Deconstructing Jordan Peterson on Religion 

*You should totally invite and interview Dr Peterson in person; his interview and conversations with Richard Dawkins was intriguing*

@@valmid5069 You mean decimating.

Simply Brilliant. So,... why does JP do this? Suggest in part - Experiential Avoidance (a major psychological process within ACT theory) in not embracing and accepting the thoughts and feelings that result from materialism & naturalism. Because he cannot emotionally cope with the internal consequences, this would emotionally mean and have to him. I seriously doubt this is intentional, but maybe, just maybe, if he ever watches Alex's cool & and skilled video, might prod him to "wake up". Too late now, though; he has now dug himself too deep into the very hole he has dug for himself.

What saddens me is that he started associating with radical-right wing outlets like The Daily Wire that has close ties with Breitbart

What a twat you are!! He emphasised their metaphorical reality. Perception forms your reality. Peoole like you get so hung up on the superficial aspects that you end up missing the jewels.

Imagine if this is how humans communicated, I bet we would still be in the bronze age

@@airplanes_aren.t_real That depends. What exactly do you mean by "we", or "be", or "bronze"?

What do you mean by *what* ? What do you mean by do ? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by mean ? What do you mean by by ? What do you mean by ? ? What do you mean by wife?

"It already happened. It is so fundamentally true that it never stopped happening. So when you ask, can I take out the trash, it is true in a meta manner, that the trash is already taken out. What does it mean? Well, of course the trash is what we identify as the evil that we want to rid our minds of. So if you ask me:"Can I take out the trash?", in a much deeper, much more profound way, I am always, was always and will always be taking the trash out."

@@airplanes_aren.t_real We would have gone extinct. Wife: Run! There is a saber tooth tiger behind you! Husband: First off, what do you mean exactly by "run", what do you mean by "There is", or by "saber tooth tiger" or by "behind" or by "you"?

See, "what do you mean by 'you'?" is a very valid question, when digging into the wuestions of free will and existance of soul. However, Peterson here is simply trying to evade the simole question by just trying to make it complicated.

@a_sari Not even his brain over analyzes which comes out in abstract thoughts because he is someone who is obviously intelligent and well-articulated. I think he is someone who suffers from high functioning anxiety disorder and his behavior is a product of such condition. You can't expect the average person to be able to reason or identify with someone like that and that is the cost of being an intellect in society. Very few of the current age philosophers/evolutionist/psychologist are on a similiar level, Robert Sapolsky and Sam Harris are two.

It’s always great when he gets into that sort of stuff. He’s almost saying “whatever term you use, we have to define that term further, then we end up in an infinite deferral into other definitions and so on”. Precisely the sort of Derridean stuff he made his name trying to overthrow.

@@BobHowler ironic isn't it?

Postmodernist mode activated.

truth

Speak for yourself, I seem able to understand the things and I'm certainly no genius.

@@valhalla_1129 Your ability to understand sophistry is not the flex you think it is.

@Guyintheworld-bw3wg honestly these philosophical discussions can get way too abstract so I totally get this lol

Richard Feynman is the opposite of Jordan Petersen

I mean, while I have my own way of explaining it, this has been obvious a long time to anybody that just listened intently to what he's always been saying. People were looking for "a winner" when Peterson and Harris were debating, for example, while I was rooting for them to both realize they have more in common than they realize. Imo JP presents the literary and psychological interpretation of religion that atheists like Dawkins have said actually have some value as opposed to a literal interpretation, but both sides are talking past each other and have too many (understandable) biases about the other side that would just vanish with more attentive listening.

+M. Linoge You give Peterson way too much credit for generating complex ideas.

What do you mean?

He does the absolute opposite

@@LiberatedNotes Cosmic Skeptic, or Peterson?

@@highroller-jq3ix JP

So you believe in holy cows? Have you converted to Hinduism? 😊

@@cosmicprison9819 Well, what do you mean by "holy?" Whay do you mean by "cow?" What do mean by "believe?"

For the record, The Bible says that God will spue the lukewarm out of His mouth. This is what the Bible says about those who know not what they believe, when addressing a Church: Revelation 3:16 KJV -- So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Any individual who purports to be a born again Christian does not, and will not hesitate to profess their faith in Christ Jesus as the son of God.

@@FakingANerve I think the relevant and most precise answer would be: _"We mean exactly what years and years of experience and human knowledge has been documented and proven to be, those words which we seem to display a usage of, have inherent meaning - I can explain further to you if you will to know."_

@@Seeker7257 That is You? Read in context

That's really well put. I've completely gone off Peterson personally. I am getting fed up with his never being able to answer a simple question. Since his benzodiazepine addiction and coma, he has deliberately gone more towards to the religious stuff and he brings it into anything and everything that he talks about.

Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait... If Alex can explain it... Ohw nooh we are the one not smart enough to understand 🥲. Omg ☹️

@@ArThur_hara Your attemp at sarcasm is so bad I puked a few times

wtf is up with all the. spaces ?

Alex is remarkable at manipulating the English language using subjective pseudo-philosophical claims in a clear and precise execution that definitely doesn't misconceptualize every topic of everyone he analyze.

