What do you think of Jordan Peterson? // Ask NT Wright Anything 

To the host: I love your shows but you have a habit of OFTEN interrupting your guests. Especially Dr. Wright! I lost count once during one of your full shows where I put a check every time you interrupted him mid-sentence. PLEASE, please consider looking at this habit and changing it. Your already-great show will be even better for it.

For being two people on a podcast trying to reach thousands if not millions of people please do a better job on representing Jordan Peterson or having a guest who has an opinion on him. I can tell you guys are not right-wingers Republicans at best Central if not left centered. Who has brainwashed you guys into thinking anything Jordan Peterson has to say is wrong. Name the specific argument he poses and then meticulously break it down. Because that is what he would do with you guys

@Alvaro Vargas bang-wutang What on Earth are you talking about? N.T. Wright is a theologian and the world’s leading Biblical scholar. He wasn’t on this program, merely to give his opinion on Jordan Peterson. He was there to discuss many things - largely, Biblically-centered - plus answer some queations; this being one of many. How would N.T. Wright or the host be Republicans? They’re British! N.T. Wright is very conservative and I imagine the host is, as well. What bearing that has on what they have to say, I don’t know. Where did either of them state that anything Jordan Peterson believes or says is wrong? You’re attacking a straw man.

@@MojoPin1983 "The worlds leading Biblical scholar" ? I was unaware there was a list, I do know there are some excellent atheist Biblical scholars, but as for claiming they were the 'top of their tree' in that subject, surely that's a very subjective thing. I don't doubt for one minute that Tom Wright knows his Bible, we can both agree on that :-)

He is often cited as such; certainly of the New Testament, anyway. He has written more extensively on the subject than anyone.

Peterson lied about Bill 16, It passed and he's not in the gulag, he's a huckster.

@@johnjacob5990 that's quite a leap. He didn't lie about it. He and others (Gad Saad included) raised a valid and necessary point. Prohibition of certain speech is one thing... but mandating speech is very different. Bill C16 is nothing to be proud of.

Hellyers the question is why did they mandate it? What were they hoping to achieve?

John Jacob He said if he was convicted for his speech he wouldn’t pay the fine, he would defend his innocence, and ultimately he would go on a hunger strike if imprisoned. They haven’t gone after him because he would expose the whole thing.

@@johnjacob5990 people have been censured and restricted by Bill 16. If he were just an unknown professor at a university stating what he does he would have found himself running foul and being at least reprimanded for his positions. He is one of the few who can say what he likes because taking him down would create too much animosity to the Canadian government. As such people snipe and hope he himself will trip himself up.

did this ever happen?

Ntz view on THE resurrection is spot on....... . Nothing to fuck with(wu tang voice) peace friend......

To be fair, William Lane Craig did speak with Jordan Peterson last year, very briefly. I have been waiting to hear what Wright thinks of Peterson, though, for the last couple of years.

@@MojoPin1983 Does William Lane Craig still have debates with prominent atheists?, I've not seen anything new by him recently here on RU-vid.

He might. I am not quite sure.

Jonathan Edward check out Bishop Robert Barron. He has commented on JBP

Andrew Wilson Haas blogged about him

Yes

I second that sentiment, exactly.

I third it

Granted I know you not, but if you are to give advise to NT Wright you best get your accolades up(Kobe voice)... peace Patricia

@@mikewagner1614 I was not speaking generally about NT - I was speaking about his having anything really interesting to say about JP. As I have a degree in theology myself - that does have some real thought behind it. Jordan Peterson's first lecture in his Biblical Series has nearly 4 million views, with many comments from people who say that they were atheists but now have much more respect for The Bible, and even comments saying some have actually converted or returned to Faith. I think that NT Wright's reading of 'The 12 Rules for Life', as his basis for understand JP, does not, and will not, make particularly interesting conversation - but his views on The Biblical Series might then be genuinely interesting.

