Jordan Peterson vs 20 Atheists

Summary

Surrounded Podcast Episode 1: Christian vs 20 Atheists (ft. Jordan Peterson)
Hosted by Jubilee Media
Release Date: May 25, 2025

---

Introduction

In the inaugural episode of Surrounded, hosted by Jubilee Media, Dr. Jordan Peterson, a renowned clinical psychologist and former professor, engages in a high-stakes debate against 25 atheists. The format pits one individual against a multitude of opposing views, aiming to foster raw and unfiltered conversations that challenge assumptions and spark meaningful connections. This episode delves deep into the intersections of religion, morality, and atheism, providing listeners with a comprehensive exploration of these contentious topics.

---

Key Claims and Debates

1. Atheists Reject God Without Understanding What They're Rejecting

Dr. Jordan Peterson's Assertion:
Peterson posits that atheists dismiss the concept of God without fully comprehending the multifaceted nature of the divine as presented in religious traditions. He argues that atheists may have a reductive view of God, often influenced by negative experiences with religion or the divine.

• Quote:
  "[02:02] Dr. Jordan Peterson: Atheists reject God, but they don't understand what they're rejecting."

Atheist Challenge:
Participants counter by questioning Peterson's definitions, suggesting that he oversimplifies atheism and conflates disparate beliefs. They argue that atheism itself is a broad spectrum, encompassing various understandings and interpretations of what "God" entails.

• Quote:
  "[03:53] Unknown Participant: It seems like you have the reductive view of what an atheist is."

Discussion Highlights:

• Defining God:
  Debaters grapple with the definition of God, with Peterson referencing Judeo-Christian conceptions, while atheists emphasize the diversity of interpretations and reject a singular portrayal.

• Relevance of Historical Context:
  Peterson underscores the importance of contextualizing biblical stories, contending that standalone verses must be understood within the broader narrative to avoid misinterpretation.

• Hierarchy of Beliefs:
  The conversation touches upon the idea that differing foundational beliefs can lead to conflicts, as common understanding presumes some level of agreement on definitions.

2. Morality and Purpose Cannot Be Found Within Science

Dr. Jordan Peterson's Claim:
Peterson asserts that science alone cannot provide a comprehensive framework for morality and purpose. He believes that these aspects are inherently tied to religious and spiritual frameworks, which offer the necessary ethical foundations that science lacks.

• Quote:
  "[20:36] Dr. Jordan Peterson: My next claim is that everybody worships something, including atheists, even though they might not know it."

Atheist Response:
Participants challenge this notion by presenting examples of innate moral behaviors observed in humans and other animals, arguing that empathy and social cooperation are evolutionary traits that form the basis of morality independent of religious doctrines.

• Quote:
  "[21:18] Unknown Host: Typically, you're a Neanderthal. You can't eat, you can't hunt, you die."

Discussion Highlights:

• Evolution of Morality:
  The debate explores whether moral instincts evolved naturally or are imposed by religious structures. Atheists argue that social behaviors like altruism and fairness can arise without religious influence.

• Science and Moral Frameworks:
  While acknowledging that science explains the evolution of morality, Peterson contends that it does not dictate moral imperatives or purposes, which he believes require a transcendent foundation.

• Role of Conscience:
  The conversation delves into the sources of ethical decision-making, with Peterson highlighting the role of conscience as a foundational element in religious morality.

3. Everybody Worships Something, Including Atheists

Dr. Jordan Peterson's Assertion:
Peterson introduces the idea that all individuals inherently worship something by prioritizing certain values or principles over others. This "worship," whether conscious or unconscious, structures one's life and decisions.

• Quote:
  "[41:13] Unknown Participant: I kind of just mean having a reverential view for in a manner in which you believe it to be above and beyond normal things you like."

Atheist Challenge:
Participants scrutinize Peterson's definition of worship, arguing that prioritizing values doesn't equate to worshiping them in a religious sense. They contend that everyday commitments, such as to family or career, don't necessarily constitute worship.

• Quote:
  "[56:17] Unknown Participant: Do I worship love?"

Discussion Highlights:

• Hierarchy of Values:
  The debate examines how individuals rank their values and whether this ranking implies a form of worship. Peterson maintains that a clear hierarchy is essential for a meaningful life, while atheists question the necessity of framing it as worship.

• Measuring Worship:
  A critical point revolves around defining the threshold at which prioritizing a value transitions into worship. Participants seek clarity on whether partial adherence or varied motivations can be categorized as worship.

• Consequences of Worship:
  Peterson links the act of worship to long-term psychological well-being, suggesting that without a central "worship," individuals may experience anxiety and purposelessness.

4. Acceptance of Christian Morality by Atheists While Denying Foundational Stories

Dr. Jordan Peterson's Claim:
Peterson argues that many atheists embrace moral principles that align closely with Christian ethics, despite rejecting the foundational religious narratives that establish these morals.

• Quote:
  "[63:08] Dr. Jordan Peterson: So, yeah, but I think you see there are different kinds of truth claims, right? There's propositional truth claims claims, which are the truth claims of what you say. And then there's embodied truth claims, which is the truth claims of what you do that should be prioritized optimally."

Atheist Response:
Participants highlight the autonomy of ethical reasoning, asserting that moral values can be reasoned out and adopted based on societal benefits rather than religious mandate. They question the necessity of Christian narratives for ethical frameworks.

• Quote:
  "[63:21] Unknown Participant: It's very nice to meet you."

Discussion Highlights:

• Historical Context of Morality:
  The conversation touches on how Christian morality has influenced Western ethical systems, but atheists emphasize that such systems can stand independently of religious foundations.

• Interpretation of Biblical Ethics:
  Participants bring up controversial biblical passages to challenge the claim that Christian ethics are inherently moral, advocating for contextual and metaphorical understandings.

• Psychological Impact:
  Peterson underscores the psychological benefits of adhering to a moral framework, whether religious or secular, while atheists argue that happiness and well-being can be achieved without religious doctrines.

---

Conclusion

The episode of Surrounded featuring Dr. Jordan Peterson and 20 atheists presents a vigorous exchange of ideas surrounding the necessity of religious foundations for morality, the inherent worship in human value systems, and the interplay between science and ethical purpose. While Peterson defends the indispensability of religious narratives in shaping moral frameworks and providing purpose, atheist participants challenge these assertions by advocating for secular bases of morality and questioning the definitions and implications of worship and belief.

Host's Reflection:
Post-debate, the host reflects on the dynamics of the conversation, noting that while Peterson demonstrated deep knowledge and commitment, the shifting definitions and wordplay may have muddied the waters of the debate. The host acknowledges the complexity of the discussions and expresses hope for future episodes to continue exploring these critical issues.

• Quote:
  "[90:31] Unknown Participant: His definitions can kind of shift a little bit depending on the moment, and I think that he wasn't afraid to flex that definitional muscle."

---

Notable Quotes

• Dr. Jordan Peterson on Atheism:
  "[02:06] Dr. Jordan Peterson: How you doing?"

• Atheist on Reductive Views:
  "[03:53] Unknown Participant: It seems like you have the reductive view of what an atheist is."

• Peterson on Worship:
  "[41:17] Dr. Jordan Peterson: It's a hierarchy of preferences and you use it to direct your attention. So whatever you're attending to, you're worshiping."

• Atheist on Moral Evolution:
  "[21:30] Unknown Participant: We have examples of chimpanzees who actually have a basic understanding of fairness."

• Peterson on Nihilism:
  "[59:29] Dr. Jordan Peterson: They're the same thing."

---

Final Thoughts

This episode serves as a microcosm of the broader discourse between religious and atheist perspectives on morality, purpose, and the existence of God. By featuring Dr. Jordan Peterson, a prominent figure in these debates, Surrounded offers listeners an in-depth look at the arguments for and against the necessity of religious frameworks in establishing ethical and purposeful lives. The engaging and contentious exchanges underscore the ongoing relevance of these discussions in contemporary society.

---

Subscribe to Surrounded on your preferred podcast platform and join the conversation that matters.

Transcript

[Unknown Host]

Put us in a box.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Go ahead. That just gives us something to break out of because the next generation 2025 GMC terrain elevation is raising the standard of what comes standard. As far as expectations go, why meet.

[Unknown Participant]

Them when you can shatter them? What we choose to challenge, we challenge completely. We are professional grade.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Visit gmc.com to learn more.

[Unknown Participant]

Summer's here and Nordstrom has everything you need for your best dress season ever. From beach days and weddings to weekend getaways and your everyday wardrobe. Discover stylish options under $100 from tons of your favorite brands like Mango Skims, Princess Polly and madewell. It's easy too, with free shipping and.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Free returns in store order pickup and more.

[Unknown Participant]

Shop today in stores [e-mail] or download the Nordstrom app.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

You're a Christian, you say that. I haven't claimed that.

[Unknown Participant]

Oh, what is this? Is this Christians versus Atheist?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Don't be a smart ass.

[Unknown Participant]

Either you're a Christian or you're not. Which one is it?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

You're really quite something, you are.

[Unknown Participant]

Aren't I? But you're really quite nothing, right? You're not a Christian.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Okay, I'm done with him.

[Unknown Participant]

From Jubilee Media, this is the Surrounded Podcast, where one brave soul faces a room full of disagreers. Today's guest is the very influential Dr. Jordan Peterson. He's a clinical psychologist and a former professor, and he will be debating 25 atheists. Jordan will debate them one on one until they are voted out by their.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Peers and replaced by someone new. Let's get into it. Hello there. I'm Dr. Jordan Peterson. I'm a clinical psychologist, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto, and an author, a podcaster, public speaker, and today I'm surrounded by 25 atheists. My first claim. Atheists reject God, but they don't understand what they're rejecting.

[Unknown Participant]

Good afternoon, Dr. Peterson.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

How you doing?

[Unknown Participant]

So this claim here that atheists don't know what they're rejecting. My background is in studying to become a traditional Catholic priest and daily mass, daily rosary, going on long retreats, deep into the magisterium and biblical hermeneutics. Like I was thoroughly in it. And it seems like I do know what I'm missing. Is there something that I missed over years of study, both this issue formally and living out religion so deeply?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, you obviously feel that you missed something when you were practicing for the priesthood. Your aim was off then, so there's always the possibility that it's still off now.

[Unknown Participant]

What was off about my aim in the first place?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I don't know. It might take a long time to figure out.

[Unknown Participant]

It seems kind of like this no true Scotsman type of fallacy, in which you're the arbiter of people's aims and how they understand those aims to be. How is it that you can claim that people don't know something that you know about their life despite not having met them?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, it's obviously a generic claim, just like the atheist claim that there's no God is a generic claim in your case, it would have to be specified more. And I'm not claiming to understand what was going on in your mind, but my experience with atheists is twofold, is that they have a very reductive notion of what constitutes God, let's say, in the Judeo Christian tradition. And they've often been hurt by someone who was religious or by the religious enterprise or perhaps by God himself, so to speak, and that's left them with animus.

[Unknown Participant]

But I think that you have a reductive view of what atheism is. You've defined religion so broadly to include any sort of having aim in life, any sort of cultural archetypes, or having a metaphorical substrate. And atheism, to you is a very specific type of, like three people in the world that are these Raskolnikov type of. They want to get away with a perfect murder. It seems like you have the reductive view of what an atheist is.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, let's start with your claim. How do you define the God that you're rejecting? Like, what is God to you? You studied in the church. You found that unsatisfactory. How would you characterize what you rejected?

