Jordan Peterson's Genesis series was my introduction to Christianity. He will always have a special place in my heart for that. This is the first time I've heard criticisms of him that I can clearly see and agree with. I can't believe I'm agreeing with Orthodox Christians more than Jordan Peterson now! What a journey. Thanks for what you do Nathan. It would take me years longer to articulate and wrestle through my intuitions without you. 🙏
Hi Nathan, I've listened to the majority of this, I hope more people see this! It was a great introduction to a brief explanation of Kant and Hegel in relation to its impact on the history of religious thought. I'm a composer and guitarist and if I didn't go into music, I would have studied philosophy. It's so helpful to listen to someone who I can seem to trust explain things with an end that is aimed toward God. Thank you! p.s. in my opinion I think Jordan has been dodging his conscience for a while now, it seems like this interview with Dawkins marks the end of his ability to keep his private beliefs under control. I very much hope he has a turn towards the living God.
I was well on my way to becoming a Christian back in 2020 when I found Jordan Peterson. Unfortunately he confused me to the point that I regressed quite a bit. It took another four years for me to dismiss his ideas. Jonathan Pageau was equally confusing for me as well. I think they are just wired differently than I am. Either way I ended up Christian, no thanks to them.
I echo others in this comment section. I was highly influenced by the Jordan Peterson of 2016 but find him basically unlistenable now. He's really quite a tragic case because he opened so many minds to Christianity, but he stayed behind in the world of symbolism instead of reality, exactly as you so precisely excised in your commentary. I've said before and I'll say it again, Dr. Nathan Jacobs is for people in their post-Peterson eras. I am so grateful you started this podcast.
It would be a great mistake to categorize Symbolism as something outside of reality. Symbolism is the union between fact and meaning, it's not what we modern people know as "symbols". The mythological (ergo a phenomenological) Symbol HAPPENS in reality. It's not refering simply to a metaphor or analogy. A comment section is way too short to unpack the idea, but I truly suggest looking into Jonathan and Matthieu Pageau's work on it for a true understanding on what Symbolism actually is.
@@GianFerreyraBouillon I'm not anti symbology as something worth discussing and Dr. Jacobs clearly isn't either. But if you can't see the tension Dr. Jacobs spends three hours describing in this episode, I'm not going to convince you of anything in a comment.
@@wimonadu I understand the tension, and I agree with many things he says. I still think it's a mistake to categorize Symbolism as something outside of reality. Some Symbolism defenders are one of the most realist types you can find out there. Jacobs isn't saying that, you are.
@@GianFerreyraBouillon I haven't listened to the whole podcast yet, but I wholeheartedly agree with what you've said. For me, the Pageau lads have been incredibly helpful in taking the Jungian symbolic framework Peterson developed and placing that within a system of Christian Realism. The talk Nathan did with Jonathan a few weeks back was like the perfect synthesis of Pageaus more fluid expression and the more metaphysically structured framing of Jacobs. It's really frustrating to see Christians throwing out Peterson because he doesn't fit neatly into either the traditional skeptic or Christian box. I think he provides a genuine pathway for people to rediscover symbolic and mystical thinking, which will (hopefully) lead more people to metaphysical Realism grounded in Christ instead of atheistic materialism. I get that Peterson has a deficient system given his prioritization of the human psyche, nevertheless, he provides a door out of the materialism that most people (including Christians) are stuck in.
I think the verdict is still out. JP said he didn't want to undermine the Christian narrative but that could apply to both sides of the coin -- If he claims he does not believe in the virgin birth, he undermines the Christian narrative in that way yes. If he claims he believes in the virgin birth, he (and his Christian message) immediately loses influence in the minds of the materialistic atheist. The effectiveness, power of the message is immediately lessened in that way, that is, undermined.
In this conversation I was struck by Dawkins “I’m just not interested in that” deflections. He seemed unwilling to have the necessary conversation. You’ve pointed out that Peterson likewise was unwilling to have parts of the conversation that were uncomfortable to him and dismissed them as uninteresting. Speaking as a Jordan Peterson fan I do wish he was more transparent. I think he doesn’t want Dawkins to undermine the symbols.
The book you forgot the name of is Dominion by Tom Holland. Great book, and hugely influential right now. His podcast, The Rest is History, is also excellent btw.