IMHO Peterson who I believe is a cultural prophet approaches scripture from a allegorical perspective from which he derives archetypal figures from which to teach various common sense principles. I enjoy that approach as long as I am not trying to any sort of exegetical fleshing out of the biblical narratives

@@shlomorabenovets4709 good take. Yes that's true, and there's space for that. But like the OP I'd love his nuanced take on a deep dive of Maps of Meaning, as JP I open to the transcendent, but often settles for pretty evolutionary or pragmatic appeals to mystery when dealing with the supernatural. It's healthier than simply hand waving it away like naturalists do, but yet that's what I'd like to see dialogue on. But IMHO I think JP with resist over speculating on the substance of the supernatural, or miracles, or the resurrection as history. His cultural power is in explaining these things as archetypes for meaning for human behavior and morality, not getting into the details of whether they happened or not. I think he'd never inclined to say he's not leaning in the direction of it literally happened, but I've seen evidence that he's open enough since he's not overly incredulous.

@@ravissary79 I've heard JP say that his work is from a scientific point of view. As a scientist I'm sure he would not care one way or another since it cannot be empirically tested. But then again can Macro Evolution be empirically tested? I think not.

Where did you hear/read about Peterson reading one of N.T. Wright’s books? I would be interested to know if this is true and which book(s), specifically, he has read. Wright’s, Christian Origins and the Question of God series would be very beneficial to Peterson.

It's not indirect because if you listen properly and follow, it all links together, and he explains it fully rather than give a diluted explanation

Collins Lesulie Ok well I'll have to give it another go then. Thanks for the tip

I love it, it seems to come out as his thought process

For me it's more of a stylistic preference than anything, if you like things really rigidly systematic you won't like it or really anything else he does lol

He's a university professor so that style is not surprising.

Amen…I pray he comes to a real, deep faith. I believe he’s on the cusp. And Tom Wright calling him rambling…well, NT Wright is one of the genius minds of modernity. Shalom

@@Ethan-of9hs capitalism or socialism Pro-choice vs pro-life Please tell

Peterson is just a fascist arguing for the noble lie for dumb people. He doesn't have an elementary grasp of theology, just as he doesn't for history (see: ~the Germans were nihilists because they still killed Jews even when they were losing the war).

Johannes Richter oh wait indeed

@@johnjacob5990 Everybody I don't like is a fascist. Come on, man. Don't abuse this word. If you want to look mildly intelligent, you don't gratioutusly call people fascists.

@@johnjacob5990 Clearly you know much more about what Fascism since you believe a right-leaning psychologist is one. Please enlighten us...

That's good. I don't believe Peterson has called himself a "Christian" though. He has often been quoted as stating, "I behave as though God exists." Which makes him sound more like an agnostic than a Christ-follower. Your take on his platform I would agree with overall.

He's a fascist arguing for the noble lie.

Christians come in all shades of the same colour.

Well said.

cliffjamesmusic Is the poem Ozymandias still in secondary school curriculum I wonder? As CS Lewis noted, it makes a profound difference to believe that each human’s existence outlasts all civilizations.

Nick Wadson That sounds like an interesting conversation. Do you have the link to that?

@@bundlewade Around the 49:32 mark

Cambridge did the right thing. Ban J. Peterson. He is a moron.

@@dannysze8183 Are you going to give reasons for your opinion or just throw insults at him?

@@scholarlyrunner there's no point to give reason on youtube. J.Peterson gives comments on all disciplines (politics, religions, ethics) and not his profession as a psychologist. His opinion is populist and without any research, so as a prestigious academic institution, Cambridge should ban him.

​@@dannysze8183 He's a free-market Liberal, not a populist. Without research? Almost everything he says is based on either a.) scientific studies or b.) reading he has done on his own time. It is interesting that you'll essentially claim he has no evidence for what he says. Well, you don't seem to have evidence, either. So pick some specific examples to back up your claims.

@@scholarlyrunner you are brain washed. He is a psychologist as he should give advice on psychology subject. Most of his opinions are personal point of view. I am an architect and if I am a professor I would only talk about Architecture, I would not give advice how how man should date a woman, or how woman choose man. therefore, Cambridge makes a good judgement on banning him because he does not present an in depth academic research.

Acupuncture would be the most horrific form of torture for him.

I believe he briefly touches on the Shroud of Turin in his book, Simply Christian.

No need to listen to anyone my friend...... work out your own salvation with fear and trembling..... peace Doug. Long days and pleasant nights.

