in the Bible is defined via descriptions of demonstrations, namely; the sacrifice of Christ, and in another place, a man sacrificing his life for his friend. It's also given a lengthy description in 1 Corinthians 13. You could easily look up all the references if you cared to.
A fellow said ; the Holy Spirit hides in the pain ! If and when you bottom out and the pain gets great enough that hell will make you a believer ! You will either cry for your mother or cry to God!
This is an extraordinary conversation on the most fundamental quest of the human "soul" by two brilliant, kind, respectful and articulate deep thinkers I have ever encountered. What is the meaning of life, and especially suffering. I would ask other listeners to not only listen to their arguments, but, most importantly FEEL what happens to you deep in the center of your being during certain passages from both participants. You may even notice as I did an evolving symphony akin to Brahms Piano Concerto #2, my favorite composition, from one of the speakers. The ebbs and flows of a coherent theme punctuated by passages of pathos, complexity and heroic grandeur are my best way of describing the deep emotional resonance I felt from this "composer". Mark Berry
29:14 saying "you don't have to believe in a perfect God...to be a Christian" is like believing that numbers are NOT infinite while calling yourself a mathematician. Saying such a thing would make you look like a mad man to mathematicians and commoners alike. Numbers don't lie and are infinite. Just like God.
Super educated people generally think they are too smart to believe in our Almighty Lord. Remember Jesus said you must have the “faith” of a child. That takes humility 🙏🏼
Jordans arguments for theism particularly Catholicism with continual citations of the bible utterly compelling and made sense. Jack’s counterarguments for theism and agnosticism were as strong as he could possibly make but did not stand up and did not provide a path to a frame work of meaning. And a lack of meaning leads to anxiety and suffering and ultimately an ignorance to the manifestation for that which is bad or evil. Thus, inflicting the anxiety and suffering of those around you.
If the calling and moving further out of reach in a developmental path is an infinite path, then there’s no ultimate goal that’s reachable. If that’s the case then hope can’t be based on attainment but rather on the joy of growth and that’s a never ending process.
Amazing. I'm a Peterson fan, and I enjoy (and rate) Jack hugely. I first saw Jack debate Stephen Law, and that was dense but astounding. I'd love to see a round two to this. Symes brought out the best from Peterson.
I absolutely loved this discussion. Caused me to deeply think about how I view my own beliefs and I’m eager to watch this again to get a better understanding. Can’t wait to read his book also
On the discussion of believing in truth vs a comforting lie that leads to flourishing.... I counter that no, it is not comforting, it is terrifying that I beleive many people I know will be permanently cut off from God’s grace. It is not at all a ‘pleasant’ thing to believe in - to limit myself and place my self under the ultimate authority of another I cannot begin to comprehend- so I would counter that the presumption it’s an easy lie in place of truth is just a lack of understanding what believing in Christ really is. I believe it is true. I do not ‘want’ in the traditional sense to believe it, but I do believe it and act it out in my actions and allegiance as best I can.
Amen to that. I believe in God and that brings me comfort but also simultaneously the weight of God's judgment. It's not like life suddenly gets easier, any Christian can attest. In one sense, life becomes harder because now I have to live up to a standard but also it becomes much more meaningful.
I would suggest do not worry yourself with such thoughts. God will handle it and call them to Him. Give grace and prayer, and show some humility. Throw the first stone if you are so perfect.
Those who have been forgiven much, love Him much, and there is forgiveness with Him that He may be feared, and as His majesty is so is His mercy and as His mercy is so is His indignation and wrath.
What a delightful Episode. Watching the insightful discussion, and attempting to get close to clarity, with precise steps and illumination in a swamp of murky and unsure-footed subject matter! Thank you to you and your guest for the acute listening and mutual cross-interrogation.
This is my first recent interview I have heard from Jack! I cannot help but find his style is very patronising, is that just me? The whole "good" or "this is good" for me sounds like he is talking to someone underneath him?
I agree. There was something patronising about him, an "I know best" attitude coming from a man who only graduated in 2014, so he must be about 31 years old. Alex O'Connor, younger than Symes I think, is more impressive. I actually think Symes is trying to undermine Jordan here, even sneering at him. Symes is a BBC Young Thinker, which is a red flag for me.
I disagree, he feels like he's just distancing himself a little from the discussion so as not to let his biases or his passions take over what the other person might be saying. Maybe you can come across as patronizing by just acting collected, but if his inner framework is all about flirting with certain ideas and adopt what's useful, this is pretty much how you would be acting.
Interesting how the guest tries to place Jordan in a box by defining where he stands … exactly. Jordan does not go there at all but rather goes back to concepts without stakes in the ground.
For me, the "problem of evil" was resolved by contemplating the following two questions: 1) Do we have an immortal soul? 2) Upon death, do we experience a so called "life review"? I came to the conclusion that the answer to both questions is "yes". Therefore life is a training ground for the soul, and there is no "problem of evil". The conclusion is then that "life" as we know it is the process by which good souls are made.
@@spindoctor6385 I came to it. I wasn't raised in the church and was an atheist leaning agnostic in grad school when I really started thinking deeply on life and meaning. How I came to answer those two questions in the way that I do now is difficult to put into words, but I'll try. It was something like first acknowledging that neither I nor anyone else knows or even can know for sure, but by committing myself fully to the earnest pursuit of Truth, and having an open mind, I might allow myself to come closest to that goal. I just started meditating on it a lot, without any assumptions of what the answers should be. I also practiced shutting off my internal dialogue, as a way of thinking without words, allowing contemplation and answer to form coherently as gestalt. I did this for many years. This part is the hardest to describe but you asked so I'll try my best. One day I came to the very sudden realization that none of this stuff has to be here. A void is a perfectly reasonable alternative to existence, and would in fact be more reasonable than a universe full of stuff and living beings. None of this stuff that exists has any meaning in and of itself. It shouldn't be here. But the fact that it does exist means that there IS a reason for it, and that reason is something beyond it's mere existence. In other words, purpose for existence isn't simply assumed, it's *required* I understand that this argument cannot be proven with words. Whether or not I arrange them to form something valid and sound, they will never convince anyone of anything. But I do believe that the *process* I described in getting there, will bring a person to the same place, or somewhere very close to it. From there - accepting that there is meaning and purpose - the rest did in time follow naturally.
@@spindoctor6385 Either nihilism is true or it isn't. If it is, then why care about anything at all? Why even care about the answers to your questions? If that were the case, then none of this will matter anyway. Someday we will all be dead and forgotten and all these conversations will fade into obscurity. Either there is something to this life or there isn't. Nihilism, yes or no?
@@quentin1691 I agree with you, to the extent that life is a gift, and what we do with it now is of consequence. Our belief systems appear to diverge on the rest, and that's ok. It's not that I think belief is unimportant. I think it *is* important. It can help us to find purpose and meaning. It can provide us with comfort, and relief from existential angst. Ultimately tho, what people *do* is more important to me than what they *believe* If you do good things, you're a good person as far as I'm concerned. What you believe is none of my business (unless of course we're talking about it like we're doing now, openly and with respect for one another)
@@sakamotosan1887 Sounds like you are the one dealing with nihilism, not me. This false dichotomy of some afterlife judge or nihilism is very short sighted. And just because you do not like the conclusions that YOU come to if there isn't something else afterwards, does not make for a compelling reason to believe the only other option that you can come up with. That is just fear.
@@bankieyI agree. Beautifully put. Where I see god, is in the way these souls inevitably reach out to the world, in an attempt to encapsulate in words that which encapsulate themselves. In the shared experience of mental absurdity and physical rawness, exactly there where universal compassion is born.
JBP and his guests delight me with their use of language. English is my second language and sometimes I can not even imagine how to translate their ideas into Spanish. My respect and admiration for them. ❤
Someone asked me, “What does ‘?’ mean?” It’s a complicated thing. First, we have to define the nature of ‘?’ in relation to the sentence, and then we have to define the nature of the person asking the question (if a question is indeed what they’re really "asking", however we shouldn’t presume what "questioning" means). Before we do that, we need to define the meaning of the word “meaning” to the person asking the question. However, it’s essential that we establish an objective definition of meaning. That’s a difficult thing to do man, and we have to be very careful about jumping to conclusions. It’s taken millennia for humans to distill the meaning of “meaning” into the biblical corpus, so it would be arrogant of us to even attempt answering the question in such simple terms… Especially if we haven’t established what “person” means, since individual consciousness and the collective unconscious may exist in some kind of superposition. I enjoyed your chat with Alex, by the way, and am in full support of you standing up to your corrupt and cowardly government, board of psychologists (or whatever they’re called), bringing on guests like Tommy, etc.