[Unknown Participant]

I think the average Christian believer, when they say that they're Christian and they believe they mean some sort of God that is all powerful, all perfect, is somehow involved in the matters of this world and that we look to them through wisdom and with Logos incarnate in Christ. And it also seems like you don't believe in religion in the way that the average Christian says that they believe in religion. And there are as many gods out there as there are believers, because everybody has mutually exclusive and different views of what God is. So it seems like, well, if everybody.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Had mutually exclusive views of what God is, no one could speak to each other. The mere fact of communication presumes a commonality of assumption and definition. And so, and it's certainly not the case that I regard any archetypal manifestation whatsoever as equally religious. So that's not a real claim. Let me give you an example. For example, there's a sub narrative in the story of Moses where Moses is rewarded with a glimpse of God. Okay. And that's one of the ways that God is characterized in the Old Testament stories. Yes. Now, Moses is a faithful servant of God and a good man. At least that's the case within the confines of the story.

[Unknown Participant]

One possible interpretation.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Case within the confines of the story, obviously.

[Unknown Participant]

Well, obviously, when we look at the Bible, the Bible can't precisely say anything because there are so many different exegetical and hermeneutic views of this particular book. And, and that everybody has agreed or everybody has disagreed historically on. It seems like even the most benign detail about a book this big. And it seems like you can only say that the Bible says something if you first presuppose that it's univocal.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

So your claim essentially is that Moses in the Old Testament plays the role of a villain or is irrelevant. Cause the alternative claim is good.

[Unknown Participant]

I'm saying that we can't know because we can't talk to those authors.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

If you are going to start with the presupposition that there's nothing I can say about any of these stories that you're not going to disagree with from the perspective that there are multiple potential competing claims, then I can't speak with you.

[Unknown Participant]

We also have a short time here, so I want to get to the core of what you're arguing here, and I'd love if we could.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

The core of what I'm arguing is that atheists reject God, but they don't understand what they're rejecting. So I'm trying to give you an example of what's being rejected and its complexity. Okay, so God rewards Moses with a glimpse of the divine. So this is a definition of the God that atheists are hypothetically rejecting.

[Unknown Participant]

A possible one.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I said ah. I didn't say the. I said ah.

[Unknown Participant]

That is possible. Yes.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Okay, so despite the fact that Moses is a stellar character and he's had a long and difficult life and can withstand a lot of difficulty and travail, God puts him between two cliffs so he can just see a crack of what's in front of him. And. And when God walks by, he allows him to see his back. Okay, so the implication and implication of that story is that the divine is fundamentally unknowable, it's a pinnacle experience, and that people in their finitude have to be shielded from a comprehensive vision of the basis of reality. Well, that's not the God that's defined in that manner. Right. Is a. It's not a simple personification it's not a simple old man in the sky. It's something that in its essence is unknowable and overwhelming. And that isn't, in my experience, the God that's defined by atheists who are attempting to undermine the story. I mean, it's the same claim, for example, that you're a finite creature and that you face something that in the final analysis is unknowable, and that you have to establish a relationship with it regardless of your inability to perceive or even withstand perceiving the whole. Okay, is there a problem with that?

[Unknown Participant]

I mean, the problem is that when we look at, famously, when you've been asked, do you believe in God? The question becomes, what do we mean by God? And in the Bible, it's not even clear the biblical authors know what God is because Yahweh has historically emerged from an early storm God, a deity that doesn't exhaust the category of deity, and that has changed over the Old Testament. Does God have physicality? Does God not have physicality? It seems like yes. If you define religion to mean anybody that has an aim, anybody that looks at the unknown, anybody who wants to go from chaos to order, is inherently religious, then yes, but also in the same way I could define atheists as somebody who doesn't dogmatically believe in a religion or somebody who doesn't regularly attend religious services or belong to a denomination. Help especially the audience. Kind of like, boil this down. There is a lot of words there that the central claim is that we exist somewhere between the finite and the infinite. A central claim is that we exist somewhere between the finite and the infinite.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

No, I said that we were finite and we had to establish a relationship with the infinite.

[Unknown Host]

Yeah.

[Unknown Participant]

And then in that case, then we're all religious. But then I can do the same thing and define one particular element of atheism. It seems like we both have reductive view of what the other side looks like, to the point where a conversation seems incoherent. And not just incoherent, but not in the way that the average Christian understands Christianity to be.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Do you have problems?

[Unknown Participant]

Pause there. Sorry.

You've been voted out by the majority. Hey, how's it going? Nice to meet you.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Nice to meet you too.

[Unknown Participant]

David.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

David, good to see you.

[Unknown Participant]

Tell me everything that you know about the Polynesian deity Lono. L o. N o. I don't know.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Anything about the Polynesian deity Lono.

[Unknown Participant]

So you're rejecting something without knowledge of what you're rejecting?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I'm not rejecting it no more than I'm Rejecting.

[Unknown Participant]

Do you believe in Lono?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I don't know anything.

[Unknown Participant]

Do you believe in Lono? Do you believe that he is a deity that exists in the world, exists in the universe, that exists in the existence of everything? Do you. Do you believe that Lono.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I'll answer that question once you answer my question, which is, do I reject everything that I'm ignorant of? Because that's your presupposition that undergirds your argument. Unless you can prove that that's valid, then there's no point.

[Unknown Participant]

My question is quite simple.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yeah, but that doesn't formulate it accurately.

[Unknown Participant]

Do you believe that Lono exists? Yes or no?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I'm not going to answer that question for the reasons I just described. You already insisted that if I reject something, that if I'm ignorant of something, I reject it. Do you think that everyone in the world has to know everything simultaneously for that to be valid and true?

[Unknown Participant]

I think in order for your answer to that question to be true, in order for it to be true that we atheists don't understand what we're rejecting, then you need to also apply that to yourself and to Christians and to Muslims and to any other person on this earth, where if you don't understand what you're rejecting the belief in, then you can't reject the belief in it. That's the implication of your.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I say that I rejected the belief in Lona. I said I don't know who Lono was. I didn't say anything about rejection.

[Unknown Participant]

That's because I've asked you several times and you haven't. But let me get to my even greater point. You're saying atheists don't understand what religion is or what God is in order to be able to reject it fully or completely. We have someone over here who studied it in their own way. I've studied religion. I have a degree in religious studies specialty in Christianity and Mediterranean traditions. And further than that, beyond me, Pew research studies suggest that atheists and agnostics actually know more about religion and about religious stories, the foundational principles, than believers.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

That's because they're more religious than they think they are.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay, you can.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, they're concerned with deep matters. And one of the defining characteristics of someone who's oriented in a religious direction is that they're concerned with deep matters. In fact, it's virtually definitional. Right.

[Unknown Participant]

But they also have to identify with a religious tradition and accept the foundational stories that go along with that.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, that would mean more that they're sectarian than that they're religious. And most people, for example, in the United States deny that they're religious, but accept that they're spiritual.

[Unknown Participant]

Pause there.

You've been voted out by the majority.

Hi. Nice to meet you.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

How are you doing?

[Unknown Participant]

Good, how are you?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

What's your name?

[Unknown Participant]

I'm Greg. Nice to meet you. Okay, so I feel like you're getting at this idea of polysemy where we have multiple related meanings for a word. Right. Like, for example, a famous painting can be emotionally moving in that it changes my emotional state. And when I was on the highway coming here to the studio, I was physically moving, I was changing my position. If I said, I believe the Mona Lisa is very moving, and you said, you don't really understand what you're saying. It's nailed to the wall, I would say that you're the one who doesn't understand what I'm saying, not the other way around. And the way that relates to this is there are many concepts of God. And I'll admit I find a lot of what you say about that interesting. I'm familiar with it. The idea of this kind of Jungian, hierarchical thing, or as a metaphor or a symbol, or the kind of, you know, atheist, materialist, literalist idea of agentic, omnipotent, omniscient being that intervenes in reality. Right. So when I'm saying that I reject the concept of God. I'm aware of these other definitions of God, but I think that when we use words, we tend to only imply one meaning at a time. So the same way that I would say the Mona Lisa is. Is moving emotionally, but I would not say it's moving physically. I would say I reject the concept of God in this very literal way.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

But what literal way?

[Unknown Participant]

The way that God is this omniscient, omnipotent, agentic, supernatural being that sent his son down and has, you know, caused miracles and all these things like that the idea of God is like, you.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Think that there's an underlying unity of things.

[Unknown Participant]

Could you explain that question?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, scientists, for example, believe that science unifies in a comprehensive theory. Do you? Yes. No. Or there are multiple competing truths. Those are the options. Either things unify or there are multiple competing truths.

[Unknown Participant]

I think that. I know that, for example, like in physics, people are looking for, like, a theory of everything.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

And why do you think they're doing that?

[Unknown Participant]

It's interesting, it's helpful.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

But they also believe that there's an underlying unity to things.

[Unknown Participant]

In a sense, yeah. You mean, like the material world and time and space are probably Governed by universal laws and principles?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Partly that. Yes. Yes. But that the same thing might extend to a broader domain that would include imagination and value.

[Unknown Participant]

Could you help me connect that to the prompt?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, I'm trying to define God, the God that I don't think atheists do a very good job of defining. Here's another question for you. What do you think guides you in your determination of whether or not what you're saying to me is true?

[Unknown Participant]

Can we go back? Can we stay on what we were talking about?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

We are.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

You're just uncomfortable with the question.

[Unknown Participant]

No, I feel like you're just kind of throwing different spaghetti at the wall.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I'm not.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I asked you a very specific question. What is it that you think guides you when you're talking to me to help you determine whether what you say is true?

[Unknown Participant]

Logic, memory, reasoning, sensory information.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

How do you distinguish that from being governed by something that's false?

[Unknown Participant]

Interesting question.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

How do you know the difference when you speak between what's true and what's false?

[Unknown Participant]

So you could imagine I can infer from what principles. So. And what are you getting at?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I'm getting at the fact that your conscience guides you is that reasonable conscious.

[Unknown Participant]

Is defined by conscience. My empathy and my reason are my foundation.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Find it any way you want.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay, so that's how I'm defining. My conscience is my, you know, my kind of. My conscience is my sense of, you know, right and wrong. Yeah, exactly.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Where does that come from?

[Unknown Participant]

I would say that comes from an evolved capacity to empathize and a recognition of the benefits of engaging with and nurturing that capacity. And then that empathy is constrained and guided by reason. Right. Like, for example, I am driving down the highway, there's a kitten in the road. I'm going to empathetically feel, oh my God, I want to save the kitten. But then reasonably like, I'm going to get hit by a car. Right. So that's sort of the process through which I make ethical decisions. Empathy constrained by reason.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Do you think that people can differ in their response to something empathically?

[Unknown Participant]

Yeah.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Is there a mediating principle that can tell you one person who's empathic and another person who's empathic that disagree.

[Unknown Participant]

Who.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Who's correct.

[Unknown Participant]

Interesting. Yeah. I mean, I think that's where we'd have to talk it out. Right. We do that in real life all the time when we have whether that's a discussion with a friend about the right thing to do in a situation, whether that's a policy discussion about law. Right. That's where we can converse with each other, think about things, explain our perspectives, and then kind of reach a conclusion. Right. I think that we do that all the time.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

So Elijah, the prophet Elijah, defined God in the Old Testament as the voice of conscience within. Okay, that's a definition.

[Unknown Participant]

So you're saying by that definition of God. See, this kind of goes back to where I'm saying initially.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I'm not defining it. Elijah defines it.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay, so as Elijah defines God, it's.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Defined that way in Jonah, too. Okay, so as Cardinal Newman also defined it that way.

[Unknown Participant]

I'm sure you know many people who've defined it that way, and it's impressive. You're a very knowledgeable person.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I'm not trying to be impressive. I'm just pointing out to you how God is defined in the Old Testament.

[Unknown Participant]

All right, so to respond to that, I do think there are lots of interesting ways to define God. And that goes back to my.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Then how do we specify what we're arguing about?

[Unknown Participant]

We use context clues. Again, it goes back to my example.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Of Mona Lisa defining God as conscience.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay, so that's interesting. But then you're kind of expanding the meaning of God.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

No, I'm not. That's how it's defined in the Old Testament in Elijah and in Jonah.