I like JPs psychology stuff. But his religious stuff is BS. "I base my thoughts on the literature, and studies I've read and base my thoughts on that" - JP. Also JP: "God exists how ever we decide to define it"

🎯

👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👌

it’s projection

Which part, exactly?

Well, it's ideology

+1

He pulled his god from his behind as you managed to get yourself out of the swamp. The only difference he's just in deep shit.

Amusing.

😂

Anyone that starts a sentence with the words: 'As a scientist', suggests that they are likely not one. Best case; they've rummaged through a few episodes of PBS Space Time.

Accurate.

One could argue that that idea in itself would be further proof of an atheistic view of the bible. Relegating them to parables meant to carry on lessons of morality instead of literal events that occured from a higher power. In the same way the story of the three little pigs shows you how to be prepared, or Hanzel and Gretel in the same vein. That does still leave it a bit ambiguous, and that may be on purpose, but it seems to me personally to be leaning farther towards atheistic.

This was quite contradictory.

he gives me a headache

LOL bingo!

This is brilliant. You are so right.

With Dillahunty, he tried to gaslight and overcomplicate to avoid addressing points of conversation.

Also, most of his followers are Christian and Catolic believers, he also has an enormous influence in politics. He's walking on thin ice

Nailed it

Nailed it. Like Jesus.

@@brettmixer7867 1. Your previous answer was so pathetic and petty, it was shadowbanned by RU-vid, it does not appear in the comments. The only way I was able to see it is to check your comment history on your profile. 2. Your response had nothing in it, nothing worthy of any discussion, mixed with baseless ad hominem about his brain and his sexuality. Give an actual argument, and you’ll get an answer. Calling someone stupid and gay to pat yourself on the back thinking you did something and proved your intellectual superiority is laughable. 3. After all that, coming back to the comment to demand a response is the cherry on the cake. You said nothing of value, thought you « owned » the original commenter, and then came back to ask for a response because you didn’t get the validation you crave. You are really reaching heights in intellectual performance here. Wow.

@@santiar117Christian’s don’t hate wise people suddenly all because those wise people don’t believe in God.

I wouldn't say religious, some of my friends aren't materialists like me and watch his stuff without believing in a god, but have instead some sort of esoteric vagueness philosophy, which I think JP appeals to even more than to a religious person

A valid assumption, but I disagree. I watched his old lectures before he got all famous and all, I think his position (or rather his description) didn’t change much. And in a Australian TV show, he was asked point blank if he is religious. His answer was “I act as if God exists”, I think that clearly means that he does not believe that God literally exists. I thinks it’s more likely that he himself couldn’t quite resolve this issue, so his language is vague and seems manipulative. Of course, that’s is just my guess, I’m not a psychologist.

For me it is clear that he is religious. But he cant just say he believe because he want to be this 'intellectual knows evertyhing guy'

For what it’s worth, I think there’s a lot of truth in this. I wonder if you think it’s malicious.

He said all this stuff before he got famous tho

He almost makes it seem like an artform, to be so vague and precise at the same time

There is no god in the sky 👍

or you just don't like him lmao

@@asian1599 i dont like his "waffling gibbirish" 👍

It's a rule in academia. If you can't astound them with knowledge, baffle them with BS. Of course the actual academics astound more than baffle. The opposite is true for JP.

RU-vid served-up the same combo in the same order to me this week. Had to hit the subscribe button just now.

Hitchens wouldn't have spared Alex from the hitchen slap, too bad we'll never know 😅😢

@@charismauniversity9626yep. Oh if only he were still alive today. Just imagine all the new Hitch-Slaps…

jordan is closet Christian but he also knows he cant defend faith in this secular world so he plays both part from a safe distance and as you can see he got massive audience because of his trick.

I think he’s Christian but he’s very careful what way he steps in his ideas because he isn’t knowledgeable enough to argue everything. He holds back so that way he doesn’t get trapped and look bad. He’s know for being intelligent so the worst thing for his career would to have someone ask him a question he can’t answer. If he doesn’t step forward then he can never be pushed back. If he were to say “I believe in God” he would have so many questions flying at him he would be overwhelmed. He’s interested in the fantasy of theology and the allegories. He doesn’t want to have to defend scientific physical based questions.

He is trying to bring them together because there is something fundamentally important that both atheists and theists don't yet see (generally speaking across large populations). He's saying something more like "you're both right and wrong".

@@natanielb1445 Christians are told to spread the faith, though

@@Checkmate777 if you were asked if you believe in God, would you refuse to answer? You are prescribing preposterous standards if JP cannot even claim to be Christian, something they are meant to be open about. And he clearly calls God a fictional character multiple times in this video. This seems more about preserving your preconceived notions about JP more than anything.

He's only good with the big words. The little ones confuse him. (Whenever it's convenient for him to be confused)

one of the first things I learned at my classical Christian school of logic and rhetoric is "define your terms", yet somehow in economics we still ended up listening to jp lectures 💀

I just had a big laugh watching that moment of his. Honestly, how can some people take him serious? He is like a used car salesman but for pseudo-intellectual ideas

@@manulito2 thank you perfectly and concisely stated.

Oh booo hooo... LOL!!!! I love watching the "intellectuals" get their asses handed to them by a man that's WELL thought out and NOT afraid to call you on your BULLSHIT. Cry some more, you granola crunching cunts.