Christ is not on the top of the ladder. He is the ladder. Therefore, welcome to the ladder and fulfillment on every step. "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”
Faith is not prerational, it transcends it. If this weren’t the case, Moses would have told good something like “what’s the point of these plagues if you’re going to harden this guy’s heart anyway?”
Evil is , that the body decays….. it is ruined by daily wear and tear, as well as consumption of food, sugar , alcohol…etc…these things speed up our eventual death…our worst fear…
Protect this at all costs.... The First Amendment prevents the government from creating or establishing a religion, and thereby prevents the power of the government from expanding beyond civil matters. The First Amendment also protects people’s right to worship however they choose, or to not worship any God at all.
A completely meaningless conversation. This episode was supposed to be about the definition of God, but you never got around to it. Your guest is "agnostic" because he has no idea what he means by "God".
I would be very interested to see what a study and breaking down of the Book of Mormon apart from and in tandem with the Bible would bring about in a conversation with Jordan
Agreed. There are others who would be good also, but since he's a competent trained philosopher he'd be a good one. But Peterson also needs to leave the philosophy behind at times and deal with the historicity and pure theology and morality of Christianity outside of the imprecise and intangible world of philosophy. If only we still had CS Lewis.
@@Artcore103 ... morality and theology is the realm of philosophy. Theology is like, the heart of philosophy in some sense. Historicity will inevitably overlap with philosophy because part of history is the realm of ideas.
Love and light = God; hate and darkness = Satan/evil It's just that simple. Sin will always be crouching at our door, WE have to overcome this by our free will and embracing God's Love. All things in the universe, i.e. God's Creation are good: the sun, the moon, the land, the oceans, the rivers and seas, and the air we breathe...ALL Good. However, in hell ALL these things are non existent, because God's goodness is not there. And God doesn't want any of us away from Him in that dark and painful place. We do have heaven on earth, we just don't listen to our Creator and allow Him to lead us in subduing His Creation for our good. We have to have a true loving relationship with God in order to thrive in His Goodness ❤
Abraham did not leave the house of his father because God told him to "go out", Abraham advised his father, who was an idol maker, to stop making idols and to not worship idols but instead to worship God. Abraham's father told him to stop telling him to shun the false idols and instead to get out of the house and leave his presence. Therefore, Abraham was exiled from his father's house for preaching monotheism to polytheists. At the time of Abraham, idols or wood and stone, carved and made by humans, like Baal, were worshipped. Abraham destroyed these idols, broke them all with the exception of the idol of Baal and made a mockery of those who worshipped those idols. To this effect, God took Abraham as His friend. If you interpret God as this "instict voice" which told Abraham to "go out" and leave the comfort of your father's house, you are essentially attempting to take God out of the equation. Instead, God spoke to Abraham because Abraham broke the idols. God spoke to Abraham because Abraham preached monotheism in a society that was polytheistic, even his father was a polytheist. Abraham's story is not devoid of pain and suffering, for to be exiled by your father, from the house of your childhood, because of your beliefs is akin to any other type of suffering that people would have. If someone goes through hardships to enforce the worship of God and attempt to call people to believe in God and shun false gods, then God is surely to support them, guide them, befriend them, and even make all their wishes come true. Therefore, it is no wonder that God promised Abraham with a covenant. It is a promise from God to a human he selected from among his time and from among all believers.
If you look up the word, here is one answer "In psychology, consciousness is the awareness of one's internal and external stimuli, including thoughts, emotions, feelings, sensations, and the environment. It is a subjective experience that is unique to each person. " The debate science v religion will always be questioned and how much proof/evidence there is to support either side (or other!) Holy books will tell you it is from a tree in Christianity "The Tree of Life" & "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" I mean no one will ever know the true answer here. But I do like listening to these debates for thought!
I like that this young fellow, though a bibliography of "someone once said", is still searching. He may just find what he doesn't seem to know he's searching for.
I'm not sure he is genuinely searching for objective truth. I believe he thinks the only respectable position is to be one of these forever seekers, sadly. Like Jason Silva, et al.
‘One should never get involved in verbal questions or questions of meaning, and never get interested in words. If challenged by the question of whether a word one uses really means this or perhaps that, then one should say: 'I don't know, and I am not interested in meanings; and if you wish, I will gladly accept your terminology?’ - Karl Popper
God creates everything….even consciousness, so it is reasonable to assume god can create an infinite amount of consciousness forms. All different from what we may agree that we perceive…. With god all things are possible, and can exist if God deems it to be of necessity to the story at hand 🤗🙏
Reality is so different with and without a personal God in perspective. Imagine the highest moral good to be alive and possess persona. Unless one blows his own old mind and shatters his old man, there is no way one can give space to reality like this.
When the Philosopher claims that a systematic problem of evil is a new challenge to theism, as it relates to evolution seems to fall short of overcoming the already existing theodicies for the problem of evil. Even the notion of a lesser evil for a greater good would play into defence of the “evolutionary system of evil”, in the sense that the overarching aim of evolution is survival. Sure death is a part of this process, but this death ultimately leads to organisms which can survive better than they otherwise would’ve been able to.
For millenia, people have been describing and defining God, trying to fit him into the box of their definitions, limiting him by their own lack of understanding. God is too big for that. There has to be a point where we admit that some things, such as God, are beyond our comprehension and accept our limitations. Some people find this hard to do.
It is difficult to do in a generation of egotism, where people believe that their opinions that could very much be influenced by their vain desires are more important than anything else. That if a person has a personal frame that they believe is true would immediately assume that their truth overpowers other people's truths. By definition thinking that their opinion is truer than other people's opinion, and waving a place at the table for their opinions. God is truly inconceivable if we think that we need to be very precise when defining God. It is similar to trying to pinpoint a definition on something that cannot be defined. Because to define God is to constrain Him by our definition to something that can be conceived or put into words. This is what it means to be "ineffable and receding". That by arriving to a specific definition, God is more than that definition, by His definition of being "infinite". "Ineffable" means: "cannot be put into words" "and receding" means: "Even if you can find a definition, He is far above being constrained by that definition. He is more than that." Trying to find a definition or specific conception of God would leave a person lost in a loophole that is actually "by design". It is an endless loop of everything that a person associated with what he calls "God". God is above everything and above description, and therefore, when we say "receding" we would have to mean that He is "going higher" rather than "going further". If defining God would make God "recede" moving away from us, then that would still be possible and could be true about God. That by defining Him, He would "move further away" because we would be attempting to "limit Him" to our own frameworks. God is far above being limited by human frames of reference. What do we know of the greatness of the universe? We, as humans, have grown so arrogant and proud that we would even have the audacity to claim knowledge of things about God, which He Himself did not say about Himself. How would we know God to "define" Him. The only definition that truly captures His Holiness is to call Him "Elah", this word is not a title but a noun. It is a Holy Name that would describe no one but God Himself and for that He took it as a Name in all Abrahamic religions. There can only be One "Elah" in the world, and He is the Only One to have that association with the Name, because He is the Unique Being. It is not hard to define God when you call Him by His Name, "Allah". But to think that He would constrain Himself by His creation is limiting to Him, but God has to necessarily be "Free" to do what He wants and by His own terms. Trying to be specific in conceptualizing God is the reason why people find this hard to achieve. Specificity is only meant to satisfy human desires and wishes, it is not always used for the purpose of "the good", it can also be used for the complication of an already simple matter. But what if "understanding God" would only be possible if we use "simple" terms rather than "specific concepts"? We can only understand God if we think about Him how a child would think. That even if we grow old we would still only be as old as the timespan of a fraction of a second for God. When understanding that He is greater than all human standards and ideals, we would immediately arrive at a conception of God as the "Supreme Being" who is "Most Knowledgeable". Always have in mind that God knows better than you, and that sometimes He knows and you do not. As humans, we were not created to know the exact minute details about everything. It is reliance on science as a measuring stick that was the issue with human development. We do not need to know specifics and we do not need to see to believe that something is true. Therefore, "ineffable" would also require that the eyes cannot conceive of Him, since it is limited by the material world that we can perceive as humans. In other words, God will always be the "Unseen God" who created humans, who saw Him once in the garden, but then was not permitted to perceive Him in the limited physical world, because He is, by essence, "the Unlimited".