As someone who missed the Peterson train, his non-realism was easy to sniff out. Looking at the people who took the Peterson train and profess receiving help from his ideas, they seem to be stuck on the Peterson phenomenon that comes from his interactions with the secular world and politics.
Not everyone who was helped by him can be characterized in this way. I took the Peterson train and though I was already a Christian in terms of belief I had no idea how to work that out and I was really suffering. I became an Orthodox Christian because of what he opened my eyes to and I often find find myself thanking God for him. As far as Peterson's possible non-realism goes I don't buy it (I'm still in the middle of Nathan's video). He may just actually be sincerely and honestly struggling with the God question and I think so because his character is more consistent with that.
The moment Jordan said lions are an instance of the dragon class was mind boggling. It’s almost elementary ontology. Most of his fallacies are just incorrect generalizations (i.e his obsession with forms/abstractions)
Could you expand on this? It’s my understanding that lions participate in a “pattern of being” or “within the metacategory” of dragon (sum of predators) so they would be an instance of dragon. Thanks!
I’ve discovered that if I am direct too early in conversation with those who are ideologically captured, they dismiss me before we can build enough of a relationship to have a real deep life changing conversation. Dawkins seems to be wielding the hermeneutics of suspicion as a weapon to protect his clean and tidy world view. Jordan seems to be learning both Dawkins’ language and frame sufficiently to be able to build a relational bridge. They are both terrified for the future of science and Jordan sees Dawkins as a powerful ally. Sometimes I think our good and understandable desire for Jordan to become a Christian blinds us. That said, I have no way of backing this. I may just be naive.
I love your preface. Maps of meaning had a MASSIVE impact on me as a 18 year old, and pulled me through a faith crises as a Mormon. I latched onto this 'sacrifice all for the truth' stance, and that has stuck with me into my conversion to Orthodoxy. Jordan is an enigma for me. I see honesty in him, yet, I also don't understand how his wrestling hasn't achieved philosophical realism, and the inevitable conclusion of Christ. I kinda wish he would do a podcast with Jay Dyer actually, I feel TAG would be up Jordans ally, or at least it would seriously challenge him if nothing else. Anyway, excited to see your thoughts (still haven't watched the video!) P.S. Dawkins was extremely bad faith, whether he intended to be or not. 20 years of debating Christianity and he doesn't even understand basic philosophical problems. Smells like pride to me.
1:18:45 I disagree. I don't think Jordan slipped into the dichotomy. I think he is rejecting the very same dichotomy you speak of that is very strictly applied by Dawkins' worldview. The entire push by Dawkins and O'Connor to get Jordan to answer the realist question was to reinforce that dichotomy, so that they could strike down the metaphysical.
I will say this. I think he answers “I don’t know” not because he’s avoiding undermining Christianity but because he feels uncertain. I say this because of other comments he’s made regarding the probability of the resurrection actually happening etc. I think in his clearer moments he wants to affirm the materiality of the symbol but is not confident.
Jordan is definitely a non-realist. In one of the many times he was asked if God was real his response was "I act and conduct my life as if he were real."
Excellent break down, I really love your content. But please do something about that intro/outro music 😅, something more reverent maybe given the gravity of the topics?
1:28:45 Again, you are forgetting about the rhetorical situation. If his answer, in the moment, with that present audience, was to concede the historicity of the story, then his audience is lost from that point forward. Peterson's only path with Dawkins, in terms of getting Dawkins to listen, at all, about the truth, in its absolute form, is to come at the story from the direction opposite of historical fact. The new atheist type cannot hear about value if it doesn't empirically exist.
This seems accurate. I wish I had more confidence in the divine scripture theories. There’s just such silly things in the Bible that make me cringe when I think “This is God who made the universe.” The intro music sucks. Great episode and I got more than I bargained for!
Part of the issue undergirding this, and it may or may not be relevant to the nominalism / realism debate is that things which are inherently articles of faith, we should not expect to be able to assert and prove through sheer evidence and rationality (in fact, they may at times contradict). Faith exists on a different register, at least that's my Lutheran training. But we're more comfortable with paradoxes - for e.g. "the Bible says x, science demonstrates y?" Rather than forcing one to fit the other (correspondantism), we hold the "contradiction" in tension. If Peterson were to grant Dawkins the legitimacy of approaching questions of "faith" from a "literal" (by which Dawkins means rational and scientific) perspective, he's sold the discussion and lowered faith to the scrutiny of the scoffer.