[Unknown Participant]

Sure. So whoever. So not whoever.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Elijah is one of the major Old Testament prophets. He's equal in stature to Moses. So it's not arbitrary.

[Unknown Participant]

All right, so that is interesting, but it's not relevant to the context with which I am using the term God.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

It's directly relevant. Atheists reject God, but they don't understand what they're rejecting. You accept conscience as a guide, and conscience is one of the defining characteristics of God in the Old Testament.

[Unknown Participant]

I think you're being intellectually disingenuous.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

In what way? Because I asked you if you believe that conscience guided.

[Unknown Participant]

You just asked me a question and then you stopped me from answering it. In this setting, you understand the way I am using the term God and belief.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Not in the least. I don't understand how you're using it in the least. That's why I'm trying to define it. My definition of God as conscience is a lot more precise and oriented than your definition of the God that you hypothetically disbelieved in.

[Unknown Participant]

It's irrelevant to the fault lines of this debate.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

How is it irrelevant?

[Unknown Participant]

Because in common parlance, when we're talking about atheists, God, belief, not belief.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I don't care about common parlance. I'm trying to get to something fundamental.

[Unknown Participant]

I just. I think your point is irrelevant to the way that people tend to use these words. Your point that there are these polysemus.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I didn't make that. You did. I made a specific point that God was associated with conscience.

[Unknown Participant]

I just feel like you kind of retreat into this semantic fog.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I'm not retreating at all. I'm advancing, sir. You are retreating.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

All right.

[Unknown Participant]

Well, it was very nice to meet you. I appreciate the conversation.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yeah, yeah. It's very brave of you to do this. Thank you. The PC gave us computing power at home. The Internet connected us, and mobile let.

[Unknown Participant]

Us do it pretty much anywhere. Now, generative AI lets us communicate with technology in our own language, using our own senses. But figuring it all out when you're living through it is a totally different story.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Welcome to Leading the Shift, a new.

[Unknown Participant]

Podcast for Microsoft Azure. I'm your host, Susan Ettlinger. In each episode, leaders will share what.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Their learning to help you navigate all.

[Unknown Participant]

This change with confidence. Please join us, listen and subscribe wherever.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

You get your podcasts.

[Unknown Participant]

Hey there, travelers.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Kaley Cuoco here.

[Unknown Participant]

Sorry to interrupt your music, great artist, BT Dubs, but wouldn't you rather be there to hear it live? With Priceline, you can get out of your dreams and into your dream concert. They've got millions of travel deals to get you to that festival, gig, rave, sound bath, or sonic experience you've been dreaming of.

Download the Priceline app today and you.

Can save up to 60% off hotels and up to 50% off flights. So don't just dream about that trip.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Book it with Priceline.

[Unknown Participant]

Go to your happy price, Priceline.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

My next claim is that morality and purpose cannot be found within science.

[Unknown Participant]

What is up, Mr. Canada?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

How you doing, man?

[Unknown Participant]

I'm doing great.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

What's your name?

[Unknown Participant]

Brian. I think it's interesting that you say that morality and purpose can't be found in science.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Actually, within science.

[Unknown Participant]

Within.

Sure, sure, sure, sure.

Purpose, I actually grant you, because purpose is subjective. Right?

[Unknown Host]

Unless you want to boil it down.

[Unknown Participant]

To the purpose of life is just to procreate.

[Unknown Host]

Right, sure, whatever. Morality is actually something that we do see. We actually have examples of Neanderthals.

[Unknown Participant]

An older individual was found in a.

[Unknown Host]

Tribe missing an arm, missing teeth, still alive, somehow in his 40s, 50s.

[Unknown Participant]

Right.

[Unknown Host]

Typically, you're a Neanderthal. You can't eat, you can't hunt, you die.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

But we know that members of his.

[Unknown Participant]

Tribe are taking care of him.

[Unknown Host]

So we know that at some level early in our evolutionary history, we actually developed altruism.

[Unknown Participant]

We have examples of chimpanzees who actually have a basic understanding of fairness. If you give a chimpanzee two grapes.

[Unknown Host]

And his buddy gets three, he actually freaks out.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

But you give both chimps three grapes and they're good.

[Unknown Host]

We have examples of parrots.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Except for the greedy chimps.

[Unknown Host]

Except for the greedy chimps.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

They want four graves.

[Unknown Host]

They want four graves.

[Unknown Participant]

You know, those do exist.

Right.

[Unknown Host]

But we have similar examples where we do animal tests.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Right. And so morality is intrinsic.

[Unknown Host]

I think.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

So it precedes science.

[Unknown Host]

I think that actually a better way to define it would be that social animals, which we are.

[Unknown Participant]

Right.

[Unknown Host]

Require some level of morality or into what?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I'm not disagreeing.

[Unknown Participant]

Sure.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Why do they require that?

[Unknown Host]

Because it's the only way that social groups can actually survive.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Right. That's my point with regards to science, thank you very much. Is that precisely the point that you just made? That science has to exist within a moral framework that isn't in itself scientific?

[Unknown Host]

How's that not scientific?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, because it's not derived from the scientific process, as you just indicated.

[Unknown Participant]

It's the fact that.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Hang on a sec.

[Unknown Participant]

We are social animals.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

We need that to exist as a group. I agree, but you pointed to the morality of Neanderthals to the morality of chimpanzees. They didn't derive that from science. They don't need to.

[Unknown Host]

That's not how that works.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

That's my point.

[Unknown Host]

Science explains it.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Science doesn't explain morality.

[Unknown Host]

It doesn't explain how social animals would need to be.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, that's a complicated question.

[Unknown Host]

But we see it, though.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yeah, but explaining the evolution of morality and explaining morality itself aren't the same thing.

[Unknown Host]

Okay, so you're asking why does this happen?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I ask. Yes, that's. That's more accurate.

[Unknown Host]

Because we're social animals.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yeah, but there's more to it than that.

[Unknown Participant]

Is there?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Sure, sure. For example, so we're moral animals that have a sense of the future. Sure. Okay. That makes us unique and that structures our morality.

[Unknown Host]

Oh, actually, there are other animals that can predict the future or not predict the future. No tigers.

[Unknown Participant]

Actually, there was a tiger at the SF Zoo that killed somebody.

[Unknown Host]

And so many animals. No, no, no, no, no. Kids threw shit at the tiger. The tiger actually plotted its escape and it found the kids.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I'm not saying that animals can't think.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

No.

[Unknown Participant]

But they can perceive the future is what I'm saying.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, voted out by the majority.

[Unknown Participant]

Thank you, man.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Good man. Yep.

[Unknown Participant]

How you doing?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

How you doing, man?

[Unknown Participant]

My name's Luke. Nice to Meet you.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Good to see you, Luke.

[Unknown Participant]

So your claim that morality and purpose can only be found in science is a little shaky because I think that your claim is really being framed to be morality and purpose can only be found in religion. Is that how you're kind of framing it?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I would say that the domain of religion is the domain of morality and purpose. Yes, exactly. And also that science is actually structured, at least in part technically, to eliminate such considerations from its purview a priori. That's why we define science as value free. But that has to be wrong because scientists have to prioritize their attention towards something before they can even engage in observation. And that act of prioritization of attention is a value predicated act. And so we, as I can continue, there's all sorts of things we have to assume about science before it can take place.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay, so what I'm specifically pointing out here is about religion in particular, since you yourself are a Christian.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Right, that's. People debate about that and I generally don't discuss it publicly.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay, I understand that. And me myself, I am a former Young Earth creationist. Fundamentalist.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Oh yeah.

[Unknown Participant]

So I have experience in this. I used to run a TikTok channel directed about apologetics about the Bible, specifically in this type of facet with morality, evolution and such, and going back and forth with that. So in the Bible it talks a lot about slavery, right?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yes, yes.

[Unknown Participant]

So in that it teaches you how to take care of a slave, rather than saying slavery's wrong. I think it should.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

It says that in the story of.

[Unknown Participant]

Moses says slavery is incorrect. It says it's immoral.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

That's why Moses leads his people away from slavery.

[Unknown Participant]

But why does the Bible predicate and tell people exactly how to take care of a slave? Is that immoral? Wouldn't you say that culturally we've evolved as a species, as he said earlier about empathy?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yeah. I would say that the reason we evolved, so to speak, away from slavery was because the west was founded on Judeo Christian morality and the presumption that every person was made in the image of God. And so slavery itself became immoral. And that was established by Protestant Christians in the UK who then convinced the UK government for 200 years to go to war on civil war.

[Unknown Participant]

And wouldn't you say that this is about the cultural evolution of humans in general, rather than just Christianity?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

No, I think it's the flowering of the ideas that were embedded in the biblical text across long spans of time.

[Unknown Participant]

I feel like this is just humans editing based on the cultural evolution.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

What do you mean by just, just. Yeah, just humans.

[Unknown Participant]

Well, humans. Well, based on culture and history, right. We, we get better.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

They did do it based on culture and history, but culture and history have their foundations too, so.

[Unknown Participant]

Well, yeah, but we, we're talking about slavery. So many people bolstered it based on everyone.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Based on the Bible.

[Unknown Participant]

They looked at it and they justified it. In the United States, in the Deep south, they justified slavery.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yeah, but the main thrust, the main thrust of Protestant thought in particular was stringently against slavery. And it was about the only movement in the history of the human race that had an anti slavery direction which.

[Unknown Participant]

Was driven by humans and their understanding reality.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, that's one way of view. Well, it depends.

[Unknown Participant]

It's the same with women's suffrage. I mean women's.

The patriarchy.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

What do you mean? It was driven by humans. Humans drove slavery too.

[Unknown Participant]

Yes, exactly.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

So there's no argument there. If slavery and anti slavery were both driven by humans, what does your claim that they were driven by humans have to do with it?

[Unknown Participant]

Evolve morality based on the culture within the society that they live in.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Okay, fine. So with self pitch as well is.

[Unknown Participant]

A very similar topic in the Bible. There are denominations in Christianity such as Pentecostal movement, which do bolster women to be pastors. Right, Which I think that's a great thing to do, but most like to disregard.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Where do you think the idea that human beings were sufficiently equal to all vote and not be slaves came from humans? Yeah, but so did the idea of.

[Unknown Participant]

Slavery, so did the idea of God.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Fine, but what's your point? Like you're not making an argument, you're just saying all thoughts come from humans. Regardless of the thoughts.

[Unknown Participant]

It's not driven by a higher power, it's driven on our experiences, which is what is best for all people.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Is it driven by conscience?

[Unknown Participant]

It could be.

Which?

Conscience is also something that has evolved over time. And I think that's something that does evolve in morality and empathy.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Okay, I don't understand the point that you're making.

[Unknown Participant]

My point is that God influenced slavery. People looked at the Bible and went this is moral because God says so. Just like woman suffrage, there's lots of suffering. And just like homosexuality, all human societies were slave owning.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

So you can't blame that on the Bible.

[Unknown Participant]

If humanity decided, oh wait, address that first.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

What? Human societies were slavers, so you can't blame that on the Bible.

[Unknown Participant]

Well, you can say it bolstered it.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, not if you look at the broad sweep of history, because it was.

[Unknown Participant]

The Protestant Christianity based on their Interpretation of the Bible.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

It was the Protestant Christian, which evolves over time.

[Unknown Participant]

Let's pause there.

You've been voted out by the majority.

Well, it was great talking with you, sir.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Thanks for talking to you. Dr. Peterson, good to see you, man.

[Unknown Host]

Pleasure.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

What's your name?

[Unknown Host]

Brian. So the first thing I would like to say is I would like to engage in this discussion in a symbiotic manner. I would not like to engage where there is one clear winner and one clear loser. Emotions are activated and it ultimately comes about ego. So I'm just saying I'm really trying to understand your position. And I would just like you to really try to understand my position.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Deal.