You can forever be unable to fully describe an idea, or a thing or someone. You are still free and possibly even correct on what you're trying to define. This is a perfectly imperfect world we're living to begin with, it feels poignant to even attempt using lower level communication tools to explain the entirety of a thing that lives in a dimension above our own. You'll see the same problem for example when asking people to describe life as an idea, you know it means many things at the same time, just use the word most fitting to the idea you want to convey at the moment, you won't be wrong unless you're trying to be wrong.
I don’t know if my Christian discernment is rightly going off the charts or if I’m just getting a little crazy, but it really struck me how out of place Mr. Symes laugh was around the 38:00 minute mark. If I was retelling the story of the Lion King, said how Scar ‘took everything’ from Simba, then backtracked and said “well not everything, but close enough”, I don’t think anyone would see humour in the retelling/backtracking of the Lion King. When torturing Job, Satan’s main excuse for being unable to to shake Job’s faith in God was that Satan ‘didn’t get to try everything’. It’s a lame excuse for the only restriction Satan had on torturing Job was that he wasn’t allowed to take Job’s life, but the restriction was enough to make Satan rage-quit the challenge. I see Mr. Symes laughter as a spiritual alignment with of Satan’s objection; ‘yeah, Satan really didn’t get to try everything, so glad you noted that Dr. Peterson, Satan has been saying that for ages with the implication being Satan would have succeeded at proving all-knowing God was in fact not all-knowing, if only Satan was allowed to mess with Job’s life by killing the man.’ This is in direct conflict with the biblical lesson God tries to teach us, that ‘Satan has been a murderer and a liar from the beginning’. Again, I am aware I’m putting words in Mr. Symes mouth, but I can’t see another reason why he would find himself compelled to laugh at 38:00 minute mark. I would even go so far is the same dissenting spirit that Sarah, wife of Abraham, aligned with in her disbelief that she would have a child in her old age. I would love to direct God’s immediate question that came after Sarah’s laughter to Mr. Symes; ‘why’d you laugh?’ 😅😅😅
Our call is VITAL and REAL! Loved it!! A great guest for the podcast would be Dr N.T. Wright, he has 12 PHDs. It would be awesome to see the conclusions from that conversation
Could a humble, wise prayer resemble something like “Lord, please guide me to gently confront the situations that encompass in them the potential for my next evolution, an evolution in which I listen attentively like Dr. Jack Symes.”?
The problem facing Dr. Peterson is that, since he was really the first to bring to the masses responsibility and meaning, besides DMX, "To live is to suffer, but to survive is to find meaning in the suffering." Google it, and if Dr. Peterson is reading this, please listen to it. Back to the point I was making: when younger guests come on and talk about it like they discovered fire 🔥, it loses me because I can't tell if they're genuine or just piggybacking off of Dr. Peterson.
Jordan Peterson, read again the account of Job. In Hebrew it begins he "had born" to him 10 children. It ends with Job "had10 children"! So did not our very Good God answer Job but Satan got permission to test him in the process of answering the original prayer. You are made in His image. Is it possible a divine key is in this historical account. To answer Job's prayer inflection was put on God when the children deserved it. I see Job retracting and repenting because the lamb was slain before the foundation of the earth. What then did Moses "see" when he saw the back of God. Repentance comes at the point of the eyes and heart being opened. Heaven is in the heart of those who believe Jesus . Jacob's ID was changed at the encounter. Job believed God by the hearing of the ear but now He knows Him.
I must say, the advertisements in the middle of the discussion are really annoying and very distracting. It would be best if you add them at one place at the start, or middle or the end instead of scattered throughout the vid.
Dr. Peterson Thank you for this kind of video, so much appreciated. I am so amaze of the knowledge about the information you have imparted to everyone. Please keep continue on what you're doing. I will support this kind of act...
I'm no scholar but, during the patchwork quilt argument when Dr. Symes appeals to Plato's forms, i.e. why not just stop at multiple forms such as justice, etc. Wasn't it a part of Plato's theory of forms that even those forms took part in a single greater form? The form of the good? I'll have to do some research. Great conversation!
At least from the perspective of Catholicism, the Catholic Church doesnt believe in Darwinian evolution specifically, i.e. evolution whereby a species starts to exhibit physiological changes to the point of becoming another species entirely, thereby having the former wiped out. However, they leave it up to individual catholics the freedom whether or not to accept the theory of evolution whereby each species could, over time, exhibit slightly different properties but nevertheless remain the same species.
There is no reality without awareness. Reality becomes reality because WE BECOMING--- BEING AWARE OF SOMETHING! It is our awareness brings things into focus, and we then add our considerations - labels the things we see.
This video is an interview with Dr. Jack Sims, a public philosopher and researcher at Durham University. Dr. Sims is also known as a podcaster, the Pan cast philosophy podcast, which is one of the UK's most popular higher education programs. He is also the editor of the Talking about philosophy book series so he has written and edited a few books on the philosophy of Consciousness and then books that describe the concept of God and also the morality of the god that's being portrayed. The discussion that they had in the video conceptualizations of Consciousness, what we have in the popular culture now with regards to the arguments between the atheists and the Believers, and the ongoing intellectual conversation about how to respecify what we believe fundamentally in the West. Some key points from the video: * The search for meaning in a world that doesn't obviously present us meaning is the world that we need to embrace if we're going to live honestly and authentically. * The god that's criticized by The Atheist types, the materialist reductionist atheist types, is somewhat of a straw man and a parody God. * There's a crisis of belief in the West and what we believe fundamentally is up for grabs. * Consciousness is a fundamental property of being, not a product of complex physical processes. * The hard problem of Consciousness is to explain Consciousness itself. * There are three broad propositions: 1. When we perceive the world and act in the world we're making value judgments, 2. There is a ladder of intrinsic goods that we can climb but never reach perfection, and 3. There is a transcendent reality that grounds our values and gives meaning to our lives. * The biblical promise is that the revelation of the fundamental structure of reality comes to you if you pursue the truth. * We're not built for hedonistic infantilism, but for a life of meaning and purpose. * The good versus evil God is a complex issue that has been debated by philosophers for centuries. I hope this summary is helpful!
"* There's a crisis of belief in the West and what we believe fundamentally is up for grabs." "* The biblical promise is that the revelation of the fundamental structure of reality comes to you if you pursue the truth." "* We're not built for hedonistic infantilism, but for a life of meaning and purpose." These being interesting topics, but ultimately not what reality is hence it's snake oil being sold. The crisis seems to be a "war" of inspirational stories, or lack thereof. Truth implies there's nothing more to learn and biblical authority being the final word, and since it's a clerical religion you really need a powerful priest class for that final word that doesn't exist anymore, imo. We're built to do whatever we get away with, hedonistic infantilism becomes your purpose it would seem.
"Childlike Faith Is Trusting. Children believe the promises their parents make. This trusting spirit and absolute dependence is what our heavenly father wants from all believers. To love involves trusting the beloved beyond the evidence, even against much evidence." An intellectual journey may provide knowledge but that doesn't translate into faith. In fact, it is possible that the intellectual search for God may hamper the establishment of faith and instill a lack of trust.
To God belongs the "credit" for human morality and ethics. To Him belongs control of this spirit of morality with which humans discern whether or not a certain action is "moral" or "immoral". Had it not been for God, humans would not have developed the first social contract, or the first set of social norms that would be considered acceptable among all humans. He is the Arbiter of all matters that pertain to social conduct among His creatures.
How one perceives (the biblical) God is indeed at the heart of the issue. Most think of God as the "perfect" being. And he MUST be as creator of the universe. He set the standards! The break with humanity (his image and likeness) came with who gets to decide what "perfect" is. That is what is up for grabs-not only between mankind and God, but within mankind. The real issue is not about perfection, but how to handle the differences. We are naturally-born judges of what is good and what is evil in a judgmental world-with some of us facing off with God as well. But God doesn't look at us as we do him. He looks at us with grace, not judgment. Grace is at the heart of his natural makeup. "God is love," wrote John. So the Bible doesn't present the play between sin and righteousness toward a standard of perfection. It's the play between law and grace toward the realization of love. And we really don't need to prove God's existence to pursue this. We can put on a good show, but true grace is not in our makeup. But what if I deferred my judgment of good and evil to this mysterious God, so HE's the one deciding, not me? That's what faith is really about.