@doug wigginton You’ll have to seek them out. N.T. Wright, Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig are probably the preeminent ones; especially, Wright.

MojoPin1983 Thank you

@You’re welcome. John Lennox is also great.

You ought to do some serious research into astrotheology.

If Im not wrong I think he's talking about the book, not sure though cus Ive not read it

If you disagree with what particular books say about God, that's fine. But why do humans bother calling things moral and immoral, right and wrong? Why does justice matter? Aren't we all here to just survive and reproduce? It seems like we all want more than what our biology demands.

@@scholarlyrunner Why does justice matter?, well, we've evolved into beings that, if we're to survive, we need to cooperate with one another, that's why we've got this far, we're quite clever creatures. We are also social animals that thrive in environments that require us to depend on one another. We are very much like other primates, we can't survive on our own. The more moral we are towards eachother the better we seem to do. No God required.

@bonnie43uk “Why does justice matter?, well, we've evolved into beings that, if we're to survive, we need to cooperate...” Not true. One can survive on their own. Conversely, exploitation and expropriation of other peoole’s property/possessions can aid in one’s survival. It is curious that you used the word “cooperate.” If morality is merely the product of socio-biological evolution, then you are correct that one merely ought to *cooperate* in order to facilitate human flourishing; however, that presupposes that such a goal is morally superior to inflicting pain and suffering on others. Moreover, if morality is human in origin, then there are no objective morals and duties. Under a naturalistic paradigm, morals would simply be pragmatic rules (or a cooperative tactic); a distinction between desirable and undesirable outcomes, which are totally arbitrary and vary from person to person. One man’s good is another man’s evil. Some cultures embrace cannibalism, while others condemn it. Whose ethics are superior? Who are we to judge? In the absence of an objective moral law, there is no obligation to love and signify another person. At best, we might think it would be beneficial to simply cooperate and exploit each other’s abilities and strengths in order to meet a common end. “We are very much like other primates, we can't survive on our own.” Sure we can. How do you explain those who live off the land? They are self-reliant. “The more moral we are towards eachother the better we seem to do. No God required.” You keep begging the question: What does moral mean? You recognize that there is a moral framework that we cannot run from, but you are taking that for granted. You have no basis to make objective moral judgements. Let me ask you something. Do you believe that evil exists?

@bonnie43uk Not necessarily. Someone could commit murder when no one is looking and benefit greatly. From an evolutionary perspective manipulation and violence are just as useful as cooperation. In fact, humans use both, unfortunately. Only morality says that murder is wrong, period. Evolutionary perspectives don't go beyond the practicalities of survival and reproduction.

@scholarlyrunner I agree with you. I affirmed that from a naturalistic perspective, one could exploit another because they are not obligated by an overarching moral authority to love their fellow humans. I am a theist who believes in objective morals and duties. You are correct. Under a naturalistic paradigm, human life has no objective value that can be violated. Objective morals and duties only exists and human life only has objective value if we are the creation of a being of infinite and intrinsic worth. In the absence of God, our only duty is one of mere survival and utility: propagation.

He lied about Bill C16.

@@johnjacob5990 In what way?

And then he helps people with sorting their life out. What a lovely person

(Please don't turn this into a "see all 303 replies" kind of chain of comments. My goal is not to win, only to give my two cents) Critics claim that Jordan's aim is to slyly go nowhere by dancing around the question, saying "depends on what you mean by..." in order to get back to his "deep" proverbs. He's not the first person to say this, though. Other philosophers have said something along the lines of that, such as Socrates' "The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms." (granted, this quote has now become disputed as to whether or not it was actually said by Socrates) or Voltaire's "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms." I personally believe that Jordan's aim is to get to know your question *in the way you define it* so the conversation can correctly go forward with truth as the goal, not victory. Something like "If we can get this conversation to an amicable end, then that is GOOD," meaning 'sufficient.' With that being said, I do not view Jordan as some deity of ultimate wisdom that has descended from the skies. It's fair to say he's an amalgamation of his influences with some original thought, one of those being "Responsibility ameliorates suffering."

that's odour where I come from. We also spell colour the correct way.

