But Did It "Really" Happen? | Alex O'Connor

[@someguy4405]

*THERE IS A HIERARCHY OF MEMES*

[@micahmendoza3737]

Was looking for this comment lol

[@Bloogly89]

Philosoraptor memes are S tier

[@nietzschescodes]

The ones on the top are Cat Memes.

[@leevin7546]

I think it's called a "Tierlist"

[@carollen5601]

@someguy4405/// yes indeed.

[@toddwasson3355]

I live for the day when JP asks "what do you mean by "mean", EXACTLY?"

[@mariannecasavant]

This was so damn good. I was blown away

[@christopherprim1973]

lol

[@Mountainclimber-zv4u1]

"It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is" - Bill Clinton

[@cyberiankorninger1025]

Technically?

[@IamAWildMan]

He said it already in some interview

[@mitchstacey34]

This kid must be certified brilliant. 25 years old and he's the first one to get JP to give an answer on this?? Crazy.

[@buddatobi]

He’s a great KZbinr

[@whynot1548]

Nope. He's an artificially propped up atheist activist. No different than most "famous" people who push ideas most people dont buy

[@whynot1548]

Uh, how so?.. He spews the same lazy technocratic, materialistic and fatalistic BS Dawkins and others do. He wants to be the next big smug atheist bullshitter that just says: "No," "No" "No" and "No some more."

[@buddatobi]

@@whynot1548 I was watching him before this

[@TheSethOlson]

He’s one of the only ones who is genuinely willing to get JP to answer the question clearly and not mask it in the vague mystery that he has in the past

[@jmcsquared18]

I'm amazed Peterson kept this and uploaded it onto this channel. Alex basically allowed him to hang himself in this conversation. "That's not my problem." Well, then you have no reason to get annoyed when your listeners are confused af when they hear you talk and consequently write you off as a wacko. Every good teacher knows, if you are interested in people receiving what you're trying to say to them, then you have to package it in a way that they are amenable to. The issue clearly is that Peterson simply doesn't think it matters to people, even though it does. And that doesn't even begin to touch on how, in many other conversations with far more suspicious characters, Peterson seems to nevertheless fit right in. Alex did an absolutely smashing job in this conversation.

[@hypergraphic]

Ok, as a former evangelical I’m floored by JP saying “well I don’t think it really matters to people”. Excuse me? It definitely mattered to me. I really believed that all of the clearly non-symbolic stuff actually happened. And those beliefs had a huge impact on my life because I took it seriously. I went into the ministry and later moved overseas to start a ministry because I believed the events in the Bible actually happened as described and it stoked my zeal to serve God. I sacrificed a lot, and I mean a lot, because I believed everything the Bible said actually happened. If I had believed that some of the most theologically pivotal events are symbolism, or archetypes, or what have you, I would have never ever done that. But that’s the point, I used to believe while salvation is a free gift, being a real disciple of Christ is meant to cost a lot. You are supposed to pick up your cross, die to yourself every day, crucify the flesh, and be a servant (slave) to Christ. You have to love Jesus so much that you are ready to die for him. Why would anyone do that if they didn’t believe the events in the Bible actually happened? THAT is why it matters if it actually happened. If you are just a Sunday Christian you have the luxury of this approach, but if you actually want to be the real deal and live like the early disciples, it demands everything of you. Again I speak from experience. People who've never been in the ministry just don't understand the load you carry. When I was losing my faith I looked into this symbolic approach and progressive Christianity but it just seemed like more make believe than fundamentalism. Either shit or get off the pot. So I got off the pot. I had too much respect for that way of thinking to dull it down just because I wanted to cling to something I could no longer believe in. Now I know that a lot of the church fathers interpreted lots of passages symbolically, but growing up as an evangelical it was drummed into me that unless it actually happened, it doesn’t really matter. Anyways, people can believe what and how they want, but I guess still in my mind “real” Christianity actually means believing that when it says something happened, you believe it actually did. That’s why I find JP's saying "I don't think it matters to people" so staggering. Yes it matters a whole hell of a lot of people.