The problem with modern christianity (lower case intended) is that it was captured by the state for a long period of history where the clergy were employed by the state and the interpretation of the scriptures was distorted to support the state. Those misrepresented interpretations are now taught without looking at their faithfulness to the actual word of God. This is why Jordan started at the beginning that the God that atheists are against is not the God of the Bible. Modern christianity is a caricature of what Christ intended because we rarely read the scriptures on our own and rarely rely on the holy Spirit to teach us. Most modern christians are followers of an ideology rather than lovers of Christ and others.
I found this episode really interesting. JBP played a significant role in my personal return to the Catholic faith, precisely because of his rational, existential argument for God. But this only leads to a certain point, namely the point where it is ostensibly a matter of deciding whether God is real or not, which has been very well elaborated in today's discussion. JBP's argument for faith as a pre-rational, not irrational, act really resonated with me. It is the personal experience, the trusting surrender to God or the great adventure of life that makes the experience of God's presence possible in the first place. God is there and he is waiting for us - with open arms...
I can't get enough of these discussions. It's so nice hearing people have discussions instead of arguments.. especially about topics as important as these. Thank you Dr Peterson as well as your guest. Both of your points of view built on each other very well.
Jack brought out the best of JBP. Iron sharpens iron.
Ah yes, the iron intellect of someone who conflates harry potter with god
@@ryand1404 yeah no sh*t....
@@-TriP- Oh, did you mean JBP as the conflator? I see your point then, lol.
@@ryand1404 I did not see your reply, I assume it was well-reasoned and gentile. Ahem. I am generally in favor of Dr. Peterson however I am skeptical of his followers' "belief", I think he's actually an atheist.
@@-TriP- Yeah he’s a great help to people. He just sometimes tries to narrow God down too much to the point his conception of God sometimes seems purely psychological. On the other hand, since he’s a psychologist, maybe that's just the way he approaches everything.
The intro to 'Foundations of the West' literally gives me goosebumps. What a great adventure!
Really wish JP would invite a Bishop Robert Barron into these discussions. Or at least to reflect on this interview.
Please upvote to see that happen...
He has had Bishop Robert Barron on already, but I can see you mean as a regular thing. You'd have more chance getting in touch with BRB to do response videos on his own channel.
He’s had him on at least once maybe more
Yeah just search bishop Barron and Jordan. He has about 2 or 3 with him
“The only lives that truly matter are those who respect the lives of others”.
Matthew 5:44-45
King James Version
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Dearest Dr. Peterson, what you were saying about imagining yourself as the Auschwitz guard… and I’ve heard you say that many times before… reminds me very poignantly of a spiritual, emotional, and intellectual exercise we Christian fundamentalists used to do in order to prepare our hearts and minds to receive the sacrament of Holy Communion, which we called “remembering the Lord in His death.” An unspeakably holy and sacred thing for us. We identified ourselves with the jeering crowd who called for Christ’s crucifixion. We identified ourselves with the onlookers who mocked His sufferings. We knew ourselves to be at one with the Roman soldiers who swung the hammer and pounded the nails. We knew in the deepest part of ourselves that we were guilty of the death of our Lord. And we knew that His death was for our redemption and our forgiveness. With St. Paul, we knew ourselves to be crucified with Christ.
With Ruth Anne’s love
Thats deep, I never knew that was a thing christians did, but I can see how that would compel one to find the revelation and spiritual awakening in christ that so many christian have. Is that what we are missing?
Your mom
@@solomonnissan6226 your dad. What is wrong with you?
@@solomonnissan6226immature
And his resurrection bought our freedom. Jesus is there, when ever we want to reach out
The conversations where someone pushes back on jordan with some really compelling arguments are the best. And this may be my personal favorite, Jack Symes is a very respectful and intelligent man, I hope we can hear more from these two
If you can define it, you are greater than it. Thus, mine is to stay honest, open, and willing enough for God to define me.
If you can define it, then you are equal to it. And you are, when you learn what you are, and what God is.
I would posit that there's a difference between definition and truly understanding what you define. Defining something doesn't by nature make it greater or lesser but the level to which we accept that we truly and fully grasp something definitely says something about you. ❤
@@grietjie93 I strongly suspect that the reason nobody defines what their "God" is, is because they don't have understanding. And if they were to attempt to define it then their lack of understanding would become apparent. So they are living in darkness while attempting to appear that they are living in light.
@@KevinSolway a) that doesn't mean the Christian God whom they are mostly speaking of here by definition is undefineable :) and also I think nobody is a pretty strong term :) why do do you say nobody?
@@grietjie93 "the Christian God whom they are mostly speaking of here"
I have no idea what "the Christian God" is, since it is never defined. And I know for a fact that different Christians have completely different ideas of what God is.
I say "nobody" because I've watched hundreds of videos such as these, and nobody ever defines what they are talking about.
All of your guests, even the skeptics, seem to point me back to Christ.
I feel like that too. When JBPs views are opposed to a nihilistic and agnostic one, the meaning shines through even stronger.
I do wish JBP would’ve opposed him harder though. I think he’s trying to interrupt his guests less since the Elon Musk interview, but in this instance it meant he couldn’t crystallise his views as well as he might’ve.
For example, when the guy compares the Bible to Harry Potter… of course the Bible is more real and more full of truths. Because it documents thousands of years of moral wisdom and western society and culture have been closely linked to it for hundreds of years. He kept strawmanning the belief in God as this nice lie that makes you feel better instead of the crushing moral obligation that JBP believes it is.
Your God is not superior to others. The ideas discussed in this video predate Christianity by thousands of years.
@@shawnshahpari8681why do you think they think their God is superior to others? That's not even coherent since by definition there can be only one God.
@@barry.anderberg People think this is a war between your God and their God or Gods... It is not, Christianity is a great manifestation and hierarchization of the divine structure of reality through the human experience of good and evil. It is not the only one but probably one of the best if not the best (its the basis of western values and society which encompasses human rights and freedom or atleast the ideal of such concepts). So it is not their God thats superior, is their interpreation of the evidence of right and wrong paths that humans, with their inherited agency, can choose to follow.
@@barry.anderberg maybe because I’m ignorant about Christian beliefs however based on my experience Christian’s have a “Jesus or hell” attitude and they say that Jesus is God.
I really enjoyed this one a lot. Jack Symes is someone who can stand toe to toe with Jordan and also provide great synthesis, which made for a great and fruitful discussion.
he was pretty good, yeap. but still, did not get some points
As an atheist, recently I have come to believe that the best chance of saving this rotting and decaying society is to return to traditional Christian values. I will never believe in god or the divinity of Jesus, nor will I ever believe in the “miracles” described in the Bible, but I have always held conservative beliefs that would be described by most people as “Christian” and most of my beliefs are in strong agreement with Christianity. For a while I did not believe Christianity should return, but seeing the depraved nightmare that modern society has turned into has led me to believe that Christianity is a much better alternative to whatever filth exists today. I grew up in the church and the best, most morally upright and decent people I know are Christians. Not to say other people are not good, but I have found that Christian’s are the most committed to moral principles and least susceptible to what they might call “sin” and what I would call immorality.
Christianity without Christ is damned.
You expect the sheep to shepherd themselves?
Even the wise amongst men will call themselves agnostic.
You can doubt the Bible for now, but I would suggest studying it.
Remember, the world did not create itself. Matter did not create itself.
🎯
The coming collapse of materialism:
With quantum physics, conscious observation causes the wave function to collapse and information shapes your perceived material environment.
DNA information is the primary factor in biology; organic chemistry is secondary.
Imagine AI control of avatars in computer games to the extent that avatars exhibit independent consciousness in the simulation and act as if they are living in a material reality. They would be the materialist!
I found your reflection very interesting. As a Catholic, formerly agnostic, I understand where you are coming from, what I would question is, if a particular belief system seems to produce more moral and prosperous societies and individuals, wouldn't this at least be an indication that the beliefs where it all lies may have some truth to them? This questioned me deeply when I was not a believer, and I believe in might be the intelectual honest path to take, to question, hey, Why the hell does this works?