[Unknown Host]

Okay, Sounds good with that. If you're saying that morality and purpose cannot come from science, is the opposite of that true that morality and purpose can only come from God?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

That's a way of defining it. Yes.

[Unknown Host]

Okay.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

That's right. That's good. So I would say that with regard to the first claim, say atheists don't understand what they're rejecting because I would say by definition, God is the unity upon which moral claims are based. That's a definition, right.

[Unknown Host]

Okay, if there is a God, what is the purpose of life?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, in the Christian tradition, the purpose of life is to engage in voluntary upward self sacrifice so that the kingdom of heaven can be established on earth.

[Unknown Host]

So you're trying to make it to heaven and avoid hell.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yes, that's a good way of thinking about it.

[Unknown Host]

What is the purpose of heaven? Do you understand? So here's the deal.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

We can get into it the opposite of endless suffering. How about that?

[Unknown Host]

Okay. And so should we not try to achieve infinite suffering on planet Earth? And if we can achieve infinite suffering on planet Earth without God avoiding it, if we can do that without God, then that. Does that defeat your claim?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, yeah, except that it doesn't. You circumvented my initial definition because I said that by definition God was the unified source of morality. And so if we engage in a moral exercise.

[Unknown Host]

When you're talking about morality, though, when you really reverse engineer it and you get it down to its root, you're a psychologist, and it really seems like it just has to deal with motivation. People are saying there is a God, There is a.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

It's more specific than that.

[Unknown Host]

Well, so let me ask you this. So if there is a God and there is a moral code and it doesn't come at your benefit, are you going to follow?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Depends on how you define your benefit.

[Unknown Host]

If it, if it's, if it's going to come at your expense. Would you still follow it? If God came down and said, here is my moral code and you should follow it, but even if you follow it, you are still going to end up in hell. Are you going to follow it?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, that was the question that was put to Job and to Christ. Right, because they were required. Hang on, I'm answering your question. They were followed. They were required to withstand trials that would break anyone and maintain their upward orientation regardless.

[Unknown Host]

And they did that with the motivation of believing that this omnipotent, all loving God would somehow turn it into a benefit. So they still did it solely for their benefit. So when you.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, let's define. Hang on, let's define benefit. Like if I did something for your sister, would that be to your benefit? Like how are you defining your benefit? Do you mean one of your whims gratified now? Or do you mean you and everyone you love and know over some reasonable span of time?

[Unknown Host]

When you're talking about whims, I think you're talking about something that's more dopamine. When you're talking about morality, you're talking about something that's more serotonin and more ultimately satisfying. So you and I agree on a lot. I mean, when it comes to talking about how men should be masculine and things of that nature, you and I are 100% in agreement. We just don't agree on the justification that God is the only thing that provides morality.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

It's not a justification definition.

[Unknown Host]

What's the difference then between a definition and a justification? I mean, it's ultimately psychologically the same thing.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, we have to define what we're talking about before we can debate.

[Unknown Host]

Okay, well, so here's what I'm saying.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I said that God, among other things.

[Unknown Host]

I'm actually a non theist. I'm not an atheist. I believe the human condition is one of uncertainty. And what that means is that I don't believe that you can conclude there is a God with certainty. And I don't believe that you can conclude that there is a God without in the same position. Now with that, I don't care. I still wake up every day and I have motivation to be a moral person.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Define moral.

[Unknown Host]

Moral. What I ought to do.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Okay, how do you come to that point?

[Unknown Host]

What I ought to do? Ultimately it comes down to what not just benefits me, but what benefits the entire planet, what benefits the entire system. I think that your entire moral perspective comes from linear thinking. Thinking. And when you look at the reality of the universe, it's Actually more so holistic. So when you look at how Aristotle defined God when he said that there had to be an unmoved move or an uncaused cause, he was defining God from a linear perspective. And you do the same with morality. And you do the same with purpose of morality.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

How does my definition of morality, hypothetically?

[Unknown Host]

Because, because, because you're saying that there's something that exists in a vacuum, that it exists in and of itself and nothing in the universe exists in a vacuum. Nothing exists in and of itself. It's a whole systems based morality. It's a systems based reality.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Is there a hierarchical structure?

[Unknown Host]

And that is what the quantum.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Is there a hierarchical structure? Are some things more important than others?

[Unknown Host]

Are some things. I think some things lead to more benefits than others.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Then by your own definition, some things are more important than others?

[Unknown Participant]

Yes.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Okay. Okay, pause there.

[Unknown Participant]

You've been voted out by the majority.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Appreciate it. How are you doing?

[Unknown Participant]

Nice to meet you.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Nice to meet you.

[Unknown Participant]

I guess since you said morality and purpose cannot be found in science, it would just depend on like what you're referencing. If you're saying a description of your psychological preferences would be considered within science, sure. But I don't think that you have to say that it comes from science in order to be like an atheist. As an agnostic atheist, I don't know if God exists and I don't believe that a God exists. And the only ones that I would really reject would be like the all knowing, all powerful, all good, perfect notion of God that plenty of Christians prescribe themselves.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

So I guess how is that relevant to this claim?

[Unknown Participant]

You're basing a position of morality and purpose in some notion of God that isn't the same type of notion of God that typical Christians would prescribe. Your notion of God is what typical Christians? Yeah. Typically when I talk to Christians, they say that they believe in an all.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Knowing about Cardinal Newman who defined God as conscience. He was a major influence on all of Catholic social theory. How about that? Christian?

[Unknown Participant]

Sure. So do you believe in the all knowing, all powerful, all good notion of God?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

What do you mean by believe?

[Unknown Participant]

Do you think it to be true?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

That's the circular definition. What do you mean believe?

[Unknown Participant]

How is that circular?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Because you added no content to the answer by substituting the word true and believe.

[Unknown Participant]

I said you think it to be true.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

All right, so if you believe something, you stake your life on it.

[Unknown Participant]

What do you mean by that?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

You live for it and you die for it. That's what I mean by that. It isn't Something that you say it isn't something that's associated with logical consistency. It's not declarative. It's not propositional. It's not figment of your imagination. It's the presupposition of your attention and your action. And you're either fragmented, in which case you worship multiple gods, or there's some unity at the bottom of it that makes you an unstoppable force.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay, so you're saying that you don't believe something if you wouldn't die for it?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Not really, no. Okay, so how would you define belief?

[Unknown Participant]

Something you say, I could believe. It is the case that this pen exists, but if someone, like, threatened my life.

Right.

I would lie in order to be able to save my life. Right. Like, I think you would do that, too. You wouldn't lie to save your life.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Don't be so sure.

[Unknown Participant]

You wouldn't lie to save your life.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

How much do you know about me? I didn't lie to save my career. I didn't lie to save my clinical practice.

[Unknown Participant]

Would you lie to, like, save your children? Your mom, your dad?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I don't think lying would save the.

[Unknown Participant]

Can there ever be a circumstance, logically that lying could save someone?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yeah. And if you're steeped in sin, you're likely to live in circumstances like that.

[Unknown Participant]

I'll give you an example. If you're, like, in, like, Nazi Germany and it is the case that there's, like, Jewish people in your attic and you're trying to protect them, would you lie to, like, the Nazis?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I would have done everything I bloody well could so I wouldn't be in that situation to begin with. It's a hypothetical, and it's not answered.

[Unknown Participant]

Hypotheticals.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

No, I can't answer a hypothetical like that because. Look, did you play games?

[Unknown Participant]

I'm not playing games. I'm just asking if you needed to.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

If you present me with an intractable moral choice that's stripped of context and you back me into a corner, you're playing game. I just told you I would do everything that I could to make sure that I'm never in that situation. By the time you've got there, you've made so many mistakes that there's nothing you can do that isn't a sin.

[Unknown Participant]

Being born in Nazi Germany and trying to protect people that you care about. Like you. There could be a Jewish friend that you have and you want to protect them.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I think you should give up on that line of questioning.

[Unknown Participant]

Give up on just, like, trying to clarify your position because you don't like, are you like, uncomfortable with me asking this question? It's just a basic hypothetical. Like I could ask you.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

It's just a basic hypothetical where you're. You put Jews lives at stake in Nazi Germany. That's just a basic.

[Unknown Participant]

Obviously you would lie in that scenario to save their life. But you're like, not trying to answer this question for some reason I just told you why are you anti fascist? Like, so you're anti fascist.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

You're asking now?

[Unknown Participant]

I was just asking, just clarifying. But like, okay, again, you're not answering this hypothetical because you know it shows that you clearly would lie to Satan's life.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

You're not answering it. Obviously that's not what truth is acceptable.

[Unknown Participant]

Obviously, because I care about truth.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I wouldn't be in that scenario.

[Unknown Participant]

Obviously.

Right.

Logically, because that's already happened. Like, that's in the past. You don't have a time travel device. We're bringing this logical hypothetical up to show you that in some circumstances that do happen within the real world, you would lie to save people's lives. So your definition of truth isn't actually how we're typically using it. So what you're trying to do is you're trying to muddy the waters when I ask you, like, do you believe this? Do you think this to be true? So you don't actually have to answer the questions. And plenty of Christians don't like that because they clearly see that you don't really want to be associated with Christianity.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Imagine that I was in a situation where the best I could do as a consequence of my previous mistakes was to tell the least amount of lie I could manage. But that would likely indicate that I had made all sorts of catastrophic, catastrophic errors on my way there.

[Unknown Participant]

So I would lie to save someone's life. So again, you do believe it to be true in that circumstance, even though you, like, lied in that scenario. So.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Not without the context that I put it in.

[Unknown Participant]

You were not willing to die for it. You were not willing to let other people die for it. So that's not what you see to be true, then. Seemingly.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

You'Re doing exactly what I said you were doing at the beginning of the conversation. You're generating an impossible, restricted hypothetical with no precursors to back me into a crime.

[Unknown Participant]

How is it possible? Is there something contradictory about it? Nice to meet you.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yeah, nice to meet you.

[Unknown Participant]

This episode is brought to you by Amazon Prime. From streaming to shopping, prime helps you get more out of your passions. So whether you're a fan of true crime or prefer a nail biting novel.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

From time to time.

[Unknown Participant]

With services like Prime Video, Amazon music, and fast free delivery, prime makes it easy to get more out of whatever you're into or getting into. Visit Amazon.comprime to learn more.

All right, here we go.

New Phineas and Ferb is here.

We're back, baby.

For 104 more days.

I know what we're gonna do today.

A summer vacation. I am ready for summer.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Summer shenanigans.

[Unknown Participant]

Let's do it.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Oh, yeah.

[Unknown Participant]

We're gonna bust Fiddies and Ferv once and for all.

Are we gonna do this again?

New inventions, shenanigans, innators, adventures and songs.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Brand new summer vacation.

[Unknown Participant]

New Phineas and Ferb.

Starts June 5th on Disney Channel and next day on Disney on disneyplus.disney.com My.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Next claim is that everybody worships something, including atheists, even though they might not know it.

[Unknown Participant]

Hi.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Good work.

[Unknown Participant]

Thank you.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Hi there.

[Unknown Participant]

I'm Zena. So I want to start off with, like, defining terms.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yep.

[Unknown Participant]

How do you define worship?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Prioritize.

[Unknown Participant]

Prioritize. So almost like having a preference over something rather than the other.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

It's a hierarchy of preferences and you use it to direct your attention. So whatever you're attending to, you're worshiping.

[Unknown Participant]

Right. So I've kind of become a little bit familiar with your idea of like this value laden hierarchy. Right, right. And you kind of posit that at the bottom of this hierarchy, or you call it top or bottom of this post, at the bottom of this hierarchy, this foundational priority in your life is going to be considered God. That's correct.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yes.

[Unknown Participant]

Right. I'm trying to imagine a situation in which could there be that someone has a priority at their foundation that is different from someone else's?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Oh, definitely.