[@jakeschwartz2514]

So you went from “im a sinner” to “im not a sinner”… i wonder why? It’s obvious why people deconstruct their faith, one is you never had the Holy Spirit and knew Jesus rose from the dead because if you did.. that doesnt change yesterday today and forever. So it’s completely fair to say you never knew Jesus was risen 100% as a real believer. I hope you do..

[@jamesmeldrum4563]

@@jakeschwartz2514 It's certainly not fair to say that if you read what this man said, On the other hand, it's perfectly fair to say that you're just stuck in a delusion.

[@hypergraphic]

@@clintkantor Yes indeed. For as much as religious conservatives in the US talk about how much they love the Constitution and they love freedom, they often want to take away freedom from others because they can't stand other people "sinning".

[@hypergraphic]

@@paulbracken6216 Yes and it took me a long time to see that. I have a banger of a quote from Paul Tillich saved in my notes: "Fundamentalism has demonic aspects, in that it splits the conscience of its thoughtful adherents and forces them to repress knowledge of which they are secretly aware. "

[@hypergraphic]

@@jakeschwartz2514 Ah yes, people like you are so stuck in their thinking you can't possibly see that it's possible to truly believe with all your heart and be just as dedicated as any other Christian and still lose your faith. I'd argue I've done way more than you ever have in service to God and the Church. Sacrificed more, was more hard core than you ever were. Yet somehow you think the reason I lost my faith is because I want to sin. Typical. Dude, if sin was my motivation I wouldn't have gone in the ministry. I would have been a half hearted, lukewarm, go with the the flow Sunday Christian because that would have made my life a whole lot easier. I feel sorry for you that you are trapped in your inability to see beyond your limits. But we are all on a journey towards enlightenment, and every phase is important.

[@velox__]

Getting Jordy to actually answer a question is a sisyphean task. Props, Alex.

[@OmniphonProductions]

NICE REFERENCE!!!👍😁

[@mikebirminghamnz]

and Tantalus

[@andrewwabik5125]

Alex is right. Dr.Peterson has a tendency to extrapolate to an extreme degree. When most people ask if he thinks something literally happened, they want to know if it really happened. If he doesn’t know, then just say I don’t know. Dr. Peterson is extrapolating to an extreme degree. It’s useful, and has opened me up religion long after I threw it out. Because he’s talking about it analogously and symbolically, it strikes a chord with me. But his intelligence is a barrier when being asked a simple question by simple people. He sort of answers, no one knows here, at least.

[@andrewwabik5125]

@@CarportCarl maybe. Maybe that plus 30-45 iq points. They’re certainly using their time more wisely than me right now.

[@O_ohuh]

@andrewwabik5125 I literally just said this in another video in a way less articulate way. As much as I love JP he can sometimes seem to over think or analyze things, and there comes a time where things become black and white enough for "you" to make a choice about what you "believe" (put faith in) and "trust" to be true. At some point even the greatest minds, like JP, have glossed over information for ages and came to different conclusions...

[@boooshes]

Dr Peterson, have you had lunch today? "Well that depends on what you mean by lunch"

[@andrewwabik5125]

@@CarportCarl I generally use my own discretion. I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school for 12 years. Anything horrible you can personally imagine is maybe a fraction of what that experience was for me. In terms of religion in general, I see no proof (what I consider proof) in any of the religions I’ve looked into. Now, admittedly, I haven’t looked as hard as I probably should. I came to believe in God as “love”, in the entire sense of the word. I don’t see God as a man in the sky, or a law giver. I believe in God as the “spirit of truth”, as God says. I worship the god that I believe in by trying to follow my conscience, however hard that is. I do believe in an afterlife, but I don’t think God cares what your religion is. In my view, God cares what you’ve learned and how you treat others, as well as yourself. Another thing I believe in that’ll likely piss Christians off is that we get to come back until lessons are learned. I believe we set them ourselves.