From what I heard, it sounds like he's saying that, while Jordan is not a deity of ultimate wisdom in human form, as some make him out to be, he's a reasonable guy looking around going "Uhh, we NEED to pick up these pieces quickly before this whole thing (Philosophical Western world) crumbles down!" He respects Jordan for doing that and for being like that.

Carrier is a mythicist, he holds an extreme view on Jesus Christ, that he is all just legend and myth and that there was no actual historical figure behind the Jesus story. Carrier is a convinced antitheist, tried to read and listen to some of his works but found it unenlightenning.

He doesn’t actually deny that there could be a historical figure who in some, naturalistic way, resembles the gospel Jesus, but he does think it is unlikely. Either way, are you suggesting it would be wright for N T Wright to go back on what he said were Richard Carrier prepared to talk to him?

Genesis Gnosis ironically, Wright only commented on Peterson’s popular book, not his really philosophical thesis in Maps of Meaning.

You need to get off the psychotropic drugs my friend. They don't help ... they only make the patient crazier than they were before they got on them :(

can you share some of yours?@@FirstLast-zk5ow

Jealousy from whom?

Who do you think?

N.T. Wright? I don’t know. You tell me. Your comment is very vague.

@@MojoPin1983 my comment isn't vague at all.while listening to NT Wright I sensed some jealousy,So I decided to point it out. Tell me! Didn't you sense some jealousy too?

No. What reason would N.T. Wright have to be jealous of Jordan Peterson? Wright doesn’t care about being popular, nor would he ever expect to be, seeing as he is a theologian. If anything, Wright was complimentary of Peterson and even extended an indirect invitation to speak with him.

Peterson: Makes many Materialists/Atheists for the first time go: "Hmm...maybe there is something to the whole Bible thing." N.T Wright: New Testament Scholar/Theologian. So, someone who get's interested in Christianity through Peterson could very well end up reading N.T. Wright. At least that's how it is for me as a classical "I don't care/know about religion"-Materialist. That's why I care what Wright thinks about Peterson.

trumfnator Interesting. Nothing I’ve heard from Peterson makes me want to investigate religion in any sort of manner. Every time I’ve heard him questioned on the topic he tap dances his tail off, speaking for 10-15 minutes but essentially saying nothing about his position. To be fair though, I think Wright quite often does the same thing.

Do you believe in God?

@@MojoPin1983 No. I tried for years to take it in and make some sense of it all, but eventually my desire to believe what was most likely true won out.

@biggregg5 What makes you think that God’s inexistence is “most likely true,” as opposed to the opposite? The reason that I asked you whether you believe in God is because if He doesn’t exist, then your life has no objective value, and if you possess no objective worth, then why should anyone take you or anything you have to say seriously? This isn’t me insulting you, rather, I am making a basic philosophical point. If God did not create us, then our existence is objectively purposeless, save our one biological imperative: propagation. Religious talk is certainly not something to disregard. The real question that one ought to ask is: Why take anything seriously, in the absence of God? Under a naturalistic paradigm, life is completely pointless, besides that which we pragmatically choose to do for ourselves.

@@MojoPin1983 Applying Ocham's razor protects against confirmation bias. That addresses your first paragraph. The rest of your comment is total bullshit.

@@MojoPin1983 If God exists, your life has no meaning. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Who got that ridiculous assertion started? You guys need to fire him.

That is a false equivalency. The Bible is a collection of allegories, poems, stories, historical accounts written by 40 authors over a 1500 years and later compiled into an anthology of 66 books. These books are written in various literary genres that require a different understanding. These include: historical narrative; the law; parable; poetry; prophecy; psalm; ancient biography (the gospels); epistle (Paul’s letters); apocalyptic language (largely found in Revelation), etc. The Bible isn’t a single document, written in one literary genre, by a lone author, at one point in history.

@@MojoPin1983 Stating something is a false equivalency doesnt make it so. Your response only strengthens the sarcasm of my original post. Even within books its littered with rambling narratives, especially the Torah books.

Jeff Betts no one cares what Lloyd Gearing has to say

Mystic Lantern majority of the world would agree with him. So not sure how you came to your conclusion!

Where did he state that Cathy Newman did a good job? He simply said that he saw that interview. He never lauded the job she did.

He doesn't. He was making the opposite point.

@BibleTalk101 Well hahdly I reckn