@@conservativewomble1393 how about trying to live like the character of Christ as described in the Bible instead of literally believing all the claims of the Bible. If all people strove to live like Jesus in their moral life, but still adhered to science and reality, that would be as close to utopia as humanity could possibly get
Really pushed my level of intelligence listening to this conversation. Was difficult, but enjoyed it and planted a lot of seeds of curiosity. 🙏🙌💙
Indeed. Intellectual gobbledygook is infinitely fascinating.
@@danmar007I have a feeling you were being sarcastic but I do believe that 😅
If your christian god decided to transition into a man in the 1st century, then how can you go around asking people: "What is a woman?" You ascribe to God what you deny for atheists. Have you no sense?
Whenever I see JBP's videos, I feel my IQ levels increasing :P
This is a great and utterly necessary bridge between two worlds that should never be separated in the first place.
Well said.
Nice.
Jack Symes went home and started reading the bible.
Based on what? Did we watch the same interview?
I think he won the debate because he had a pen in his hand and his shirt unbuttoned. What a poser.
Please interview Cliff knecthle....hes probably leading voice in terms of taking the bible literally. Itl be very interesting discussion to see
How to be a Textbook piece of shit: interpret the bible literally.
Agreed!
I didn't know who Jack Symes was before entering. Now my interest is peaked.
Will be exploring this soon.
And finally we have a podcast on the problem of defining God. This problem had been my number 1 question to people before I became Christian. What is God? Who is God?
We could not hope to find or determine the existence of something that we don't even know.
He's a big long list of things we can't find
@@donaldmcronald8989 That's only from your perspective I suppose. Historically, it seems that people have found him in approximations and through the names of God built their societies.
@@SbonisoMMDlamini That's not discovery. Those gods were never found. I can posit the existence of anything beyond my death, and you'll never be able to take it away from me. No syllogism can defeat it.
@@donaldmcronald8989 Sorry but you are saying it as if anything you could posit could hold a society together in any reasonable way or amount. That's simply a gradation in difference you don't appreciate.
And why is it that you act as if there is always something beyond death in these stories...
I would like to see this conversation again through the lens of the gift of free will.
Interesting -- I would have thought this discussion is a demonstration of free will. I believe there's a real logic which requires belief in the monotheistic God ... man is too chaotic to be a result of evolution. That said, free will permits discussions like this. It also dictates that freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of speech are a requirement to live life correctly. Because we don't have all the evidence, and our thoughts only become real when spoken. Thus speaking produces the evidence which leads others (and often ourselves) to seek God, and become saved.
As for defining God, St. John already did that. “God is Light. God is love.”
Meaning that the very essence of God is Love and Light, neither of which properties can be defined by our science. Ineffable, as you say.
God is not love.
"Neither of which properties can be defined by our science."
And neither of which can be defined by you, obviously, or you would have done it.
with all due respect, both litht AND love can and HAVE been defined by our sciences.
@@pluff22no they have not. Energy can be observed in it's effects, and characterized or quantified in certain ways, but what it "is" cannot be defined. This is not even a religious position but is manifestly the case, period. Is light a wave or a particle or both or neither or does it depend? And what is "it", the actual thing behind our observations? If you think science knows the answer, you're in fact not familiar enough with the science, let alone philosophy which is necessary for science to be possible and meaningful.
@@KevinSolwaylove isn't so much defined as it is demonstrated, since love is more properly a verb than a noun. If love has no object or action, it is nothing, other than what we might claim as a feeling, but love is not a feeling.
Love in the Bible is defined via descriptions of demonstrations, namely; the sacrifice of Christ, and in another place, a man sacrificing his life for his friend.
It's also given a lengthy description in 1 Corinthians 13. You could easily look up all the references if you cared to.
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life...Amen 🙏
My thought gets exactly
🙏
To think that some would want Christianity without Christ 🤔
Russian bot
@@Blacksheep-uy3qv
How does that work? False Prophets?
regarding pain; pain may be the greatest survival mechanism of all animals as far as deterring them away from danger..
A fellow said ; the Holy Spirit hides in the pain ! If and when you bottom out and the pain gets great enough that hell will make you a believer !
You will either cry for your mother or cry to God!
This is an extraordinary conversation on the most fundamental quest of the human "soul" by two brilliant, kind, respectful and articulate deep thinkers I have ever encountered. What is the meaning of life, and especially suffering. I would ask other listeners to not only listen to their arguments, but, most importantly FEEL what happens to you deep in the center of your being during certain passages from both participants. You may even notice as I did an evolving symphony akin to Brahms Piano Concerto #2, my favorite composition, from one of the speakers. The ebbs and flows of a coherent theme punctuated by passages of pathos, complexity and heroic grandeur are my best way of describing the deep emotional resonance I felt from this "composer". Mark Berry
29:14 saying "you don't have to believe in a perfect God...to be a Christian" is like believing that numbers are NOT infinite while calling yourself a mathematician. Saying such a thing would make you look like a mad man to mathematicians and commoners alike. Numbers don't lie and are infinite. Just like God.
So very pleased to see the good professor look and articulate himself sharply after all these years and the associated trials and tribulations.
What a great conversation. I didn't know this guy but I really liked him and am looking forward to delving into his work over the next few months
Super educated people generally think they are too smart to believe in our Almighty Lord. Remember Jesus said you must have the “faith” of a child. That takes humility 🙏🏼
Commit to faith, faith fails you in all respects, aethism.
Often they proclaim the pecisions of science without addressing its postulates , uncertaintities and the unseen elements necessary for its methods.
Maybe they have discovered something that we haven't
God is a Jungian archetype. This concept is implanted in our subconscious at time of birth.
Matthew 18:3 "If you don't change and become like a child, you will never get into the kingdom of heaven.,,"
For the JOY that was set before him, Christ endured the Cross, despising the shame.
My favorite conversation so far. Thank you both parties for the exchange. That is profound evangelism.
GOD giveth grace unto the humble, but he resisteth the proud.
GOD GIVETH GRACE UNTO THE HUMBLE.
Beautiful conversation. I appreciate both perspectives. Wonderful points on both sides.
His ex girlfriend line entering the 48 minute mark is gold 😊
Jordans arguments for theism particularly Catholicism with continual citations of the bible utterly compelling and made sense. Jack’s counterarguments for theism and agnosticism were as strong as he could possibly make but did not stand up and did not provide a path to a frame work of meaning. And a lack of meaning leads to anxiety and suffering and ultimately an ignorance to the manifestation for that which is bad or evil. Thus, inflicting the anxiety and suffering of those around you.
If the calling and moving further out of reach in a developmental path is an infinite path, then there’s no ultimate goal that’s reachable. If that’s the case then hope can’t be based on attainment but rather on the joy of growth and that’s a never ending process.
Amazing. I'm a Peterson fan, and I enjoy (and rate) Jack hugely. I first saw Jack debate Stephen Law, and that was dense but astounding. I'd love to see a round two to this. Symes brought out the best from Peterson.
I absolutely loved this discussion. Caused me to deeply think about how I view my own beliefs and I’m eager to watch this again to get a better understanding. Can’t wait to read his book also
When a VERY smart mart meets a Genius! This was an incredible conversation!!!
This may be my favorite episode of all! My hat is off to them both. What a beautiful explanation of the story of Job.
On the discussion of believing in truth vs a comforting lie that leads to flourishing.... I counter that no, it is not comforting, it is terrifying that I beleive many people I know will be permanently cut off from God’s grace. It is not at all a ‘pleasant’ thing to believe in - to limit myself and place my self under the ultimate authority of another I cannot begin to comprehend- so I would counter that the presumption it’s an easy lie in place of truth is just a lack of understanding what believing in Christ really is. I believe it is true. I do not ‘want’ in the traditional sense to believe it, but I do believe it and act it out in my actions and allegiance as best I can.
Amen to that. I believe in God and that brings me comfort but also simultaneously the weight of God's judgment. It's not like life suddenly gets easier, any Christian can attest.
In one sense, life becomes harder because now I have to live up to a standard but also it becomes much more meaningful.
I would suggest do not worry yourself with such thoughts. God will handle it and call them to Him. Give grace and prayer, and show some humility. Throw the first stone if you are so perfect.
You might want to question further why you don't want to believe it. Maybe there's an intuition you're ignoring!
I mean, if you don't want to believe it, do you really believe it?