[@andrewwabik5125]

@@O_ohuh that’s your truth. Just don’t stop questioning.

[@Groundlevel00]

Every time JP talks, it reminds me of when Pinocchio is cornered by Prince Charming and refuses to speak plainly 😂

[@wherebarbarameetstheroad8600]

Hahahaa

[@bryanantoniogutierrezferna6408]

Good one! hahaha

[@WickedIndigo]

Truueeee😂

[@BigfootRAHHH]

But did the events of Pinocchio really happen, yes or no answer plainly.

[@PianoMyHeart]

“Christians have a metaphysics that’s not Christian.” You can’t end the clip there!!

[@hreedwork]

I agree. By far the most important utterance of the video...

[@jonathanstensberg]

In the full interview, that line of think doesn’t go any further. The point is merely that the Christians who are saying such things are not actually operating on Christian metaphysics when they do.

[@ezpzlemonsqueezy90]

Don't worry, it didn't get any better. He basically just throws Christians under the bus for a minute and then word salads back to lobster town.

[@nathanketsdever3150]

Just for clarification, I think Peterson says: "Christians **who ask that** have a metaphysics that's not Christian." But yes....point still stands. You are correct.

[@thegrunbeld6876]

Oh you mean bcs it is intrinsically of greco-roman origin? or avestan? or even vedic? or sumerian pagan? and on and on until we realize they all were just products of human imaginations.

[@danielc7263]

1) I like Alex's super calm energy while maintaining his objective stance throughout the conversation. 2) I find that part laughable where Alex asked Dr. Peterson "But did it happen?" and he responded "Well what the hell does that mean?" as if he was trying to grasp the source of the intention of the one asking that question to see whether the question was meant to provoke him or if the questioner was genuinely curious about the certainty of the historical event. 3) How Alex was labelling Dr. Peterson's responses is the energy I need when I'm trying to be objective with my cognitive biases and blind spots haha

[@ChrisSaad]

Alex is the brightest person I’ve seen amongst all these communicators

[@Dialogos1989]

The real GadSaadismyDaad?

[@kamikazeshrub]

Appreciate Alex asking him this.

[@sametheremuircroft5975]

I'd appreciate it more if Jordan gave him a straight answer

[@romulus3345]

@@sametheremuircroft5975 It doesn't matter what answer he gives. That atheist doesn't want to hear the answers to his questions. "Professing to be wise they became fools."

[@sametheremuircroft5975]

@@romulus3345 but he hasn't really answered the question. As a Christian, I can at least tell people what I believe without resorting to semantics, did it happen or not?

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

@@sametheremuircroft5975why? why would you assume Peterson should answer the way you do?

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

why? its a dumb question

[@d31general]

I think Alex was patient in trying to get Jordan to talk about historical plausibility behind the exodus, and I think Jordan needed to realize he was asking that, not asking about how exodus story survived and can be related today. I think alex was very patient to try to get Jordan to talk about the history specifically.

[@johnsmithers8913]

The issue is anything occurring thousands of years ago can rarely be considered "true", at least not in the scientific concept of truth. JP obviously cannot say, "yes it definitely happened". It's kinda stupid to even ask the question and it's obviously a gotcha question.

[@Peterdeskater100]

@@johnsmithers8913 No, it is him trying to understand if Jordan Peterson sees the story as something that is helpful and meaningful or if he really believes that the exodus as described in the bible is a true historic event.

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

or maybe Peterson was patient with Alex’s dumbass pigeon-holing irrelevant question - and was politely trying to love the conversation back to the relevant points he IS making rather than feed into Alex’s distraction

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

@@Peterdeskater100But Peterson doesnt discuss things for that purpose - so isnt Alex being a bit of a jerk?