[Unknown Participant]

Right. So we can have different conceptions of God.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

That's why we fight.

[Unknown Participant]

Right. So essentially there is no, there's not one God, but there are multiple gods. And these gods exist in some realm of truth. Like it's true that this person has one God and it exists.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yeah. Probably better to think about it as multiple values, but that there's a hierarchy of values with something at the bottom.

[Unknown Participant]

Right. But at the bottom is God and there are.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

That's a definition.

[Unknown Participant]

Yeah, yeah. So at the bottom is God, and there can be multiple people with different conceptions of God and they are each valid and being called God. So there are multiple gods that exist.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

It depends on what you mean by valid. So far, so good. But it depends on what you mean by valid, because I would say that some foundational conceptions don't play out when they're implemented. So if you put the wrong thing at the foundation, you end up in hell, for example. That's what happens in totalitarian states.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay, yeah, so you're saying.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

So they're not all equal. Like all foundational principles are not equal, even though they might be equally foundational.

[Unknown Participant]

So what makes one kind of foundational tenet better than another one?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

That's an excellent question. Iterability. Imagine that you play a game with someone in your kit and it's fun, so you play again and again and again.

[Unknown Participant]

So repetition.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yeah, it's playability across multiple iterations. So then you have a friend, and a friend is better than having a game. So that's one breadth of application is another. So if it's just for me now, it's not as good as something that would be benefit to both of us across time.

[Unknown Participant]

Right. So we're explaining like characteristics that can be applied to like these types of like foundational values. But why is it that this iterability makes it better? And what does better mean?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, one hallmark of better is likely to be selected voluntarily.

[Unknown Participant]

So it's invitation, another descriptive kind of quality. So we're talking about characteristics that in some type of system with a goal, an output being like we could maybe say happiness, Right. Or some type of harmony. Harmony, yeah.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

That's better, not happiness. Precisely because it's too short term.

[Unknown Participant]

Exactly. So as someone who is an atheist. Right. I can explain that within a system there are things that we can see as better or worse to meet this goal or meet this output. But what we're interested in though is what could make these things regardless of any system. Right.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, imagine that you set up a system and you implement it and it produces the opposite results to which you intend. Oh yeah, that's not a good system.

[Unknown Participant]

Exactly.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Right. So the foundational principles are lacking because when you implement them, the game degenerates instead of moving towards the aim.

[Unknown Participant]

Right, so we're talking about within a system, when we talk about something being moral, right, just absolutely moral. It means that without a system, this thing is simply moral with no reason, like stance independent. This thing is good. So I'm trying to figure out if such thing can exist. And if so, do you believe that these things are moral in of themselves, like self evidently moral, or are they moral in accordance with the system?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I can't define them any more accurately than I already did, really.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay. In regards to morality, when we talk about the divine, when we talk about God and Religion, these moral tenets and religion. And God exists as good because it is God. Right? So it's self evident. Right. Without any kind of goal or output, this thing is good. So I want to figure out how.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

There'S an element of that that's true. So, for example, in the story of Job, Job is unfairly tortured in consequence of a bet between God and Satan. So Job is emblematic of someone who's being hurt for no apparent reason. Okay. So Job's response to that is that he refuses to lose faith in himself and he refuses to lose faith in the ultimate goodness of being. Okay. And those are like, those are axiomatic decisions. They're not exactly evidence dependent because he is suffering. There's an arbitrariness in that that's reminiscent of what you claim.

[Unknown Participant]

So I'm essentially trying to figure out, do you believe that something can be good? Good, like stance, independently, something that can be good.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I don't know what you mean by stance. Independent. You mean independent of people.

[Unknown Participant]

Independent of people. We can use that or more So I want to be more specific. Something that can be good. Right. Regardless of any end goal. It's just good.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

No, I think good is tied up with goal.

[Unknown Participant]

Goal. Okay, I completely agree. So in a sense, this is why.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

That's why the religious goal in Christianity is the establishment of the heaven, of the kingdom of heaven on earth. It's goal dependent.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay, Right.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

It's in reference to a goal. Or the goal would be the imitation of Christ.

[Unknown Participant]

Someone's goal. Right. Can be something that doesn't encompass being in congruence with God or being with God.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

No, the thing that they want to be in congruence with. That's right. That's right. That's good. That's great. The thing they want to be in congruence with is fundamentally equivalent to their goal.

[Unknown Participant]

So what makes someone a Christian and what makes someone not a Christian? What makes. That's what I'm trying to figure out.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Because that's a good question. Yes. Yeah. Well, probably the deepest answer to that is willingness to shoulder your cross voluntarily and trudge uphill regardless of circumstances.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay, so someone can believe in. Someone can have a God. Because in your definition, your first preference, that is God, Right? So someone can believe in God, right. And not be a Christian. Right?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yeah. Well, there's a statement that Christ makes in the Gospels. He says, not everyone who says, Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven.

[Unknown Participant]

So not that they're even saying that they believe in God, but they just.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

No, no, but that's why I'm saying this to you, is that Christ himself points out that there's a difference between people who say they believe and people who act it out. And the fundamental issue is the action rather than the stated belief.

[Unknown Participant]

But he also says that, you know, to be saved, right, you must believe God has died for your sins or that God has resurrected in some way. So it's like, I don't necessarily think that we can take from the Bible and say that like acting in accordance with God necessarily means, or acting in accordance with, you know, the principles of God. Like for example, sacrifice like you talk about means that you are Christian. I don't see how you can get that from the, that interpretation and then, you know, kind of justify it as the truth.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I don't think that the fact that you sacrifice is sufficient to make you Christian.

[Unknown Participant]

So can we repeat once again what you believe makes someone Christian?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

There's many things, but one of the most fundamental is that you believe that the cosmos itself is founded on the principle of voluntary self sacrifice. Best founded. Let me offer you a contrary example. So I could assume that power rules. And so that my assumption would be if I can make you do it, I win. Right? And I confound a whole society on that. And that happens a lot, by the way. And that's also how societies tend to degenerate. And so that would be a society that was founded on the principle that you get to sacrifice and I don't have to right now. The contrary to that would be something like you give up voluntarily and with courage, all the things you need to situate yourself properly in relationship to the future and other people. So then there's a harmony. That's why I talked about harmony earlier.

[Unknown Participant]

So you navigate your life in accordance, kind of to this principle of self sacrifice. Can I say it in that way?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yes, you can definitely say it that way. That's exactly right. And navigate is the right term.

[Unknown Participant]

Someone does not have to have any awareness of Christ, of the story of Jesus, but let's say 60% of their actions, right? Or more whatever kind of metric you want to use are in line with this self sacrifice.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yeah, yeah. The Christian thinkers of the Middle Ages dealt exactly with that problem. When they were talking about the pre Christian philosophers, for example, they noted the similarity, let's say, between pre Christian Greek thought and later Christian thought and presumed that there were moral actors outside the Christian domain.

[Unknown Participant]

Right. So is that pre Christian though? Is that personal?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, to some degree. Again that's a matter of definition because they wouldn't be proclaiming Christian propositions, but they're acting out the pattern, right? Yeah. So imagine that full Christianity would involve a dozen things. And you can imagine someone who knows nothing of Christianity, say, acting out eight of them.

[Unknown Participant]

Right?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Right. So then they'd be 812 Christian or something like that.

[Unknown Participant]

But to be like a full Christian, how can someone say I am Christian, like I am Christian, not 8:12, but Christian?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, I, I hesitate to do that personally because I think it's the kind of goal that you be very careful about proclaiming the technical goal.

[Unknown Participant]

But belief is not necessarily to be mostly Christian, but belief is not necessary. Eight 12s are, you know. Right.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, it depends on what you mean by belief. See, because I would say that acting out the pattern is the deepest form of belief. Now, you could add to that what you say. So, you know, maybe in the optimal situation, how you act and what you imagine and what you say, they're the same. Right. But you can imagine a hypocrite who says all sorts of wonderful things and does nothing. And you could imagine another person who acts in a very positive manner but proclaims nothing.

[Unknown Participant]

So what I'm kind of seeing is like a descriptive, a really comprehensive but descriptive analysis of human action, human thought, and by which we can characterize people and put people in boxes. But I don't see why in boxes. When I say in boxes, I mean, like I can categorize you based on your actions, not based on necessarily what you say, but based on your actions that you are more so or less so Christian. Right. Things like that. Right. So we can categorize people as Christians.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, I would say more or less voluntarily. Self sacrificing.

[Unknown Participant]

Yeah, yeah, but that's also what we came to though, is that someone can be like 60 or 70% Christian based on simply just acting in that way.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yeah, Richard Dawkins is like that.

[Unknown Participant]

I watched that debate.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Let's pause there.

[Unknown Participant]

We've been voted out by the majority.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Very good.

[Unknown Participant]

Thank you so much.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Really, very thoughtful.

[Unknown Participant]

Hey, Dr. Peterson, how are you doing? Danny, nice to meet you. You're saying atheists worship things or people or places, whatever. Can you be very clear about your definition of worship?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Again, attend to, prioritize and sacrifice for.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay, that's it? That's your understanding of worship?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, I could flesh it out, but that'll do for the time we have.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay. Do Catholics attend to marry?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yes.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay, so do they fit that description of worship?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yes.

[Unknown Participant]

So you would say Catholics and other people that revere Mary, like the Eastern Orthodox Tradition. Worship Mary.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, they might not put her in.

[Unknown Participant]

The highest, but you would put it that way. No, you just said it. Now you're taking it back.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

There's still a hierarchy.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay, there's a hierarchy, but in within.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

The law, there's something at the top.

[Unknown Participant]

All right, you can worship these words.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Mary is quite a ways up the hierarchy, but not at the top.

[Unknown Participant]

Let's go over your definition of worship again. What's your definition of worship?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Attend to?

[Unknown Participant]

Attend to, Prioritize.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Do Catholics sacrifice for.

[Unknown Participant]

Do Catholics attend to. Do they prioritize Mary over all other human beings?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

No, I didn't say over all, did I? I didn't add that to my.

[Unknown Participant]

You understand.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I said there was a hierarchy as well.

[Unknown Participant]

You attend to God, so you can.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Attend to something trivially or you can attend to it deeply.

[Unknown Participant]

And now you're adding stuff to the definition. But your original definition.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I added the hierarchy part at the beginning.

[Unknown Participant]

Are you familiar?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I didn't understand it.

[Unknown Participant]

Are you familiar with the Immaculate Conception?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Why is that relevant?

[Unknown Participant]

Because you go to a Catholic church, don't you? Or you've attended recently. You're interested in Catholicism, aren't you?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Sure.

[Unknown Participant]

All right. Are you familiar with their doctrines?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Somewhat.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay, you're familiar with.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Their doctrines are very different.

[Unknown Participant]

How do they regard Mary?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Why are you asking me that?

[Unknown Participant]

Because you're a Christian.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

You say that. I haven't claimed that.

[Unknown Participant]

Oh, what is this? Is this Christians versus atheists?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I don't know.

[Unknown Participant]

You don't know where you are right now?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Don't be a smart ass.

[Unknown Participant]

Well, and I mean, either you're a Christian or you're not. If you're a smart ass, either you're a Christian or you're not. Which one is it?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I could be either of them, but I don't have to tell you.

[Unknown Participant]

You don't have to tell me. I was under the impression I was invited to talk to a Christian. Am I not talking to a Christian?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

No, you were invited to.

[Unknown Participant]

I think everyone should look at the title of the YouTube channel. You're probably in the wrong YouTube video.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

You're really quite something, you are.

[Unknown Participant]

Aren't I? But you're really quite nothing.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Right?

[Unknown Participant]

You're not a Christian.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Okay, I'm done with him.

[Unknown Participant]

Gerard.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Hello, Gerard.

[Unknown Participant]

Nice to meet you, sir. So you've said that worship is when you prioritize and sacrifice for something, right?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yeah.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

There's a hierarchy in there. Sure.