@@ditro-p I'm speaking in the Christian context, those who believe in Christ, who believe in salvation and resurrection from the dead
Jack needs a gold chain
Haha! He actually just needs to fasten one more button on his shirt~😌
Those who have been forgiven much, love Him much, and there is forgiveness with Him that He may be feared, and as His majesty is so is His mercy and as His mercy is so is His indignation and wrath.
What a delightful Episode.
Watching the insightful discussion, and attempting to get close to clarity, with precise steps and illumination in a swamp of murky and unsure-footed subject matter!
Thank you to you and your guest for the acute listening and mutual cross-interrogation.
This is my first recent interview I have heard from Jack! I cannot help but find his style is very patronising, is that just me? The whole "good" or "this is good" for me sounds like he is talking to someone underneath him?
I agree. There was something patronising about him, an "I know best" attitude coming from a man who only graduated in 2014, so he must be about 31 years old. Alex O'Connor, younger than Symes I think, is more impressive. I actually think Symes is trying to undermine Jordan here, even sneering at him. Symes is a BBC Young Thinker, which is a red flag for me.
I disagree, he feels like he's just distancing himself a little from the discussion so as not to let his biases or his passions take over what the other person might be saying. Maybe you can come across as patronizing by just acting collected, but if his inner framework is all about flirting with certain ideas and adopt what's useful, this is pretty much how you would be acting.
Totally agree about the condescension! I cringed each time Jack said “Good!”
Interesting how the guest tries to place Jordan in a box by defining where he stands … exactly.
Jordan does not go there at all but rather goes back to concepts without stakes in the ground.
Consciousness is outside of physics outside of matter outside of our system and is therefore eternal
For me, the "problem of evil" was resolved by contemplating the following two questions:
1) Do we have an immortal soul?
2) Upon death, do we experience a so called "life review"?
I came to the conclusion that the answer to both questions is "yes". Therefore life is a training ground for the soul, and there is no "problem of evil".
The conclusion is then that "life" as we know it is the process by which good souls are made.
Did you "come to" that conclusion or did you start with it? If you did come to that conclusion, how did you get there?
@@spindoctor6385 I came to it. I wasn't raised in the church and was an atheist leaning agnostic in grad school when I really started thinking deeply on life and meaning. How I came to answer those two questions in the way that I do now is difficult to put into words, but I'll try. It was something like first acknowledging that neither I nor anyone else knows or even can know for sure, but by committing myself fully to the earnest pursuit of Truth, and having an open mind, I might allow myself to come closest to that goal. I just started meditating on it a lot, without any assumptions of what the answers should be. I also practiced shutting off my internal dialogue, as a way of thinking without words, allowing contemplation and answer to form coherently as gestalt. I did this for many years.
This part is the hardest to describe but you asked so I'll try my best. One day I came to the very sudden realization that none of this stuff has to be here. A void is a perfectly reasonable alternative to existence, and would in fact be more reasonable than a universe full of stuff and living beings. None of this stuff that exists has any meaning in and of itself. It shouldn't be here. But the fact that it does exist means that there IS a reason for it, and that reason is something beyond it's mere existence.
In other words, purpose for existence isn't simply assumed, it's *required*
I understand that this argument cannot be proven with words. Whether or not I arrange them to form something valid and sound, they will never convince anyone of anything. But I do believe that the *process* I described in getting there, will bring a person to the same place, or somewhere very close to it.
From there - accepting that there is meaning and purpose - the rest did in time follow naturally.
@@spindoctor6385 Either nihilism is true or it isn't. If it is, then why care about anything at all? Why even care about the answers to your questions? If that were the case, then none of this will matter anyway. Someday we will all be dead and forgotten and all these conversations will fade into obscurity. Either there is something to this life or there isn't. Nihilism, yes or no?
@@quentin1691 I agree with you, to the extent that life is a gift, and what we do with it now is of consequence. Our belief systems appear to diverge on the rest, and that's ok.
It's not that I think belief is unimportant. I think it *is* important. It can help us to find purpose and meaning. It can provide us with comfort, and relief from existential angst.
Ultimately tho, what people *do* is more important to me than what they *believe*
If you do good things, you're a good person as far as I'm concerned. What you believe is none of my business (unless of course we're talking about it like we're doing now, openly and with respect for one another)
@@sakamotosan1887 Sounds like you are the one dealing with nihilism, not me. This false dichotomy of some afterlife judge or nihilism is very short sighted. And just because you do not like the conclusions that YOU come to if there isn't something else afterwards, does not make for a compelling reason to believe the only other option that you can come up with. That is just fear.
A valuable and engaging discussion to witness. Huge gratitude to you both choosing to enter into it and to let us share in it.
Jordan Peterson is so smart and inspires me/comforts me! He’s definitely helped me move in the direction of the unity of which he speaks!
“Defining God” is a crazy proposition
“Naturally, we never succeed, but it's the pursuit..that's meaningful.”
- little girl from Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
@@bankieyI agree. Beautifully put. Where I see god, is in the way these souls inevitably reach out to the world, in an attempt to encapsulate in words that which encapsulate themselves. In the shared experience of mental absurdity and physical rawness, exactly there where universal compassion is born.
@@Jaepew can I ask you to say more?
@@bankiey of course, about what?
@@Jaepew could you say the same thing but with 25 percent more words? I think I’d perhaps get a better grasp of what you’re saying
Where sin abounds, grace abounds much more abundantly.
Jack would DEEPLY benefit from studying Ecclesiastes and the Sermon on the Mount.
Thank you. I found the conversation quite stimulating.
I love listening to intelligence conversations ❤❤❤
JBP and his guests delight me with their use of language. English is my second language and sometimes I can not even imagine how to translate their ideas into Spanish. My respect and admiration for them. ❤
The resurrection of Jesus is existentially satisfying and intellectually credible. The truth has to and will be both, Mr Agnostic.
Someone asked me, “What does ‘?’ mean?” It’s a complicated thing. First, we have to define the nature of ‘?’ in relation to the sentence, and then we have to define the nature of the person asking the question (if a question is indeed what they’re really "asking", however we shouldn’t presume what "questioning" means).
Before we do that, we need to define the meaning of the word “meaning” to the person asking the question. However, it’s essential that we establish an objective definition of meaning. That’s a difficult thing to do man, and we have to be very careful about jumping to conclusions.
It’s taken millennia for humans to distill the meaning of “meaning” into the biblical corpus, so it would be arrogant of us to even attempt answering the question in such simple terms… Especially if we haven’t established what “person” means, since individual consciousness and the collective unconscious may exist in some kind of superposition.
I enjoyed your chat with Alex, by the way, and am in full support of you standing up to your corrupt and cowardly government, board of psychologists (or whatever they’re called), bringing on guests like Tommy, etc.
Christ is not on the top of the ladder. He is the ladder. Therefore, welcome to the ladder and fulfillment on every step. "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”
This Build is Triumphant 🙏 To Define God is to define the Everlasting..However to try is ever so endearing 👍 Jordan Peterson X Jack Symes
The wind blows where it wants to, and you hear its sound, but you don't know where it comes from or where it's going.
Faith is not prerational, it transcends it. If this weren’t the case, Moses would have told good something like “what’s the point of these plagues if you’re going to harden this guy’s heart anyway?”
Evil is , that the body decays….. it is ruined by daily wear and tear, as well as consumption of food, sugar , alcohol…etc…these things speed up our eventual death…our worst fear…
So glad to hear Dr. Peterson speak on the book of Job.
Protect this at all costs....
The First Amendment prevents the government from creating or establishing a religion, and thereby prevents the power of the government from expanding beyond civil matters. The First Amendment also protects people’s right to worship however they choose, or to not worship any God at all.
I could listen and look at these 2 all day long!
A completely meaningless conversation. This episode was supposed to be about the definition of God, but you never got around to it. Your guest is "agnostic" because he has no idea what he means by "God".
"Defining god" this is the kush I subscribed for.
I would be very interested to see what a study and breaking down of the Book of Mormon apart from and in tandem with the Bible would bring about in a conversation with Jordan
I would watch that one!
WE NEED AN EPISODE WITH DR. WILLIAM LANE CRAIG!!
No we don't
Agreed. There are others who would be good also, but since he's a competent trained philosopher he'd be a good one. But Peterson also needs to leave the philosophy behind at times and deal with the historicity and pure theology and morality of Christianity outside of the imprecise and intangible world of philosophy.