JP does the thing that most students hate about their teachers: being incapable of trying to be concise and clear

@@kris1123259 i always felt like he is very concise and clear

@@aice336 He's really not and I can tell because I do the exact same thing. Not in any overt manner, but in the way that I want to sound and seem smart, so I add large words here and there to do so. The difference is that I actually want to be understood, most of the time, whereas Mr. Peterson seems to be very uncaring when it comes to being understood.

@@drvurruct2274 i dunno ... for me the things mr. cosmic skeptic explains here about petersons views .. for me that wasnt hidden at all but quite clear. he was always picking things apart from a psychological point of view. but the assumption that he thinks those things didnt really happen as an historical event is false. he stated on numerous occasions that he doesnt know that and that he only talks about the psychological side of things. tl;dr i never had problems understanding these things of peterson

@@aice336 he’s always concise until he talk about religion

It has to be the etymology of the word.

Right lol JP is something else

And the only reasonable way to respond to people with extreme standpoints. It has the best chance to make followers of Peterson put more thought on what he's saying.

How much criticism of Peterson have you read? There are loads of charitable and genuine criticism of Peterson. Don't play into his fan boys hands, who like to claim that everyone just misunderstands what Peterson says.

@@LouigiVerona Maybe there's 'loads', but it pales in comparison to the uninformed and uncharitable criticism, so it's not often I come across any.

@@Valosken You know, I am not sure I want to let this one slide just yet. Sure, you get all sort of criticism in various comments, perhaps, but everything coming out of known RU-vidrs has been, again and again, very informed and very charitable. Dr Todd Grande, Hakim, Big Joel, Tom Nicholas, Matt Dillahunty, PZ Meyers, Three Arrows, CosmicSkeptic, Philosophy Tube, ContraPoints, Then and Now - and I can go on. These are all big channels that made their critique on Peterson, sometimes multiple times. So which one of them is uncharitable and uninformed exactly? The exact same points that are made in this - excellent, of course - video were made by Matt Dillahunty, for example, years ago. I am pushing back because there is a ton of valid and very informed criticism of Peterson out there. And the narrative that he is constantly being strawmanned is just that - a narrative.

​@@LouigiVerona absolutely agree with you. Ofcourse there's a few people just repeating and shouting things. And there's a few performances where Peterson 'catches' the interviewer with his extremely vague and non-commitant word salads. Like the famous channel 4 interview. But these are exceptions. And when knowing more about Peterson and the way he handles his topics, it's not per sé that the interviewer was wrong, but that the interviewer was not prepared on how he would slither around the topic and then turn around to attack the interviewer, making it look like she doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'm ex-Lutheran (which is striking similar to being ex-Mormon). The magic is not defining any terms...and if you're trapped...CHANGE the definition of terms.

So true. It’s like Bednar continually redefining all the words all the time.

Sophistry

Reality: it went over your head.

I feel JP is a christian in the same way my parents are. The Bible isn't a historical document, but a story that sets out to send a message that they find to be good. But then why call yourself christian and not Steven-Kingian for the example. His stories are also full of good ideas

🤣 same

😂😂😂

Does this mean we're all Moses ? But who are the rest of the characters in the story then, if everyone's Moses?

You don't leave your bedroom much do you?

Hahahahaha well written !

I liked this response so much, I upvoted, unupvoted amdcupvoted again so I could upvote it twice

Hahaha this is perfect man. Great job

PURE GENIUS 👍

I believe this is where you're supposed to say 'Sir, this is a Wendy's'

This is the truth. He needs the support from the Right to fight the evils perpetrated by the Left...Those of us who know the truth and see what's going on in our world should all cut him some slacks.

This is what I think as well!

yeah he would lose all his followers immediately if he said god was fiction. they would hate him overnight

@@JohnSmith-bs9ym Do you think being dishonest is a sign of good moral character?

And what makes you the expert on what he really thinks? I’m taking his word over yours when it comes to him

And at the age of what…21? Very impressive.

Yes a person that has time to redo it and take after take after take until it's finally as precise and accurate as possible comes across as a deep intellectual methodical thinker to you how amazing is that, and at 21 years old it's almost a guarantee that he doesn't have any wisdom in any field the Jordan Peterson is dealing with which seems to fit most people with a voice on the internet these days (no wisdom yet has an opinion)

You mean Alex gets to the fundamental brass tacks of the ontology of things. But also, what do you mean by "Alex", "has", "this", "uncanny", "ability", "to", "get", "right" etc.

@@SheikhN-bible-syndrome I think he's quite impressive in public forums as well (no editing or redos). I also can think of people who do multiple takes and are far less impressive than Alex

@@SheikhN-bible-syndrome Ouch. Triggered much? Personally I appreciate and favour Alex’s concise acuteness vs Peterson’s wild ambiguous verbosity that he employs when attempting to justify inanity. Regardless of age. If anything, Peterson suffers from age and fame related piety.

when Peterson says that God is fictional, it means that our representation of God is a fictional symbolic representation of God, which we cannot represent in any other way than fictionally. it does not mean that God is not real. we are beings of symbols, we cannot perceive reality in any other way than through symbols. these symbols represent reality. for example, how will you present the country? through symbols! if you hit a policeman you hit the state, if you set fire to the flag you set fire to the country and so on... You can say "you didn't hit the state, you can't hit the state"... hit the policeman and see what happens!? Does this mean that the State does not exist??? The state exists in reality, but you cannot be in a relationship with the state except through symbols! peterson is not an atheist, he just understands better what symbols are.