I wouldn't say that Jordan Peterson is a nonrealist, It seems to me that he just doesn't want to make claims that he doesn't have any right to make but is willing walk right up to the edge and look over it.
A noble lie just ain’t gonna cut it in hyper-digital postmodernity But what both of these men ignore, is at there is always an inescapable miracle at the heart of all origins That there “is” at all. That intelligibility exists at all. For Dawkins, his eyes, ears, and consciousness are accidental inevitabilities, and not profound revelations of the nature of creation itself. “I am who I am”
"[Aln object or an act becomes real only insofar as it imitates or repeats an archetype. Thus, reality is acquired solely through repetition or participation; everything which lacks an exemplary model is 'meaningless.' i.e., it lacks reality" - Mircea Eliade.
1:07:05 Do not neglect the importance of rhetoric. Who is Jordan's audience? What restraints are present when speaking to his audience? How does he draw his audience in?
I would want a bit more justification for creating a black and white dicotomy between realist and non-realists. IMO it completely discount the hegelian/neoplatonic/process "middle" path in a sense that it is both universal and constructed. From a process point of view (since its language is simpler) the eternal objects are deficient in actuality and infinite. The actual occasion is when an adjacent possible form that is actualised is dependent on the history at of the event (which is a nexus of relations).
The non realist worldview is also something that was brought up constantly in the sea of faith documentary Its free on youtube, but it goes through 19th and 20th century philosophers suspected of having these views
What do you think about another possibility: an undermining of the whole enterprise with the answer "Don't know" instead of presumption of the answer "of course, no, but we should not say that aloud"? If he is in search and don't yet know, can't say if he believes or not, then an answer "don't know" could be perceived as a weakness - if you don't know, then it may be "no", therefore how can you value the whole enterprise if it may be built on the false foundation?!
Also it is usually not being discussed, but the scientific myth of evolution (macroevolution) is a hard obstacle for many to overcome on the way to realism, because they don't want to see themselves and to be seen as "uneducated" persons, who rejects evolution.
1:48:15 idk about this. What about Maximus? This is an issue you should talk about with Jordan Daniel Wood, if you want an academic conversation or me if you want a personal one where I explain how I see these things from a non-academic standpoint. 😊
Jordan Peterson is realist.. the problem is that majority of his chritics do not understand that there is a sphere of existance that can not be described (at least yet) by known scientific method and it is an extention of material realism. understanding and implementing results with realistic consequences across time and space for every individual. so if you have a scripture that once understood and implemented proves it self true across time and space... wouldn't you call it true?
Here are some simple examples and stories that tie together the views of Jordan Peterson, Richard Dawkins, Iain McGilchrist, and John Vervaeke, helping explain how they relate to the ideas of nominalism, realism, and other perspectives on universals. 1. The Story of the Red Rose A red rose grows in a garden. People see it and talk about its beauty and color. How each of these thinkers interprets the “redness” of the rose can help illustrate their philosophical stance. • Richard Dawkins (Nominalism): Dawkins would say that “redness” is simply a label we use to categorize roses of a certain wavelength of light. There’s no real, independent “redness” out there. It’s a useful way to describe the rose based on our biological perception, shaped by evolution to detect colors. The concept of “redness” doesn’t exist beyond the word we use for it-it’s just a convenient tool for grouping things. • Jordan Peterson (Conceptualism): Peterson might see the “redness” of the rose as tied to deeper, archetypal meanings. Red, for instance, may have symbolic significance-passion, love, danger-that humans universally recognize. The color red exists as a concept in our collective psyche, influencing how we understand and relate to the world. It’s not just a label; it has meaning and importance in human experience, though it doesn’t exist in an abstract realm beyond perception. • Iain McGilchrist (Relational or Phenomenological Realism): McGilchrist might say that the “redness” of the rose is real, but it’s not an abstract concept floating in a separate realm. Instead, it’s something we experience dynamically and relationally, in context. When we see the rose, the “redness” is part of the interconnected, living experience between our minds and the world. The right hemisphere of the brain perceives this holistically-the rose as a whole, including its color and meaning-while the left hemisphere might break it down into components like color, size, and shape. • John Vervaeke (Participatory Realism): Vervaeke would argue that the “redness” emerges from our interaction with the rose. Our minds are wired to pick up patterns and relevant information. In this case, we notice the red color because it’s meaningful-perhaps signaling the health of the rose or its attractiveness. The concept of “redness” emerges as we participate in the world, constantly adapting to what’s relevant. It’s real, but not as a static, unchanging entity. It exists in the dynamic relationship between the rose, our perception, and the environment. 