If only we still had CS Lewis.
@@Artcore103 ... morality and theology is the realm of philosophy. Theology is like, the heart of philosophy in some sense.
Historicity will inevitably overlap with philosophy because part of history is the realm of ideas.
Love and light = God; hate and darkness = Satan/evil
It's just that simple. Sin will always be crouching at our door, WE have to overcome this by our free will and embracing God's Love. All things in the universe, i.e. God's Creation are good: the sun, the moon, the land, the oceans, the rivers and seas, and the air we breathe...ALL Good. However, in hell ALL these things are non existent, because God's goodness is not there. And God doesn't want any of us away from Him in that dark and painful place. We do have heaven on earth, we just don't listen to our Creator and allow Him to lead us in subduing His Creation for our good. We have to have a true loving relationship with God in order to thrive in His Goodness ❤
Abraham did not leave the house of his father because God told him to "go out", Abraham advised his father, who was an idol maker, to stop making idols and to not worship idols but instead to worship God.
Abraham's father told him to stop telling him to shun the false idols and instead to get out of the house and leave his presence. Therefore, Abraham was exiled from his father's house for preaching monotheism to polytheists.
At the time of Abraham, idols or wood and stone, carved and made by humans, like Baal, were worshipped. Abraham destroyed these idols, broke them all with the exception of the idol of Baal and made a mockery of those who worshipped those idols.
To this effect, God took Abraham as His friend.
If you interpret God as this "instict voice" which told Abraham to "go out" and leave the comfort of your father's house, you are essentially attempting to take God out of the equation. Instead, God spoke to Abraham because Abraham broke the idols.
God spoke to Abraham because Abraham preached monotheism in a society that was polytheistic, even his father was a polytheist.
Abraham's story is not devoid of pain and suffering, for to be exiled by your father, from the house of your childhood, because of your beliefs is akin to any other type of suffering that people would have.
If someone goes through hardships to enforce the worship of God and attempt to call people to believe in God and shun false gods, then God is surely to support them, guide them, befriend them, and even make all their wishes come true. Therefore, it is no wonder that God promised Abraham with a covenant.
It is a promise from God to a human he selected from among his time and from among all believers.
If you look up the word, here is one answer "In psychology, consciousness is the awareness of one's internal and external stimuli, including thoughts, emotions, feelings, sensations, and the environment. It is a subjective experience that is unique to each person. "
The debate science v religion will always be questioned and how much proof/evidence there is to support either side (or other!) Holy books will tell you it is from a tree in Christianity "The Tree of Life" & "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" I mean no one will ever know the true answer here. But I do like listening to these debates for thought!
I like that this young fellow, though a bibliography of "someone once said", is still searching. He may just find what he doesn't seem to know he's searching for.
I'm not sure he is genuinely searching for objective truth. I believe he thinks the only respectable position is to be one of these forever seekers, sadly. Like Jason Silva, et al.
‘One should never get involved in verbal questions or questions of meaning, and never get interested in words. If challenged by the question of whether a word one uses really means this or perhaps that, then one should say: 'I don't know, and I am not interested in meanings; and if you wish, I will gladly accept your terminology?’
- Karl Popper
God creates everything….even consciousness, so it is reasonable to assume god can create an infinite amount of consciousness forms.
All different from what we may agree that we perceive….
With god all things are possible, and can exist if God deems it to be of necessity to the story at hand
🤗🙏
This was a great conversation. Jack Symes is a very engaging interlocutor.
Reality is so different with and without a personal God in perspective. Imagine the highest moral good to be alive and possess persona. Unless one blows his own old mind and shatters his old man, there is no way one can give space to reality like this.
Another point we are afraid that if we align ourselves with God’s will we will get crucified; so we drink the Kool Aid instead.
Praise the LORD. 🙏 Truly enjoying your content, Jordan.
When the Philosopher claims that a systematic problem of evil is a new challenge to theism, as it relates to evolution seems to fall short of overcoming the already existing theodicies for the problem of evil. Even the notion of a lesser evil for a greater good would play into defence of the “evolutionary system of evil”, in the sense that the overarching aim of evolution is survival. Sure death is a part of this process, but this death ultimately leads to organisms which can survive better than they otherwise would’ve been able to.
For millenia, people have been describing and defining God, trying to fit him into the box of their definitions, limiting him by their own lack of understanding. God is too big for that. There has to be a point where we admit that some things, such as God, are beyond our comprehension and accept our limitations. Some people find this hard to do.
It is difficult to do in a generation of egotism, where people believe that their opinions that could very much be influenced by their vain desires are more important than anything else. That if a person has a personal frame that they believe is true would immediately assume that their truth overpowers other people's truths. By definition thinking that their opinion is truer than other people's opinion, and waving a place at the table for their opinions. God is truly inconceivable if we think that we need to be very precise when defining God. It is similar to trying to pinpoint a definition on something that cannot be defined. Because to define God is to constrain Him by our definition to something that can be conceived or put into words. This is what it means to be "ineffable and receding".
That by arriving to a specific definition, God is more than that definition, by His definition of being "infinite".
"Ineffable" means: "cannot be put into words"
"and receding" means: "Even if you can find a definition, He is far above being constrained by that definition. He is more than that."
Trying to find a definition or specific conception of God would leave a person lost in a loophole that is actually "by design". It is an endless loop of everything that a person associated with what he calls "God".
God is above everything and above description, and therefore, when we say "receding" we would have to mean that He is "going higher" rather than "going further".
If defining God would make God "recede" moving away from us, then that would still be possible and could be true about God. That by defining Him, He would "move further away" because we would be attempting to "limit Him" to our own frameworks. God is far above being limited by human frames of reference.
What do we know of the greatness of the universe?
We, as humans, have grown so arrogant and proud that we would even have the audacity to claim knowledge of things about God, which He Himself did not say about Himself. How would we know God to "define" Him. The only definition that truly captures His Holiness is to call Him "Elah", this word is not a title but a noun. It is a Holy Name that would describe no one but God Himself and for that He took it as a Name in all Abrahamic religions.
There can only be One "Elah" in the world, and He is the Only One to have that association with the Name, because He is the Unique Being.
It is not hard to define God when you call Him by His Name, "Allah".
But to think that He would constrain Himself by His creation is limiting to Him, but God has to necessarily be "Free" to do what He wants and by His own terms.
Trying to be specific in conceptualizing God is the reason why people find this hard to achieve. Specificity is only meant to satisfy human desires and wishes, it is not always used for the purpose of "the good", it can also be used for the complication of an already simple matter.
But what if "understanding God" would only be possible if we use "simple" terms rather than "specific concepts"? We can only understand God if we think about Him how a child would think. That even if we grow old we would still only be as old as the timespan of a fraction of a second for God. When understanding that He is greater than all human standards and ideals, we would immediately arrive at a conception of God as the "Supreme Being" who is "Most Knowledgeable".
Always have in mind that God knows better than you, and that sometimes He knows and you do not.
As humans, we were not created to know the exact minute details about everything. It is reliance on science as a measuring stick that was the issue with human development. We do not need to know specifics and we do not need to see to believe that something is true. Therefore, "ineffable" would also require that the eyes cannot conceive of Him, since it is limited by the material world that we can perceive as humans. In other words, God will always be the "Unseen God" who created humans, who saw Him once in the garden, but then was not permitted to perceive Him in the limited physical world, because He is, by essence, "the Unlimited".
You can forever be unable to fully describe an idea, or a thing or someone. You are still free and possibly even correct on what you're trying to define. This is a perfectly imperfect world we're living to begin with, it feels poignant to even attempt using lower level communication tools to explain the entirety of a thing that lives in a dimension above our own. You'll see the same problem for example when asking people to describe life as an idea, you know it means many things at the same time, just use the word most fitting to the idea you want to convey at the moment, you won't be wrong unless you're trying to be wrong.
Wonderful conversation. So grateful to be able to experience it.
I don’t know if my Christian discernment is rightly going off the charts or if I’m just getting a little crazy, but it really struck me how out of place Mr. Symes laugh was around the 38:00 minute mark. If I was retelling the story of the Lion King, said how Scar ‘took everything’ from Simba, then backtracked and said “well not everything, but close enough”, I don’t think anyone would see humour in the retelling/backtracking of the Lion King.