Same here. It's so comforting to listen to CSK after watching similar debates that take place in my Spanish speaking country. .

Because when I’m not smart enough to debate someone I post stuff they said and comment when their not there to defend their views……

Yessssss!

Well. This is sadly what the algorithm rewards... it shaped nowadays discourse

Word salad is exactly right. He makes Deepak Chopra look like Child’s play.

Are you saying you don’t properly understand Kermit the fraud ?

@@georgekostarasoh god😭

The answer to what he thinks about religion is he doesn't know either, hence the word salad. He's just trying to point out that its possible to believe in some kind of "god" but you would need two days to even vaguely say what thay god is. He could have just kept it simple and just say he doesn't believe in the Bible god, but he just refuses to and I constantly wonder WHY??

@@ciupenhauer I thinks the answer is pretty obvious between these two options (or both): 1. He can't square that thought with his own personal beliefs and philosophy 2. He can't say that because his whole career depends on him not saying that

Not true, much as I dislike him, he is generally speaking razor-shatrp. laser-focused and verbally precise on almost any given topic, except religion. Ask him to deny Patriarchal society and you, agree or less, will get a very precise answer. You ask him to talk about god and religion and he starts wiggling and rambling. His debate with Sam Harris was quite telling, he had to read from his notes which remained vapid and obscure, to give his definition of god. At least, Deepak can pull stuff out of ass without even blinking.

Yup he is the human manifestation of the fallacy of equivocation 🙄

@@fabriziocamisani5477 Hmmm, I'd still have to disagree, although I see what you mean. From the unfortunately large amount of Peterson I have read or watched, I think he is very good at giving a precise answer about whether something is good or bad, true or untrue (usually). He will quickly and in no uncertain terms condemn or condone things. But if you ask him the "Why?" or to explain his reasoning, that is when he basically always goes into word salad-mode. That may be because to Peterson, almost everything goes back to a semi or wholly religious view of the world. Of archetypes and truer than true ways that we conceptualize things. His basis is very complicated and confusing, so his explanations almost always become so. A great example of this is "12 Rules for Life". Read by themselves, the rules are mostly unobjectionable and seem to be good ideas. But when Peterson gets into the why behind the rules, it's all highly confusing and very complicated. Again, probably because he refers back to his very religious worldview to explain it. So while Peterson can be cogent about a surface level of his views, he is pretty much always very convoluted when he has to explain why he holds them.

To be fair to the man. He only seems to do this about topics where he has dogmatic, strongly held beliefs. Like Jung, or religion, or the Ukraine situation.

He doesn’t though. There is literally a clip in this (around the forty-two minute mark) where the interviewer compares the difference between petersons current obfuscations and some other quote where he say’s explicitly “there is no evidence for that”. He might do it with many topics, but to say all is just inaccurate.

I'm not a JP fan, but I don't think he bases his opinions on his base. He has pretty esoteric explanations for his views and I think he's sincere. I just think he's too definitive in his statements. I always feel I want to stop the tape and challenge several details in his argument.

Exactly

@@ecyranot I disagree. His base is conservative and I agree with the presenter that he himself does not believe in ANY deity but his followers mostly do. So he is left with the problem, "I don't believe in an actual God however, I can't say that directly'. Instead he gets around the problem by "peppering' his presentation with enough religiously flavoured words for the audience and then seems authoritative by the pretence of artificially deconstructing the language to NO CONSTRUCTIVE PURPOSE. Trump does exactly the same tactic but in a far more crude sense. He is not racist but he "dog whistles" his base with neutral comments concerning fascist activities "there are good people on both sides" Charlottesville riots. or blaming mexicans for America's economic woe and Andrew Tate does EXACTLY the same twisting of concepts, the good with the decidedly awful. If all three came and said "I don't believe in God" "Racists are good people" and "bashing women is your right and duty" The three would have ended on the rubbish pile of history.

"I am fairly certain the only reason he doesn't come out as an atheist is because he cannot afford to lose his base. And a lot of his base would not follow an atheist. The sad part is that the vast majority of those folks don't see through it." I wouldn't say it's a matter of "can't afford" to lose is base, as that implies he's in it for the money, which I don't think he is. Granted, if he lost his base, he would definitely lose his income, so maybe he is motivated to some degree to pander, but I don't think that's where his heart is. I think he genuinely wants to help people, as both a psychologist and an educator, and so he probably chooses not to come out as an atheist for fear of alienating folks who could otherwise benefit from his message, albeit for the reason you mentioned which is because they would likely not follow an atheist. I think to Peterson, the question of whether or not he's an atheist is irrelevant to the messages he's trying to get across. Neil Degrasse Tyson is similar when it comes to science promotion, which is why he calls himself an agnostic rather than an atheist, which he clearly is.