2. The Village Elder and the Concept of “Wisdom” In a small village, people look up to the elder as the embodiment of wisdom. Over time, young villagers try to understand what “wisdom” means, asking each of the thinkers how they interpret this abstract concept. • Richard Dawkins (Nominalism): Dawkins would likely say that “wisdom” is just a label we give to certain behaviors that have been beneficial for survival. The elder behaves in a way that promotes the well-being of the community, and through cultural evolution, we’ve come to call this “wisdom.” However, there’s no deeper, universal essence of wisdom; it’s a convenient term for describing a set of actions that work. • Jordan Peterson (Conceptualism): Peterson might view “wisdom” as an archetypal concept, something deeply embedded in human history and culture. The elder represents the archetype of the “wise old man,” a figure that appears in myths and stories throughout time. “Wisdom” is a real concept, but it’s not just a label. It represents a universal pattern of behavior and understanding that has deep psychological and cultural significance for humanity. • Iain McGilchrist (Relational Realism): McGilchrist would likely argue that “wisdom” is something that emerges from the elder’s relationship with the community and the world. It’s not an abstract trait that the elder possesses independently of context. Instead, wisdom is a dynamic quality that unfolds in the elder’s interactions with others, shaped by his experience and the needs of the village. The right hemisphere perceives this wisdom as part of the elder’s being, while the left hemisphere might try to break it down into specific traits or skills. • John Vervaeke (Participatory Realism): Vervaeke might suggest that “wisdom” is something we co-create as we interact with the elder and the world around us. It’s not an abstract property the elder has, but something that emerges through the process of relevance realization. The elder is wise because he can adapt to complex situations, recognizing what’s important and making sound judgments. Wisdom is real, but it’s not fixed-it’s constantly evolving as the elder and the community engage with the challenges of life. 3. The Shape of a Tree Imagine a group of people discussing what it means to be a “tree.” Is there a universal “treeness” that all trees share? • Richard Dawkins (Nominalism): Dawkins would say that “tree” is just a word we use to describe organisms with certain characteristics, like having a trunk, branches, and leaves. There’s no real essence of “treeness.” It’s a useful category for classifying organisms, but it’s ultimately a label for things that evolved similar traits through natural selection. • Jordan Peterson (Conceptualism): Peterson might see “treeness” as tied to deeper archetypal or symbolic meanings. In mythology and religion, trees often represent life, growth, or connection to the divine (think of the “Tree of Life”). The concept of a tree exists not just as a biological category, but as a deeply meaningful symbol in human experience. • Iain McGilchrist (Relational Realism): McGilchrist would argue that “treeness” is real, but it’s not something that exists independently of our experience of trees. It’s a relational concept that emerges when we engage with trees in the world. The tree’s shape, texture, and presence are part of a living, interconnected reality, perceived holistically by the right hemisphere of the brain. The left hemisphere might try to abstract and categorize it, but the tree’s reality is more than its parts. • John Vervaeke (Participatory Realism): Vervaeke would emphasize that “treeness” emerges from our participation in the world. We recognize the pattern of “tree” because our minds are wired to find relevance in the environment. “Treeness” isn’t a static universal, but something we come to understand through dynamic interaction with nature. It’s real, but it’s co-created through our cognitive engagement with the environment. These examples help illustrate how each thinker approaches universals like “redness,” “wisdom,” and “treeness,” showing the differences between nominalism, realism, and more dynamic or relational perspectives. Each story highlights how abstract concepts are understood through labels, psychological patterns, relational experiences, or participatory processes. ChatGBT 😂
I think Peterson is just being honest. None of us KNOW if Jesus was born of a virgin. We have reason to have faith in that claim, but not knowledge of its certainty, which is what Dawkins was asking for.