When torturing Job, Satan’s main excuse for being unable to to shake Job’s faith in God was that Satan ‘didn’t get to try everything’. It’s a lame excuse for the only restriction Satan had on torturing Job was that he wasn’t allowed to take Job’s life, but the restriction was enough to make Satan rage-quit the challenge. I see Mr. Symes laughter as a spiritual alignment with of Satan’s objection; ‘yeah, Satan really didn’t get to try everything, so glad you noted that Dr. Peterson, Satan has been saying that for ages with the implication being Satan would have succeeded at proving all-knowing God was in fact not all-knowing, if only Satan was allowed to mess with Job’s life by killing the man.’ This is in direct conflict with the biblical lesson God tries to teach us, that ‘Satan has been a murderer and a liar from the beginning’.
Again, I am aware I’m putting words in Mr. Symes mouth, but I can’t see another reason why he would find himself compelled to laugh at 38:00 minute mark. I would even go so far is the same dissenting spirit that Sarah, wife of Abraham, aligned with in her disbelief that she would have a child in her old age. I would love to direct God’s immediate question that came after Sarah’s laughter to Mr. Symes; ‘why’d you laugh?’ 😅😅😅
Our call is VITAL and REAL! Loved it!! A great guest for the podcast would be Dr N.T. Wright, he has 12 PHDs. It would be awesome to see the conclusions from that conversation
Could a humble, wise prayer resemble something like “Lord, please guide me to gently confront the situations that encompass in them the potential for my next evolution, an evolution in which I listen attentively like Dr. Jack Symes.”?
The problem facing Dr. Peterson is that, since he was really the first to bring to the masses responsibility and meaning, besides DMX, "To live is to suffer, but to survive is to find meaning in the suffering." Google it, and if Dr. Peterson is reading this, please listen to it. Back to the point I was making: when younger guests come on and talk about it like they discovered fire 🔥, it loses me because I can't tell if they're genuine or just piggybacking off of Dr. Peterson.
Jordan Peterson, read again the account of Job. In Hebrew it begins he "had born" to him 10 children. It ends with Job "had10 children"! So did not our very Good God answer Job but Satan got permission to test him in the process of answering the original prayer. You are made in His image. Is it possible a divine key is in this historical account. To answer Job's prayer inflection was put on God when the children deserved it. I see Job retracting and repenting because the lamb was slain before the foundation of the earth. What then did Moses "see" when he saw the back of God. Repentance comes at the point of the eyes and heart being opened. Heaven is in the heart of those who believe Jesus .
Jacob's ID was changed at the encounter. Job believed God by the hearing of the ear but now He knows Him.
I must say, the advertisements in the middle of the discussion are really annoying and very distracting. It would be best if you add them at one place at the start, or middle or the end instead of scattered throughout the vid.
Dr. Peterson Thank you for this kind of video, so much appreciated. I am so amaze of the knowledge about the information you have imparted to everyone. Please keep continue on what you're doing. I will support this kind of act...
Nice, saw this guy on Rogan recently, happy to see him again
A choice between good or evil or heaven or hell.....
This channel is the BEST for the content at had. Much ❤ 🤗
I'm no scholar but, during the patchwork quilt argument when Dr. Symes appeals to Plato's forms, i.e. why not just stop at multiple forms such as justice, etc. Wasn't it a part of Plato's theory of forms that even those forms took part in a single greater form? The form of the good?
I'll have to do some research.
Great conversation!
Praise The Lord Y'all, Sending Love and Prayers
JP quoting Mircea Eliade again, love it
At least from the perspective of Catholicism, the Catholic Church doesnt believe in Darwinian evolution specifically, i.e. evolution whereby a species starts to exhibit physiological changes to the point of becoming another species entirely, thereby having the former wiped out. However, they leave it up to individual catholics the freedom whether or not to accept the theory of evolution whereby each species could, over time, exhibit slightly different properties but nevertheless remain the same species.
There is no reality without awareness. Reality becomes reality because WE BECOMING--- BEING AWARE OF SOMETHING! It is our awareness brings things into focus, and we then add our considerations - labels the things we see.
This video is an interview with Dr. Jack Sims, a public philosopher and researcher at Durham University. Dr. Sims is also known as a podcaster, the Pan cast philosophy podcast, which is one of the UK's most popular higher education programs. He is also the editor of the Talking about philosophy book series so he has written and edited a few books on the philosophy of Consciousness and then books that describe the concept of God and also the morality of the god that's being portrayed. The discussion that they had in the video conceptualizations of Consciousness, what we have in the popular culture now with regards to the arguments between the atheists and the Believers, and the ongoing intellectual conversation about how to respecify what we believe fundamentally in the West.
Some key points from the video:
* The search for meaning in a world that doesn't obviously present us meaning is the world that we need to embrace if we're going to live honestly and authentically.
* The god that's criticized by The Atheist types, the materialist reductionist atheist types, is somewhat of a straw man and a parody God.
* There's a crisis of belief in the West and what we believe fundamentally is up for grabs.
* Consciousness is a fundamental property of being, not a product of complex physical processes.
* The hard problem of Consciousness is to explain Consciousness itself.
* There are three broad propositions: 1. When we perceive the world and act in the world we're making value judgments, 2. There is a ladder of intrinsic goods that we can climb but never reach perfection, and 3. There is a transcendent reality that grounds our values and gives meaning to our lives.
* The biblical promise is that the revelation of the fundamental structure of reality comes to you if you pursue the truth.
* We're not built for hedonistic infantilism, but for a life of meaning and purpose.
* The good versus evil God is a complex issue that has been debated by philosophers for centuries.
I hope this summary is helpful!
"* There's a crisis of belief in the West and what we believe fundamentally is up for grabs."
"* The biblical promise is that the revelation of the fundamental structure of reality comes to you if you pursue the truth."
"* We're not built for hedonistic infantilism, but for a life of meaning and purpose."
These being interesting topics, but ultimately not what reality is hence it's snake oil being sold.
The crisis seems to be a "war" of inspirational stories, or lack thereof.
Truth implies there's nothing more to learn and biblical authority being the final word, and since it's a clerical religion you really need a powerful priest class for that final word that doesn't exist anymore, imo.
We're built to do whatever we get away with, hedonistic infantilism becomes your purpose it would seem.
Chat GPT ?
"Childlike Faith Is Trusting. Children believe the promises their parents make. This trusting spirit and absolute dependence is what our heavenly father wants from all believers. To love involves trusting the beloved beyond the evidence, even against much evidence." An intellectual journey may provide knowledge but that doesn't translate into faith. In fact, it is possible that the intellectual search for God may hamper the establishment of faith and instill a lack of trust.
"Anxiety is an index of disunity." - Jordan B Peterson
To God belongs the "credit" for human morality and ethics. To Him belongs control of this spirit of morality with which humans discern whether or not a certain action is "moral" or "immoral". Had it not been for God, humans would not have developed the first social contract, or the first set of social norms that would be considered acceptable among all humans.
He is the Arbiter of all matters that pertain to social conduct among His creatures.
How one perceives (the biblical) God is indeed at the heart of the issue. Most think of God as the "perfect" being. And he MUST be as creator of the universe. He set the standards! The break with humanity (his image and likeness) came with who gets to decide what "perfect" is. That is what is up for grabs-not only between mankind and God, but within mankind. The real issue is not about perfection, but how to handle the differences. We are naturally-born judges of what is good and what is evil in a judgmental world-with some of us facing off with God as well. But God doesn't look at us as we do him. He looks at us with grace, not judgment. Grace is at the heart of his natural makeup. "God is love," wrote John.
So the Bible doesn't present the play between sin and righteousness toward a standard of perfection. It's the play between law and grace toward the realization of love.
And we really don't need to prove God's existence to pursue this. We can put on a good show, but true grace is not in our makeup. But what if I deferred my judgment of good and evil to this mysterious God, so HE's the one deciding, not me? That's what faith is really about.
The problem with modern christianity (lower case intended) is that it was captured by the state for a long period of history where the clergy were employed by the state and the interpretation of the scriptures was distorted to support the state. Those misrepresented interpretations are now taught without looking at their faithfulness to the actual word of God. This is why Jordan started at the beginning that the God that atheists are against is not the God of the Bible. Modern christianity is a caricature of what Christ intended because we rarely read the scriptures on our own and rarely rely on the holy Spirit to teach us. Most modern christians are followers of an ideology rather than lovers of Christ and others.