I think he's sincere actually - I think he's sincere in his belief that left-wing secularism(and I think he considers the two things synonymous) is so terrifyingly pernicious that religion needs to exist as a bulwark against it. I think that is how he characterises his 'religious' belief - as a bulwark against godless commies(I also think he just likes the fact that religion tends to support social conservatism, and since he's a social conservative religion makes for a nice, warm, reassuring backdrop when he's railing against some progressive cause. I don't think _he's_ aware that this is one of the reasons why he likes religion though.). So I think he's sincere. I just think he tangles himself up in knots because, well...he's not that bright. Also, he's a wanker.

Pity he couldn’t tell us what he thinks and what he says which would save a further great deal of effort…

@@colinross3755 peterson would make less money that way. To their very core they have no beliefs; they are just a grifter.

He's the same as a Christian apologist who says that atheists really believe in God, but they are only rebelling against God. Hilarious.

@@rodneywarren1905 yeah you are bang on 👍

@@brentwalker3300 yeah like when they say atheists are angry at god - nope can’t be angry with something I don’t think exists……

Why your embarrassed by that?

Don't be. I could vaguely see much of all this long ago, but Alex brilliantly articulates it better. Two friends went part down the rabbit hole you did. Thousands have, and are still there. You are not.

Well, did you get better though?

Many people don't understand just how dangerous people like Jordan are. They ensnare those that feel plagued by a lack of meaning in a semantic trap that seems like, once you understand it, will be beautiful and complete. But its really a kind of pseudo a intellectual smokescreen that hides the more dangerous ideas he's really trying to impose, all the alto right stuff. People in this condition are extremely vulnerable to cults of personality, which is why there's a community of JP worshippers out there, ready to go to war against the neo-marxist, communist democrats who, of course, aren't "neo-marxist" or "communist" in any reasonable sense. A clear result: public mass-shooters. He's a bad man.

Peterson is a difficult figure to track as he's sometimes right, usually on psychology, and sometimes wrong, usually on everything else, so it's easy to get drawn in by the psychology and then be let down by the politics.

well I would say he's on the right path to becoming one, but not there yet. I'm sure he will be though!

I agree, Alex humorously clarified months of my arguing at the laptop and posting inept requests for succinctness that drifted, unnoticed down the list JPs' viewers.

@@isaac1572 >>I agree, Alex humorously clarified months of my arguing at the laptop and posting inept requests for succinctness that drifted, unnoticed down the list JPs' viewers."" Having trouble getting them to answer questions?

Highly recommend his videos on veganism! They made me rethink my entire world view.

when Peterson says that God is fictional, it means that our representation of God is a fictional symbolic representation of God, which we cannot represent in any other way than fictionally. it does not mean that God is not real. we are beings of symbols, we cannot perceive reality in any other way than through symbols. these symbols represent reality. for example, how will you present the country? through symbols! if you hit a policeman you hit the state, if you set fire to the flag you set fire to the country and so on... You can say "you didn't hit the state, you can't hit the state"... hit the policeman and see what happens!? Does this mean that the State does not exist??? The state exists in reality, but you cannot be in a relationship with the state except through symbols! peterson is not an atheist, he just understands better what symbols are.

He is not totally wack. He makes sense when he's talking about things he actually knows about.

@@gidmanone sure, but he also peddles transphobic propaganda and other far-right ideas. So any sense he may make is worth essentially zero.

He can be taken seriously in any case where he isn't being verbally manipulative

@@jacobl4699 ad hominem

@@elbretto6062 no lol

99% of the time he is talking Bout nothing. He is a grifter of the biggest order and as boring as hell. He simply (like a magic act) uses slight of hand to befuddle and confuse and make it all appear ethereal. He has learn a lot of words and atudied a lot of disciplines then pops then in the blender that is his mind to make it all sound clever and somewhat spooky

It didn’t happen (definition 1) but it did happen (definition 2). Always nice to have multiple definitions so you can say anything and claim that it’s true.

That’s fair. But still, why is he saying it in such a convoluted way rather than just say “no”

@@markdouglas1601 he cant say no because he thinks it happened but not the way it describes it

Do = do you partake on the action of belief and those that shape your worldview and subsequent actions? You = the person I'm referring to in the question Believe = does it makes sense to you God = an all powerful being that has created everything There done, if anyone wants to make it more specific then go to a philosophy class

It's kind of funny how he immediately tried to deconstruct the question so he wouldn't have to answer when he comes from the crowd that answers "what is a woman?" With "a woman is an adult human female"

@@airplanes_aren.t_real I'd say this is not enough at all if you want a serious discussion. What do you mean when you say God is a being? Is he an incarnated being? is he a force that can become flesh? is the being only inside the narrative world or also in the material world?? than what do you mean by created everything?? Do you mean he created the earth and the heavens ? Or do you mean he created the concepts of earth and heavens as descriptions of the abstracted/narrative world opposed to material world??

@@Nicolas-mz3cb sorry, but you'll have to define what "enough", "serious" and "discussion" mean before we can continue...

@@Nicolas-mz3cb @Nicolas ok this is probably a troll but what I mean when I say "God" in this question is not a specific version/interpretation but the collective conscious understanding of a god or god in a colloquial sense, I say being because most people see god as an existing entity (an entity that partakes on the action of existing and being), that has created everything and can do anything

Yeah and that’s the irony. Jordan Peterson is an equivocating mess that is so ambiguous in how he says things that it tricks smooth brains into thinking that he is saying anything of substance.