[Unknown Participant]

So I prioritize and sacrifice for my wife more than I would prioritize and sacrifice for a random Person on the street, right?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Probably, yeah.

[Unknown Participant]

Presumably. Do I worship my wife?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I don't know. I've seen some pretty bad. Pretty bad marriages.

[Unknown Participant]

Assuming a good marriage. Are you saying I worship my wife?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I'm trying to define worship.

[Unknown Participant]

That's what I'm asking. So prioritize and sacrifice. I do have sacrifice.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

The higher it is in the hierarchy, the more what you're doing is akin to worship. But even in your trivial acts of attention, you're prioritizing and partaking in worship, even if you don't know it.

[Unknown Participant]

So I am paralyzed.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, with regard to your wife, say so why do you value your wife? You do value your wife.

[Unknown Participant]

I love her. So I prioritize and I sacrifice.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Right? Right. So that's within the confines of love, let's say. What else does it serve?

[Unknown Participant]

What else does what serve?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Your love and your marriage.

[Unknown Participant]

I mean, I'm married to my wife because I love her. That's also why I prioritize and sacrifice for her. I certainly wouldn't think I worship her. And I don't think anyone else would make that argument.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I'm trying to make a definition.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yeah. That there's a hierarchy of attentional priority. And as you move up it or down it, depending on whether you think about it as a pinnacle or a foundation, you move more towards worship. Right. So even the small things. I'll give you an example. Imagine you go on a date. Well, imagine that your aim is a long term relationship, like a marriage. Okay? Now imagine that your aim is short term sexual gratification. Your pattern of attention is going to vary during the date, depend on your ultimate end. That's the hierarchy. The way that you attend to your wife is dependent on your ultimate aims, even if you don't know it.

[Unknown Participant]

So at what point is it worship? Because it sounds like you're saying worship is almost a spectrum, right? It's not a binary. It's not a.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

It's kind of like. That's a good question.

[Unknown Participant]

When is it worship as opposed to just I love my wife?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

The closer you get to the top or the bottom, the more it's like. It's more like worship.

[Unknown Participant]

How close to the top? Because I don't think I worship anything. And if you're saying I have to hit a certain threshold for it to be worship, it is possible I don't worship anything then, right?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

It's not possible that you don't worship anything.

[Unknown Participant]

What do I worship?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Because you wouldn't attend. Well, love.

[Unknown Participant]

So you think I worship love?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Do you attend in Consequence of love. See, I'm trying to define something. What do you mean, worship? I told you what I meant. What do you mean?

[Unknown Participant]

So I mean something you worship is something that you have a reverential view for in a manner in which you believe it to be above and beyond normal things you like.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

So you have that attitude towards your wife.

[Unknown Participant]

I have that attitude.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Do you privilege her compared to other women?

[Unknown Participant]

I. Of course I privilege her compared to other women, but I don't worship her, nor does she worship me.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

By the definition you just offered, yes you do, because you just offered a definition that involved prioritization and elevation and.

[Unknown Participant]

Thinking that she is divine above and beyond what a normal natural phenomenon can be. Not other women. No, beyond any human being could ever be. I will prioritize her over other women. So you're making the assumption that she is.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

You're making the assumption that only the thing at the top or the bottom has anything to do with worship. And I'm saying that's not true. It's a hierarchy of prioritization. And there's something. There's either something at the top or the bottom, depending on the metaphor. Or you're fragmented and confused. Those are the only options. So let's say you're either going in many directions.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Or you're going in one direction.

[Unknown Participant]

So let's suppose I'm fragmented and confused. Then you agree I don't worship anything.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

No. Then you'd worship multiple things.

[Unknown Participant]

How. But. So what's the threshold when it's worship? I prioritize a lot of stuff.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I said that the closer you get to the pinnacle or the closest.

[Unknown Participant]

Can you give me some sort of metric? How close do I gotta get to this pinnacle?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Do you know the difference between cheap literature and deep literature?

[Unknown Participant]

Yes.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Okay. That's the same issue. And how do you. How do you distinguish between them? What's the difference between cheap and deep?

[Unknown Participant]

I mean, it's really an opinion based thing, right?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Is it? So it's just an opinion that Dostoevsky is better than a porn magazine?

[Unknown Participant]

Well, I've spoken to people who think To Kill a Mockingbird's cheap. It's one of my favorite books, so, I mean, people will differ on it.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, just because people are stupid about things doesn't mean that their opinion is valid.

[Unknown Participant]

That's certainly true. I agree with that.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Okay, well, do you think there is a hierarchy in literary quality?

[Unknown Participant]

I think that there is a hierarchy to an extent in literary quality, but I think once you get to a certain threshold, it is just opinion Like, I agree Dostoevsky is better than a porno mag, but is F. Scott Fitzgerald? Why do you think Ernest Hemingway? I don't know.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yeah, fair enough. Why do you think that?

[Unknown Participant]

Because of what a book is, what literature is. Dostoevsky, he follows what literature is the purpose of more than the porno magazines.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Okay, good, good.

[Unknown Participant]

Well, so it's about purpose.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yeah, sure, sure. Let me give you an analog there. Depth of worship is analogous to depth of literary significance. And the closer you get to what's deep, the more religious and worshipful your practice. And maybe you don't know what's at the bottom, but something needs to be or you're confused.

[Unknown Participant]

So to use your analogy, then how deep do I have to go for it to be worshiped? Do I have to be Catcher in the Rye? Do I have to be War and Peace?

Or.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Depends on what. Depends on what you're seeking for.

[Unknown Participant]

I'm seeking to know whether I worship something. You've claimed I worship something and I want to.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

If you want to have a deep and meaningful life, then you have to go all the way to the bottom or the top insofar as you're capable of doing that. Because otherwise you'll be fragmented and miserable and anxiety ridden and hopeless.

[Unknown Participant]

So I have to worship something to have a meaningful life.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

And if I worship something, there's no difference between those two things.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

They're the same thing.

[Unknown Participant]

So if I don't worship anything, my life will not be meaningful. Correct.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, that's the definition of nihilism.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay, so if I'm a nihilist, I don't worship anything.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

That's true. And then you.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay, you just said everybody worships something. I think you've just agreed there is a class of people that doesn't.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, they're incoherent in their worship and hand gestures like that aren't going to help.

[Unknown Participant]

All right. Okay.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

If you're incoherent and fragmented and aimless, which is what happens if your objects of worship are unstructured and chaotic, then you're going to be anxiety ridden and without hope. That happens. That's a technical argument.

[Unknown Participant]

But there's happy nihilists. How do you explain that there are happy nihilists then? Because you just said they can't.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

The mere fact that you state that there are happy nihilists doesn't make it true. Like, what's your evidence that. How do you measure nihilism? And how have you associated it with happiness? And what's your definition of happiness? Have you compared them to religious people. Because if you do, by the way, it's clearly the case that religious people over the long run have better mental health. It's a well documented fact in psychological literature. So your claim is just a claim. It doesn't stand on anything.

[Unknown Participant]

So you disagree with the claim that there exists even one happy nihilist?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I didn't say that.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay. Would you agree there exists at least one happy nihilist in the universe?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I have. It's not a question that has any meaning as far as I'm concerned, because it depends on what you mean by happy and it depends on the duration that you're trying to calculate over now and then. There's probably some deluded soul who thinks he's a nihilist who's momentarily pleased with himself. But as a long term strategy to deal with the future, to get along with yourself and with others, it's sadly lacking. That's why Nietzsche warned that when God died, as he announced in 1850, that people would be flooded with pointless, anxiety ridden, hopeless nihilism. And that was what would attract them to example, for example, to the false gods of totalitarianism. Which is exactly what happened. Because everybody worships something, even atheists who think they don't.

[Unknown Participant]

Aren't there unhappy Christians or devoted believers? So worshiping something is neither sufficient nor necessary for happiness, then?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, terrible things can come your way regardless. And that does happen. But the case that even when circumstances become deeply troublesome, that how you're oriented makes a big difference. So I'll give you an example. So the book of Job deals with the issue of unfair suffering. So Job is a good man who has everything taken away from him in the most painful possible way to settle a bet.

[Unknown Participant]

Right.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

With Satan. Yes. And so he makes the axiomatic presumption that he won't lose faith in himself or in the spirit of being itself. And that helps him remain calm and forward looking through his time of trial.

[Unknown Participant]

Doesn't he absolutely curse God?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

No. His wife tells him to do that.

[Unknown Participant]

Thank you, sir.

Yeah.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

The new McCrispy strip is here.

[Unknown Participant]

Dip approved by ketchup, tangy barbecue, honey.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Mustard, honey mustard, Sprite, McFlurry, Big Mac sauce, double dipped in buffalo and ranch. More ranch and creamy chili. McCrispy strip dip now at McDonald's. Craftsman days are here at Lowe's. With big savings on the tools you need.

[Unknown Host]

Save $100 on the Craftsman V26 Tool.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Power Tool Combo Kit now at $199. No matter what. No matter what. The project is Craftsman's high quality, high.

[Unknown Host]

Performance products empower you to build on. Stop by your nearest Lowe's store and check out the full line of Craftsman.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Tools today, valid through 618, while supplies.

[Unknown Participant]

Last selection varies by location.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

My final claim is that atheists accept Christian morality, but deny the religion's foundational stories. Hi there.

[Unknown Participant]

It's very nice to meet you.

I'm Ian.

I'm Ian.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Hi, Ian.

[Unknown Participant]

Yes. So God says that you can own people as property. He says that you can beat them with a rod too. He commands genocide and Deuteronomy and in numbers. And in Samuel. I mean, they have a goddamn baby barbecue in numbers. Like is. Is all of this in line with Christian ethics?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

No.

[Unknown Participant]

So then God doesn't fit within Christian ethics?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, the biblical library is a continuing story and everything written in it has to be contextualized by the entire text. There's 65,000 hyperlinks in the biblical text. You can take pieces of it out, out of context and criticize them. And that's what you're doing. But that's a mistake. I think it's an analytic mistake because you're putting the cart before the horse.

[Unknown Participant]

I really don't think so. I think that if we say that something is Christian ethics, then I think that all of the books essential to Christianity would fit with it. Especially if it's like the main character. When we're talking about how do you.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Deal with the morality of war? How do you think you should deal with the morality of.

[Unknown Participant]

Sure, sure, sure, sure. Because I feel like the morality. I feel like Christian ethics, like this is kind of. I guess I just think it's kind of an absurdity to say that God doesn't fit within Christian ethics. But sure, well, we can go on my ethics. That's totally fine.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I don't know what you mean by an absurdity. What game are you playing with?

[Unknown Participant]

Well, I just think that it's an absurdity to say that the Christian God doesn't fit within Christian ethics. That, like, the Christian God isn't Christian ethical.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I said that the specific statements that you made don't take the context of the stories into account and so that your analytical approach is faulty.

[Unknown Participant]

Sure.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Don't put words in my mouth.

[Unknown Participant]

Sure. Then let's go through the example. Yeah, so. And I apologize. So let's go through the example. So in 1 Samuel 15:3, God says, Go and slaughter the Amalekites, slaughter the men, the women, the children, the infants. What's the justification for that? Is that within. Is that in line with statistics?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

That's a good question. I don't really know what to do with the terrible, blood soaked, saturated history of the human past. I don't know and I don't think anybody knows. I mean, what you try to do in your own life, as far as I can tell, is to conduct yourself in a manner that makes sense. Such things much more unlikely.

[Unknown Participant]

I totally agree.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

We're all saddled with the problem of the catastrophes that got us here, aren't we?

[Unknown Participant]

Yeah, but this one was commanded by God. That's the problem. That's what differentiates it from anything else, is that this one, it's God saying, go and do this.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Do you think that there's ever such a thing as a righteous war?