It seems like you use the word "symbol" the way that many western Christians do where they debate about the "symoblic" versus "real" presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Pageau uses the word "symbol" to describe a meeting place between the physical and the spiritual, or material and meaning, or heaven and earth. So "Symbol" becomes a larger category that applies to all of the "real" world. Nothing in human experience is purely material, we interact with the world symbolically. Or as DBH has quoted recently "All things are full of God." Thus, our stories are entirely symbolic, regardless of their historicity. However, the Christian story or Biblical story is something like a concentration of this symbolic world where actual events and actual history coincide with the deepest symbolic meanings. Or as CS says "the myth became fact." I think the real sticky point here is the understanding of "miracle." Where I think if JP, Jpag, and others in TLC could agree on what we mean when we say "miracle" then the convo would be better. I think there is a relationship between Pageaus explanation of symoblism and the way Jordan Peterson goes about these convos. And when folks like you or Dawkins say "just a symbol" its a bit of a different way of describing something than maybe what Jordan is accustomed.
Are all things invented “not real”?? I think what’s happening with Peterson is that he is afraid that whatever is the source of the meme *might actually be real* and he’s trying to find a scientific ladder to it
Seeing as how Jordan is on a self-admitted journey, I’m a little confused why you feel the need to place him in a box, as if his mind is made up… You used to be a nominalist, and then transitioned to a realist. So I think you can understand why this endeavor is a little foolhardy mid-transition.
I think we’re past the “journey” stage. As Dr. Jacobs points out, this has been an issue for as long as he’s been public. And someone who is unsure can say that. They’re not asking about knowledge, they’re asking about belief. There’s no difficulty in saying “I don’t know” but it’s like pulling teeth to get him to say that. He avoids the question over and over and over again and that’s what the trouble is.
@@jmar237So what hard position is he staking out? He hasn’t, and he literally said he didn’t know during the interview in question. It’s absurd of you to determine how long his journey should take. It took ten years for my journey out of atheism to Christianity.
@@CScott-wh5yk I'm not offering a prescription for how long a person takes on their "journey" but from what I've observed of him, he hasn't evolved at all in the last 8 years on this subject. As others point out, the audience he introduced to Christianity left him behind because he's still taking non-realist positions after all this time and they need someone with a more committed realist worldview. As I said in my initial reply, his saying "I don't know" is a totally acceptable answer and would be a far more palatable and honest reply. I know I'm not alone in being irritated by his squirreliness and his commitments to story and symbols over the truth. (The truth being "I don't know.")
@@jmar237 Your first point is completely irrelevant to Jordan’s journey. Your second point is false, Peterson did say he doesn’t know during the interview. You need to watch it before commenting on it, this is intellectual honesty 101.
@@CScott-wh5yk Your tone is genuinely confusing to me. I'm not trying to be hostile to you. It took asking the same question over and over and over and over for him to finally say I don't know. It isn't dishonest to point that out. Have a blessed day!
Jordan talks about realism in his conversation with Dr. Donald Hoffman, who is a gnostic evolutionist. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-SPnyxnvU4ko.html
2:15:15 - 25 on whether or not faeries exist. And “from a philosopher’s perspective” They is no philosopher’s perspective. This is why I talk about personal is knowing so much. There is no knowledge in general. There is only knowledge in particular. The person is the Nexus and locus of all meaning and all knowledge. Unless you want to say that knowledge exist as some angelic reality.
Dude it’s not a realism question it’s a materialist reductionist framing question designed to shut down the conversation, it’s a meaningless line of questioning because if you say YES it ends the discussion in the eyes of Dawkins, if you say NO, it ALSO ends the discussion because Dawkins will use this to leverage the idea that Jordan Peterson is a charlatan grifter. But even if he says NO, it DOES NOT change the profound, reality concordant truth in the narrative - which is what Peterson is concerned with. It is ACTUALLY an irrelevant and cancerous question in this particular discussion. Dawkins is being the dogmatic literalist and insisting on that false dichotomy and Peterson is being diplomatic and trying to get him to open up for the sake of the discussion.
@@Slackarius hey! How are you here? I also think that Dr. Jacob‘s should talk to either myself or Jordan Daniel Wood about his positive (non-leftist) Hegelian view. Chalcedon. All meaningful intellectual conversations are about the nature of the God-Man relation. The line between pantheism and pantenheism is blurry.
@@WhiteStoneName I'm not entirely sure, just continued exploration afield. Been watchin' his podcast for a few weeks now I think. Caught this one early enough to recognize a familiar face in the crowd.