His religious stuff just bores me. As well as videos like this dissecting it. I'm an agnostic and religious people and atheists talk too much about God for my taste. JPs lectures on psychology are really interesting though.

Would you like croutons with that salad?😅

Yes, the word salad IS strong in this one (JP)

ehhh I would say it is literally impossible to over think any existential question as encompassing as these. we barely understand the nature of our existence and behavior - any degree of thought only probes into the surface of the mystery.

@@ihateyoutubesomuch371 And I'd say that's hippie-nonsense that doesn't lead to anything.

@@oyuyuy your approach to thinking, or promotion of anti-thinking, is what lead to religious fundamentalism and intellectual stagnation in the first place.

​@@ihateyoutubesomuch371 Hahahaha, let me guess, you've been studying Philosophy for 3 weeks and now you think that you're Socrates? You should do less thinking and more learning, cause I can promise you that the answers can't be found in the vacuum of your head. And learn how to capitalize letters too you lazy cow.

NOPE!! TRY AGAIN NIHILIST!! Because it’s self evident that you are the personification of “overthinking” and “confused”!! Sorry to break it to you buddy but the fact is that under relativism, that is under this strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism “you” and your very ironic absolute Truth claims about “overthinking” and “confused” is nothing more substantive than a cosmic accident that went neither “wrong” nor “right”, that is neither “good” nor “bad”!! Neither “TRUE” nor “FALSE”!! Furthermore, under this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction it’s all relative buddy, it’s all just subjective ultimately meaningless word games. Have you even read Nietzsche or Wittgenstein? Just live it out!! Your world view, your absurdity, your “CONFUSED”, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! Equally, this world view is a denial of metaphysics. So under atheism, that is under fatalism and epistemological nihilism there is no unified conscious agent/freewill/Self/Soul/, that is no RATIONALITY ITSELF. It’s all ILLUSORY buddy, it’s all just determined as you are nothing more substantive than an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur. NOTHING more substantive than the delusions of an evolved “ape” who shares half their DNA with bananas. That is nothing more substantive than the accidental arrangement of POND SLIME evolved to an allegedly “HIGHER” order!! Your world view, your absurdity, your “confused”, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! Sorry but under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical nationalism you and your very ironic “CONFUSED” argument are nothing more substantive than a cosmic accident, a “secular” cosmic FAIRYTALE that went neither “HAM” nor “SPAM”. Neither “properly” nor “improperly”!! Neither “delusional” nor “sane”,!! Neither “SANE” nor “WORD SALAD”!! Neither “rational” nor “Nutty as a fruitcake”!! When our pride usurps metaphysics, that is when our pride usurps Truth and value and OBJECTIVE MORALITY, we walk on the shifting sands of relativism, materialism, moral subjectivism and solipsism and narcissistic and ego driven reality!! Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally nihilistic, totally fatalistic and totally and utterly self refuting….

Nervus frenicus? We can treat that easy! Right here and now! Just inflect deep into the metaphysical substrate of your ethos.

It’s poetry baby!

LoL. It's a diaphragmatic spasm.

@maestr Rogu 😂😂😂

when Peterson says that God is fictional, it means that our representation of God is a fictional symbolic representation of God, which we cannot represent in any other way than fictionally. it does not mean that God is not real. we are beings of symbols, we cannot perceive reality in any other way than through symbols. these symbols represent reality. for example, how will you present the country? through symbols! if you hit a policeman you hit the state, if you set fire to the flag you set fire to the country and so on... You can say "you didn't hit the state, you can't hit the state"... hit the policeman and see what happens!? Does this mean that the State does not exist??? The state exists in reality, but you cannot be in a relationship with the state except through symbols! peterson is not an atheist, he just understands better what symbols are.

Exactly. The one who pays the piper calls the tune. Some people start out on RU-vid with a "belief" that gets modified to chime with the likes of the greater number of subscribers. They 'fence sit' to test which way the wind is blowing and then confirmation bias sets their course. Follow the money. A kind of Emperor's clothes in reverse. (He knows he's naked but who is he to argue with paying crowd. Ch-ching) It's like Boris Johnson who had two opposing speeches that he planned to use only the one which was more expedient to get him into No 10. It has nothing to do with actual belief.

I doubt that you would get a straight answer. Richard Dawkins tried to have a transparent convo with Peterson on religion and it failed really bad.

Yup! Cut the long story short...Its the grift! 👏👏👏😅👍

You wouldn't be allowed to ask it.

"Well, what do you mean by explicit, what do you mean by beliefs, what do you mean by audience...."

@@Sara-qn9vp You trippin bro.

He is undoubtedly a fraud, who mistakes himself to be a very genuine man. The problem is that he identifies too much with his own genuineness, which makes him blind to his own intellectual chicanery and dogmatic ideological beliefs. There are much better ways to defend one's faith and fidelity to moral values. He does a disservice to that potentially honest faith, by always inciting emotional and knee-jerk reactions from his audience through his speech, without upholding any sense of objectivity, thereby ensnaring his vulnerable audience to a toxic web of dependence that implicitly demands ignorant capitulation to figures of authority.