[Unknown Participant]

I'm skeptical. I'm not sure. It would probably be situational.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, right, right, fair enough, people.

[Unknown Participant]

Certainly wasn't a just war. The context for the amalekites is that 400 years earlier they fought one battle, which they lost, and God says, that's it. I'm gonna wipe them off the face of the goddamn earth. And then 400 years later, he commands the Israelites to genocide their great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren. That's not a just war at all. And also a genocide is not a war.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, a genocide can be a war, but absolutely not.

[Unknown Participant]

The genociding of the Amalekites, the men, the women and the infants, that's not a war. The infants aren't combatants.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Look, I already said that it's very difficult to look at blood soap past and to know exactly what to do about it. The answer I gave to the gentleman who was sitting here before you is that it's necessary to read a text like the Bible at all of its levels of analysis simultaneously. And there is a directional morality that emerges across time that has its roots in the Old Testament, for example, with its restrictions against murder specifically, that makes itself manifest in the Christian texts as the insistence on voluntary self sacrifice as the foundational belief. That's a profoundly anti violence ethos.

[Unknown Participant]

Do you have the belief in your theology?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, what do you think of that? Wait a sec now redress?

[Unknown Participant]

Yeah, yeah. So I'm about to address it, but I'm addressing it with a question. Do you think that God is by his very essence, perfect?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

You'll have to provide more.

[Unknown Participant]

Sure. Just like maximally great knowledge. I think it's a definition, qualities.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Sure.

[Unknown Participant]

Yeah.

Like flawless. Yeah. Okay, so does a flawless thing change? Does a flawless thing reveal like more and better information over time? Or would a flawless thing say here's what's good. Here is the, the absolute good thing to do at all circumstances in time.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, we know some of that. Tell the truth, that's one.

[Unknown Participant]

That's totally fine.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

But no, no, no, no, no, you don't get to stay over.

[Unknown Participant]

That's a straw man of my position. It's a straw man of the argument. So the argument.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Wait a sec. You already find one maxim that's transcendent across six?

[Unknown Participant]

I didn't say any of those words. I'm not sure what conversation is part of.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Don't be a smart ass.

[Unknown Participant]

I'm sorry.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Seriously, I mean it. If we're going to have a serious conversation, conduct yourself properly. Okay, okay. Rephrase your question so that, because I must have missed it, I tried to answer it.

[Unknown Participant]

So in my mind, I guess by my lights, a perfect being doesn't change a perfect being if they're maximally good, maximally moral.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Does our understanding of the perfect being change?

[Unknown Participant]

Our understanding might but perceive.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

How do we distinct being? Well, I agree. How do we distinguish between that though at the human level?

[Unknown Participant]

How do we distinguish between, between our.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Transforming understanding of perfection and perfection itself between our. Yeah, well, we can only through our own lenses.

[Unknown Participant]

Presumably a perfect being would be revealing all of these aspects all the time. Especially if God's outside of time. Time. I don't know how a God who's outside of time, how does something feeling different things at different times, that just seems like incoherent to me.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Imagine something that's perfect.

[Unknown Participant]

Sure.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

And complete.

[Unknown Participant]

Sure.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Okay. And it's trying to communicate with creatures who are anything but that.

[Unknown Participant]

Sure.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, they're going to get it wrong.

[Unknown Participant]

Sure.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Okay, now wait a sec. Do you blame that on the interpreters or the phenomena itself? So like for example, are you perfect in attending to your conscience?

[Unknown Participant]

Hold on. At the point in time when God is living, literally the one who created us, he could have created us in a way where we would always be receptive to these principles, where we don't have to go across like a learning curve where, you know, maybe we'll understand, not maintain free will thousands of years, thousands of years in the future, maybe we'll do it. Also, if you believe in an all knowing God, then free will is impossible. Because if you threw free will into the mix.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, that was the answer to your question. Yeah, and I said, you said, why wouldn't God. Well, you know, 1,000 years of deep thinking philosophers would disagree with you.

[Unknown Participant]

But having a thousand years of, or at least like the last 50 years of philosophers would disagree with you. These analytic philosophers, people like Graham Oppie, make arguments about the incompatibility of omniscience and free will. That if God created this world, if he chose this world instead of that world, then he makes it causally inevitable, every single action that you are going to make. If he made a world where we were just electrons in love, then none of this would have happened. But by making us in this world, knowing exactly what's going to happen in the future, it makes all of those events inevitable. And which means that they're all causally determined, which means that we have no free will. If you believe in an all good God or an all knowing God that.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Made everything, well, have it your way.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay, cool. So then the free will, if the Odyssey fails.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, it fails for you. That doesn't mean you've disproved it. I mean, you tried to make the argument. Yes. You tried to make a case for a causally deterministic universe. I don't think there's any evidence for that at all.

[Unknown Participant]

Do you think that God could have created a different universe than the one that he created?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I have no idea.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay, so then there's gonna be a double bind, Right? So either he couldn't have done it, in which case he lacks a power, or he could have done it, in which case we don't have free will because he chose this world instead of that world, making the the events of this world instead of that world inevitable with his infallible knowledge.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I don't understand where you're headed.

[Unknown Participant]

Well, it just means that the free will defense fails. Like all this. Like under your view, you want to have it fail?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

No problem. I don't know why it's relevant to the issue.

[Unknown Participant]

Do you acknowledge that under your view, free will doesn't exist?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

No. Oh.

[Unknown Participant]

Then do you want to respond to the argument?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

You'll have to phrase it more clearly so that someone like me can understand it.

[Unknown Participant]

Yeah, gotcha. So God already knows in advance everything that's going to happen. Which means that by making this world instead of that world, everything is inevitable. Which means that God's act of causing.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

This world instead of inevitable doesn't mean.

[Unknown Participant]

Determined, it's causally inevitable. If God chooses this world instead of that world, causally inevitable means determined.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

No one does.

[Unknown Participant]

Absolutely. Yes, it does.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, have it your way. Okay, that's not the case.

[Unknown Participant]

You've been voted out by the majority.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Please return to your seat. I'm Liam. Hi, Liam. How are you doing?

[Unknown Participant]

I'm doing well. How are you?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Not too bad. I'm surrounded by atheists.

[Unknown Participant]

My question to you. Let me scoot in. Would be, what does it mean to accept Christianity values precisely or Christian morality?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

It means to aim up as hard as you can no matter what happens to you.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay, okay. So I think that that's a very broad definition of what Christianity, but it'll.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Come in handy at some point in your life.

[Unknown Participant]

Right, But I think that many different, like, disciplines and theologies.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, you asked for a truncated answer. I mean, there's other ways of representing the situation. But I wanted to give you something that was kind of foundational, briefly.

[Unknown Participant]

Yeah, that makes sense.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

It doesn't mean it's, you know, exhaustive.

[Unknown Participant]

Yeah, yeah.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I could, you know, I could say that you, you would have to believe that Christ is God and he died for your sins. Right. But that's in a very difficult way to understand. That's the same claim.

[Unknown Participant]

Yeah, yeah. If there are other theologies and disciplines that have similar types of values, how then is that definition mean? Like, wouldn't those also be Christian values under your definition?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

That's a good question. I spent a lot of time studying different religious systems from all over the world and found multiple interesting layers of concordance. So, for example, in ancient Egypt, their God Horus, who was the reviving God of the totalitarian state, he was the God of attention. Right. And the Jews hypothetically came out of Egypt and there was cross talk between Egyptian and Jewish foundational morality, and then that led into Christianity. I mean, human beings all over the world have come up with moral systems that fit roughly into a pattern, and they're very usefully studied. I learned a lot about Christianity by studying Taoism, for example, like a lot of. So I think you can make a case that Christianity formalized the landscape of good and evil more comprehensively and in more detail than any other religious system. And I think that that's part of the reason that it defeated paganism and spread so broadly across the west and is still dominant, still under structures, our culture. For example, the way you feel about.

[Unknown Participant]

Horus or Daoism or something is how I feel about Christian morals, I think.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yeah, but how do I feel about that?

[Unknown Participant]

Well, that you took inspiration from them. You learned from them.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

That's a good start, because I would say that actually constitutes belief, like you said. Well, look, in Noah, in the story of Noah, Noah is inspired by the apprehension that all hell is going to break loose. He regards that inspiration as God. And when God comes to Abraham, he comes to Abraham as the spirit of adventure. It's inspiration. One of the definitions of God in the Old Testament, unsurprisingly, given the derivation of the word, is inspiration. And so if you take inspiration from Christian ideas, then insofar as you do that, you are in fact a believer. Which was my point with regards to atheists not understanding.

[Unknown Participant]

But have you taken inspiration from Taoism or from studying Egyptian mythology?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Definitely.

[Unknown Participant]

So then you believe them under that definition?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yeah, but I've incorporated them into something I think that's more comprehensive.

[Unknown Participant]

Is it possible to take inspiration and to appreciate the teachings without being a believer in their truth claims?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

No, I don't think so. But I think you see there are different kinds of truth claims, right? There's propositional truth claims claims, which are the truth claims of what you say. And then there's embodied truth claims, which is the truth claims of what you do that should be prioritized optimally. What you say and what you do would be brought into harmony. But I would say if you had to prioritize, it should be what you attend to and what you act first. And that's what Christ actually says in the Gospels, because he points to the Pharisees, for example, who say all the right things but don't do any of the right things, and points out very clearly that that's not acceptable.

[Unknown Participant]

I don't know that the Christian morality, those principles originate in Christianity. Cause you brought up other things that predate Christianity that you can very closely tie connections to.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, I don't think they do originate precisely. I mean, I don't think the Christian claim is exactly that they originate Christianity.

[Unknown Participant]

So if I'm living those values, how is it that I'm living the Christian values and maybe not the Egyptian values or something else?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

You've been voted out. That was good. That was good. Yeah. How you doing?

[Unknown Participant]

I'm good.

How are you?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Good. What's your name?

[Unknown Participant]

I'm Kumari. So I was curious about this, like, Christian morality that you're talking about. Because a lot of my issues of Christianity have to do with the base morality of it. Specifically with like the idea of like the Rapture and how we see people that aren't going to come up with us with the Rapture and that concept of heaven and hell. I don't really agree with that morality. But if you could explain that to me and how I do agree with that, I would love to like hear.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, I can't explain the Rapture to you because that isn't something I concern myself with. And that's more of a sectarian belief than something that's central to Christianity. Now there's all sorts of evangelical Protestants who might disagree with that, but that doesn't have anything to do with me. You asked a more deeper question with regard to, let's say, heaven and hell and judgment. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, that's a tough one, right? I mean, sin, you can put it this way. Sin is what puts you in hell, right. And so then you might ask, well, how do you know you're in hell? How about you do anything to get out of it? Can I ask you question? How about, you know, that you put yourself there?

[Unknown Participant]

Do you think is sin like a part of Christian morality?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

What do you mean exactly? Sin as part, like the heart. It's derived from an archery term and it means to miss the target. Right. And so it presumes that there's such a thing as a central target and that you can miss it in many ways. And the consequence of that will be your life will be ridden with anxiety, your life will be pointless, people will turn against you.

[Unknown Participant]

Don't believe in sin at all.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

What do you believe in? Error? Have you made any mistakes?

[Unknown Participant]

What if I believe that the mistakes that you make, that they're fixable and so that no sin is finite and that the idea of.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, that's a Christian belief.

[Unknown Participant]

The idea of hell I don't believe in.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

That's also a Christian belief, by the way.

[Unknown Participant]

A Christian belief is hell.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

No. That there's no sin. That. Well, there's one. The sin against the Holy Ghost is unforgivable, but that's really the sin against the process that would enable you to learn.

[Unknown Participant]

But there's a Christian belief that hell does exist and if I commit sin, I'm going to go there, correct?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yes.

[Unknown Participant]

So what if I don't? I don't believe in that. Like I think.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Okay, let me.