Nobody cares, give it a rest

@@craigbowen9995 🤣🤣🤣"you tripping bro"

Peterson specifically rejects atheism and bets his life on it. The big thing people miss with him is that he is neither a priest nor a realist philosopher with sound arguments at his disposal. That's not his job or field of expertise. What he does show is that psychology and a fully human life are deeply consistent with the western religious tradition. He is anything but an atheist.

It is right out of the mouth of Bill Clinton...

Seinfeld

The difference is one needlessly trys to convince while the other accepts that such a concept is good for society... because if nothing matters ever

In conclusion: Atheist don't believe in God.

Well, change sure implies a certain process of transmutation from one state to another. And what does that exactly mean? It means the Being transforms in a superficial manner, as well as sometimes in a deeper manner, while still holding true to the essence that it already contained as intrinsic to its nature, in a way trascendent to the mere presuppositions of matterialism, since its pure conceptual essence keeps unaltered. Now, as to follow, defining what "my mind" is is more of a tricky question: It states a sense of individuality of the Being, while at the same time stating that there is a decission making nucleus of the person which also serves to make evaluation over the position of different ideas in the value hierarchy. Jordan Peterson, though, is in some ways an easier concept to define: That specific person who, at these specific time, holds the genetical material, biological form, lived experiences as an internal and societal narrative, and soul in a much deeper sense, of the Being which was born in Alberta, Canada, the 12 of June of 1962, and graduated in clinical psicology in Alberta's university. I hope that helped!!!

Actually 👍👍

Peterson doesn't even know himself what he's saying, he's a grifter.

@@LazyNightCrawler what do you mean by “do?”

@@randopedia1 what do you mean by “mean”?

@@Imbetterthanpaulallen why do you ask that question ?/J LoL Keep it Going

that man jordan peterson dodging us 😂

@@Imbetterthanpaulallen when you say “what” - I assume you’re inserting the prerequisite of the highest value of divine meta-transience (or something?)

No he is literally a theist. He just doesn't believe in an anthropomorphic god. And theism, and thus atheism, is NOT restricted to anthropomorphic and conscious entity. People are completely misusing the terms atheism, theism and God. They are specifically talking about ONE, or one branch of understanding of the God construct, which is what God ACTUALLY is, a construct. One that we attribute to, both tangible and intangible attributes and traits. I also grew up Jewish, conservative. And it was a shock to me that Orthodox Jews and many Conservative Jews believe literally, in an anthropomorphic deity. I went to Hebrew school for however many years up to Bar Mitzvah, and by the age of 9 or 10, at least half my peers and I had already realized its all just mythology. So it was astonishing to me that ANY Jews believed that Torah was actually given to Moses at Mt Sinai and that prophecy and prophets actually speak for 'God". Which is where Christianity gets a lot of its nonsense, Rabbinic Judaism, or Pharisaic and Essene Judaism, which were both REFORM movements of the 2nd century BCE. Traditiona Judaism, as practiced by the Sadducees, the Zadokites, ONLY used Torah, did not believe in resurrection, did not believe in a conscious afterlife, did not believe in messiah, did not believe in the prophets and writings. That WAS traditional Judaism, which was Patrilineal, from around 700 BCE to around 1st century CE, when the tempe was destroyed by the Romans, the Sadducee aristocracy taken off to Rome and Egypt, leaving the superstitious and extremely hellenized in thought Pharisees and Essenes holding the bag of responsibility over the common masses of Judean diaspora community. And that's where most of these superstitious and ridiculous supernatural ideas come from, the Greeks. ALL only becoming part of "Judaism" AFTER Alexander. The idea of an afterlife from Elysian fields and Hades, the idea of a universal savior figure from all the Greco-Roman myths and the idea of resurrection, common throughout Indo-European, and especially Mediterranean lore, with many a figure taking a trip to the underworld and finding a way to return. So Judaism itself is what Jews do and the common beliefs of Jews. Rabbinic Judaism is ONE branch of Judaism, today the most common, but it is only one, now formalized branch of Judaism. Judaism itself is not and can not be formalized. Foundation of Torah is part of it. Foundation OF, not necessarily belief IN the literal and supernatural, non allegorical interpretation. . But I never in my life believed in an anthropomorphic god, yet I am not an atheist. People attempt to insist I am an atheist all the time, but I am overtly not. I have absolutely ZERO faith in an anthropomorphic deity and am a theist. And my belief is quite simple, and based on deduction and not faith. The source of existence must exist for everything else to exist. And the source of existence is one of those attributes we attribute to the god construct.

Lmao you’re a bot

Lol, peterson is right. You just dont want to believe in God

​@@Cyprus_Is_GreekI def do not wish to believe in the god as described in the bible for sure.

​@@Cyprus_Is_GreekI believed most of my life and was an ordained Christian minister and passionate apologist. Then I decided to go with reality, and not because I didn't want to believe or start "sinning." Listen to that cognitive dissonance you experience when confronted with evidence contrary to your belief system. Don't just avoid it.

​@@Cyprus_Is_GreekYou are right. But I will also fight for your right to practice your faith. Just don't lump it on us?