[Unknown Participant]

That when you. Can I explain a little bit?

Sure, sure.

Okay, thank you. I think that when you commit sin that it's because of a lot of environmental factors in your life, like where you were born and who you were raised by. And so there are certain things that lead you down a dangerous path. And once you are dead, I think you're kind of removed of that person. There's no, like, I can't say there are no factors of the earth that.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Have to what happens after death. So I would ask you, in these times that you've suffered terribly in ways that you thought would never end, do you believe that you had any causal role in that? Like, did you play a Part in that.

[Unknown Participant]

In my own suffering? Yeah, maybe sometimes I would say that there was a part that I played in that.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Okay, that's the thing to find out.

[Unknown Participant]

I think that maybe it's like a concept of free will that I don't really believe, and somewhat of free will that I think that there are certain things in your life that lead you to do certain behaviors. And so when you commit those sins, you go to hell. I'm not too sure why you would still be reaping the consequences of that.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Like I said, I can't address that. Do you believe that you can change?

[Unknown Participant]

I do.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Do you believe you can change for the better?

[Unknown Participant]

I do.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Do you believe that when you change for the better, you abandon the things you've done in the past that weren't good?

[Unknown Participant]

I think that you can.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Okay, then that's very much in keeping with Christian doctrine.

[Unknown Participant]

Can you explain to me how that's in keeping with Christian doctrine? You would go to hell for those things.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

You believe you can improve. And you believe that if you improved, you would let go of things that were impeding you. That's a sacrifice. You believe that improvement would be upward. And you believe that you have agency in that. Yeah, those are all Christian presuppositions.

[Unknown Participant]

I guess. I just. Maybe we have different opinions of what Christian morality is.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yes, sounds like it.

[Unknown Participant]

I think that my opinion of Christian morality is something that I don't really agree with. And maybe you would define that as like the foundations.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, let me give you an ex. Let me give you an example. So if you want to atone, which means to unify yourself and unify that with the world, then the first thing you have to do is figure out what you did wrong and admit it. That's a confession. That was good.

[Unknown Participant]

Thank you.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Nice to meet you too.

[Unknown Participant]

Jordan will now choose someone from the circle to debate again for 10 minutes based on a claim of their choice.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

I picked Xena because I think she asked genuine questions and wasn't trying to win.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay. Well, hello again.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Hi there.

[Unknown Participant]

My claim is Jordan Peterson's framework for understanding Christianity is probably not the one that the Bible intended us to use. In regards to the way that you interpret the Bible, I don't see you have said in some circumstances that there is not a way to kind of say whether or not ontologically the historical claims made by the Bible are true. Like, for example, the story of Cain and Abel. You've said that this story is like a meta truth in the sense that it exists all throughout time, culturally and the way that you define meta truth, I don't see the distinguish a distinction between that and like a metaphor. Right. But if. And you also said you cannot say whether this story was true. You can say that it exists eternally, you know, metaphorically, but you can't say that it's true. And if you can't say that there are historical facts being said in the Bible as stories that haven't, that weren't really said with much ambiguity, how can we say that we can understand the Bible in the way that it's meant to be interpreted? Like how. If you cannot make any claims about these stories. Right. You don't know they're the true or false. How do you know that your interpretation is the correct way?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Who. So that's why I picked you. You ask intelligent questions.

[Unknown Participant]

Thank you.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yeah, that was good. What do they say by their fruits? You'll know them.

[Unknown Participant]

Okay.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Right. Well, so one of the things I look at is the impact of what I'm doing.

[Unknown Participant]

Right.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

And so I know a lot of evangelical Christians, a lot of Catholics, a lot of orthodox Christians, a lot of people from other faiths, and they've told me, like many of them, that they found my interpretations very helpful and that it deepened their faith. And so that's interesting because I wouldn't have necessarily expected that to be the case. And I've also talked to thousands of people who've told me that they came to understand the foundational stories of their culture better as a consequence of listening to me, and that they did everything they could to sort out their lives and that it worked. That's many different pieces of evidence that all converge on something like the practical and conceptual utility of my approach. Now, is it the same? There is a lot of approaches to biblical interpretation historically, and what I'm doing is possibly less new than you think.

[Unknown Participant]

Yeah. I want to make a claim on whether this evidence is enough. Right. To substantiate whether or not your interpretation is going to, you know, be more plausible. Right. Be the most plausible. Because in regards to.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

It's an open question.

[Unknown Participant]

Yeah, right.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

You bet.

[Unknown Participant]

So in regards to how we interpret the Bible and how we see the Bible, something can add value to someone's. Like an interpretation can add value to someone's life. Interpretation can connect you to your conception of what your faith is. But if it's the quote unquote interpretation that God does not intend, that can lead to a plethora.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

That's certainly the case. That's why the medieval Christians were so concerned about heresy.

[Unknown Participant]

Exactly.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Yeah. Because they felt. And that's why. Why the Catholics objected so much to the Protestant Reformation, because they believed that the fractionation of Christianity would result in an indefinite fractionation. Right, well, and that's exactly what's happened.

[Unknown Participant]

Right.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

So, yeah, that's definitely a problem. I think one of the foundational principles, for example, there's a foundational principle in the Old Testament of hospitality. Right. So what you want to do, if you set up your local environment properly, is to make it welcoming to people voluntarily. And. And so one of the ways you could judge the validity of the interpretation of a classic story is whether or not that interpretation might be regarded by someone as welcoming. Does that represent something you'd actually like to have if you were acting in your own interest in the long run?

[Unknown Participant]

Right, and we can talk about that.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Like, do protect you from fear might be another one.

[Unknown Participant]

Exactly. So we can talk about how these interpretations of the Bible, like, if they kind of resonate with us. But I do, and I think that that can in some case be some kind of, like, evidence. Oh, this might be true. But I think we need to ask, is evidence damning? Right. Is this evidence certain? Right.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

So.

[Unknown Participant]

But I do want to look at again the consequences and our understanding of this interpretation once more. So we look at again, the story of Cain and Abel and we say, yeah, so I believe this is a meta truth. I believe that this story is resonant throughout cultures. That is all true in dandy. And I'm sure that there is in some way the story was put in here for the reason, Right. To tell us about fights between brothers. But also, you can't say, I do know or I don't know that this story is false or true in an ontological, historical sense as a historical fact. Were there two people that were specifically referenced?

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Okay, I don't think that's knowable, but I'm not sure why it matters to you. Right.

[Unknown Participant]

So the reason why it matters to me is because we need to know how we should interpret the things that the Bible says and many ways. Right, right. But like, if we interpret sometimes poetry.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Sometimes history, sometimes facts, but for example.

[Unknown Participant]

The reason why it's important, right, very important, is because, for example, we can talk about something like God says, I believe it's like 1 Corinthians 15:17, something about how belief in God specifically as someone who resurrected or as someone who died for our sins is important. Right. But we have to look at, if we can interpret that as just like you have to believe that God is a symbol of sacrifice that is different from believing that there was an actual person named Jesus Christ who died on the cross for our sins. So if you believe one and not the other, that can be the difference between you going to hell and you going to heaven. So if we cannot make like, we cannot say that we know whether or not certain historical facts in the Bible happen, like, even as just like, events, like, because the events matter. Because again, God dying for our sins on the cross was an event in the. If we can't say that we know these things did or didn't happen, this then leads us to kind of like the conundrum of how do we know what we are meant to believe, what the Bible intended for us to believe? And this can be very, very important to, like, our fate.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Do you see what I'm saying? Yeah, I've got no disagreement with any of that. What sort of response do you want from that? He pushed me beyond the limits of my knowledge.

[Unknown Participant]

Really.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, there's so many things you can't know. I'm struggling. I know that the biblical stories are the foundation of Western culture. I know that the consequence of those stories has been the genesis of a society that is, in the main, freer and more abundant than any societies have ever been. I don't exactly understand the relationship between those stories and that outcome, but it's not nothing.

[Unknown Participant]

Right.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

But I don't know. I don't know the answer to the questions that you're asking. You know, it's the case that forever, when people have been interpreting religious stories, they wrestled with exactly the question that you just described. When is it fact? When is it poetry? When is it music? When is it metaphor? When is it ritual? When is it time bound?

[Unknown Participant]

But what I'm saying is that your interpretation of the Bible, if you cannot tell us again if these historical events happened or not, that can be deciding factor in if someone is like, damned to hell for eternity or if they go to heaven. Right. So that's why I don't concern myself.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

So much with that particular question. You know, like, that would be something that would stem more from an evangelical viewpoint. And I'm not putting that down, by the way. I don't. You're asking me a question I really can't answer. I'm not claiming even that my interpretations are canonically correct. I can only tell you the consequences of having released them into the world, let's say.

[Unknown Participant]

Right. So I guess we've kind of come to a conclusion about that, which I've kind of wrestled with your framework and pushed it Kind of to its. Kind of to its end, at least in the way that you can answer my question. So I don't know that we can more wrestle with that.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

See, I don't. I guess the problem is, you see, I don't exactly understand. I don't think anybody does, the relationship between fact and destiny, you know, well, they're different realms in a way, because knowing what the world is made of doesn't help you navigate through it, not really. It doesn't provide you with a foundation for navigation. But knowing the facts of the world is obviously useful, and the relationship between those two things, part of that's the mystery of Western civilization and the continued competition between science and religion.

[Unknown Participant]

To bridge this kind of understanding between fact and destiny is like an important question that the burden is on Christianity to answer, and specifically interpretations of Christianity. And if we can't do that, why.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Is the burden on Christianity?

[Unknown Participant]

Because it posits right. The disinterpretation. Right is going to be a way to understand God. But if it's faulty. Right.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

That can be evidence. Would you. What evidence would you accept?

[Unknown Participant]

That would be an interesting question because I haven't met. I've seen people try to answer the question and I've never really been moved because I can always attack. And then again, kind of gets to this point where the answer is, I don't know.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, here's an answer.

[Unknown Participant]

Pause there. I'm sorry.

That's time.

All right. Well, thank you so much for the round.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Well, I definitely picked the right person. Thank you. That was very good. I don't like talking to win, but there were portions of all the conversations that were truly productive and that it's instructive for people to see the distinction between a debate that's aimed at local victory and dominance, let's say, even of ideas, and a discussion that's predicated on mutual exploration and establishment of, like, a harmonious understanding and peace.

[Unknown Participant]

Jordan Peterson, out of all of the kind of theists that are on the Internet, he is one of the better ones in regards to just, like being genuine as a person. But I do feel like he does a lot of, I guess, wordplay that can make it a little bit difficult and kind of just muddies the waters in regard to what we define as Christianity and atheism.

Jordan Peterson, I credit to turning me into an atheist. I had a blast talking to him today. I think if the average person followed what Jordan Peterson said, they'd realize that fundamentally Jordan Peterson is not a Christian, in fact, uses many atheistic principles and operated under bad faith by seeming to forget what basic words meant when he didn't want to answer a question.

His definitions can kind of shift a little bit depending on the moment, and I think that he wasn't afraid to flex that definitional muscle.

I felt really good about our conversation. I thought that it highlighted some key issues in Jordan Peterson's theology. I hope he reflects on these issues and maybe deepens his perspective on them in the future.

With Xena, she was able to build up such a rapport that he chose her in the end, and they were able to have an extended dialogue, which is something I had hoped for. So maybe I learned a little something from Zena about being more cordial.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

It's extraordinarily useful to be able to model productive debate and conversation for people and see how my thoughts were landing with people who are particularly skeptical, and to put that in front of a large audience and to assess the consequences.

[Unknown Participant]

Don't forget to subscribe to Surrounded wherever you get your podcasts so that you.

[Dr. Jordan Peterson]

Don'T miss an episode.

[Unknown Participant]

And if you want to watch the video version of Surrounded, subscribe to Jubilee on YouTube.