You can describe Jordan in one word - bloviation.

So you don’t understand what Peterson is saying?

​@@chrisbarbero2608what they mean is that Peterson is being dishonest, and using vague and slippery language to obscure it. From listening to this video, that view seems pretty inescapable.

@@MrakS as a JP listener, I did not understand anything else.

​@chrisbarbero2608 Depends what you mean by "peterson"..

But now you do have the words to express 'that' wich you couldn't put into words before 🤔 🙂

@@JohnStopman yep, because earlier he was thinking in "definition" and now he got the word for it. For ex- I don't know the word hierarchy, but I do try to explain it as something the goes up and is more than the latter one.

It’s like I had a gut feeling on Peterson’s style but couldn’t pinpoint what was off to me, and Alex perfectly dissects it here

It is not a deconstruction of his beliefs. This is quite literally about religion. His arguments and logic in many other areas is rock solid and based on factual information or unquestionable morality.

@@sinxsideways5900 lol no it isn’t. everytime he talks about philosophy it’s incredibly obvious he’s never had to pass a class in it- he knows nothing. he’s an idiot, honestly. I mean if you’re stupider than him maybe he’ll seem smart.

@@elliotts5574 maybe if you read the title of the video u would realize its only about religion. Great way to try and insult me just bc you disagree with me. Like fucking hell people like you are what's wrong with the world. Learn how to have a civil conversation or debate without insulting people you incel. If im dumb then may God help you. His philosophy is also obviously gonna be based in his religious belief just like every other fucking person's so try and find a different angle to attack from.

@@elliotts5574 he is far from an idiot you just may be too stupid to understand that

@@sinxsideways5900 His arguments in other areas are worse than here.

Jordan's rhetoric is super fucking exhausting to me. Idk why ppl let him use them for his attention supply.

@@harithshah45 That's his M.O., make everyone's brain misfire so we just take what he says and make it fit to what we want it to mean. He's a calculated attention whore. What I don't understand is why no one ever asks him what he meant by something he said, as if EVERY person in the audience completely grasps his gobbledygook.

when Peterson says that God is fictional, it means that our representation of God is a fictional symbolic representation of God, which we cannot represent in any other way than fictionally. it does not mean that God is not real. we are beings of symbols, we cannot perceive reality in any other way than through symbols. these symbols represent reality. for example, how will you present the country? through symbols! if you hit a policeman you hit the state, if you set fire to the flag you set fire to the country and so on... You can say "you didn't hit the state, you can't hit the state"... hit the policeman and see what happens!? Does this mean that the State does not exist??? The state is a reality that exists in reality, but you cannot be in a relationship with the state except through symbols! peterson is not an atheist, he just understands better what symbols are. do you want to say that Jonatan is an atheist?

@@hitnapomoczanemirne7345 I've never heard Peterson say that he's just speaking about language semantics like this. Jonathan talks about things in a very different way

It's funny because I'm an atheist (at least I thought I was both secular and an atheist but being as I've been to a museum I clearly don't know my own mind 🤔) but was thinking exactly the same thing.... Peterson is all things to all men and that thing obscure and intentionally confusing

Exactly. I'm an atheist for all intends and practical purposes, but I've noticed the same thing every time Peterson talks about the topic. That way, he satisfies both audiences. Believers interpret the belief in God literally (Peterson "acts as if he believes" oh, ok so he's saying he believes but also acts) and atheists interpret it metaphorically, exactly what Peterson means ("I don't believe it literally, but those teaching are useful, have been useful for thousands of years and I value the value hierarchy religion presents").

@@aminromero8599 Nah, his talks are def geared towards appeasing his religious audience. JP is quite critical of atheists, he has said outright that they are "nihilistic" and has implied that they have no morality. He's a hypocrite.

If the questioner doesn't want Jordan in the driver seat then why are they asking him questions? Sounds more like the questioner wants Jordan to agree with them and speak their language rather than putting their own view down and genuinely listening to Jordan explain his own world view so they can understand a new view and a new language.

@@bike4aday “…then why are they asking him questions?” Seriously? How about “He’s being interviewed on TV as a Guest”? That explain it for you sufficiently? Your question suggests the Interviewer got something wrong somehow. No, the Interviewer did their job and Peterson resisted every single syllable of every single word all along the way. Or maybe you’re onto something here - maybe dozens of professional Interviewers have violated Dr. Jordan Peterson’s sensibilities by continuing to apply imprecise language to their questions and he’s simply doing “Clean up on Aisle 3” janitorial work trying to remind each one how the English language works and why he, Dr. Jordy, is the sole arbiter of vocabularial authority? I think maybe you’re persuading me - it’s the INTERVIEWER who assails Dr. Jordy time and time again. It’s poor widdle Jordy pulling a long face because he’s so victimized by the imbeciles assigned to dialog with him on air. I guess the truth is Dr. Jordy is beyond the scope of my feeble understanding and I need to adopt your view of him as a falsely stigmatized truth-teller? Is that about right, Biker? 🙃😬

Don't forget to mention all the flailing of the hands. Really kinda spooky, as if he's trying to concoct a spell!

​@@bike4adayYes, Jordan's flailing fingers! What can you do with that?