[@toddwasson3355]

I'm getting increasingly frustrated listening to JP as time goes on. I imagine sitting in a room with him when we hear a loud crash in the kitchen. I'd ask him if a dish fell and broke. I imagine he'd go on at length about how it's a pointless question as he tries to deeply analyze my motivation for asking such a thing, eventually terminating in me having no real answer. Dammit, it's MY question. It's not pointless to me or I wouldn't be asking. Why doesn't he understand the question the way I'm asking it? "Did X really happen?" is akin to "did a glass break on the floor just now?" He doesn't seem to process the question properly, a question a kid would understand immediately, which is frustrating. Alex isn't being a jerk. Quite the opposite: He's very patiently trying to illustrate this problem of JPs to him, to get him to answer what just about anyone else would immediately recognize as a very simple yes or no question. JP is just not getting it. It's the very thing Dawkins complains about too. Geeze, JP, just tell me if a glass broke in the kitchen. A kid would instantly know what's really being asked there. Why doesn't JP? If instead you ask me what I mean by "glass" or "floor" or what I mean by "broke" and launch into a several minute long thing about anything other than what I'm asking instead, ugh... Next thing you know he'll be asking what I mean by "mean." It's frustrating.

[@Escape.Velocity]

This has been my one hang up with Dr Peterson for years, and I mostly ignore it bc so much of what he says is brilliant. I have to think either he deliberately doesn’t give a straight answer to this because he doesn’t believe it actually happened and that would eliminate part of his religious audience, or he does believe it actually happened and that would eliminate a portion of his non-religious audience. He probably feels that giving a straight answer to these questions is a lose-lose either way and would distract from his core messages. My gut feeling is that he doesn’t believe most of the biblical accounts are historically accurate and I highly doubt he believes in the supernatural aspects such as resurrection and virgin birth. The Pangburn talks with Sam Harris were basically 9 hours of Sam trying to get Jordan to answer these questions directly and he wouldn’t do it. Honestly I don’t think it really matters what his private views are but it is a bit frustrating.

[@Jordy_NL]

He answers the question all the time, even just in this clip. The problem seems to be that it doesn't fit people's binary resolution. It's not either this or that. It's probabilities. Also it depends on the which part of the text you're reffering to. He's just far beyond most people. Must be frustrating for him as well.

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

or maybe he wants to keep bringing a message or powerful Biblical meaning to a broad and wide audience of people who have abandoned seeing any value in it. And such shallow questions only exist to reduce his message and purpose. Why would he want to be pigeonholed as a Christian author or thinker when that is not his goal for his work? The expectation he should pin this down when it is irrelevant to the points hes making is stupid

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

@@PaulFryer-s6myeah, you’re a genius. good lord

[@boxer12350]

Agreed

[@yesenia3816]

Can't bring a powerful Biblical meaning to anything if he doesn't have a biblical belief.

[@MrRuumi1]

Finally Alex is the only person who challenged Peterson's question where he says "What do you mean if it happened?". It's a straight forward question that implies whether what Bible claims historycally to happen actually happened!

[@reeb9016]

But did he get an answer?😂

[@MrRuumi1]

@@reeb9016 Yes he said "No, I don't believe it was real".

[@Jaymastia]

No. Thats wasn't an answer because he was contradicting what is in the word as he doesn't see it as real.

[@Maga2025Murica]

He answered these questions many times. But you don't hear his answer you just want to trap him in his words. If you BELIEVE it's real but do the sins they did in your life, you don't believe it's real. If you take them as an example of what will happen to those who live ungodly and repent then you believe it and you will be blessed. Is it real? You have to answer that for yourself. Jordan knows who he is.

[@flvflv4712]

It's a dumb question

[@SiriusDogStar369]

Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby. But these things don't matter at all, because once you are Real you can't be ugly, except to people who don't understand. ~ Margery Williams, "The Velveteen Rabbit"

[@jerimyers7201]

the Velveteen Rabbit. Love it

[@jq8974]

Beautiful 🌿

[@johnsmith-pm1qe]

good god that's profound for a childrens book

[@BananaBabys]

Real recognize real

[@jq8974]

Jesus said that unless you change and become like a child, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. I love how God hides the most beautiful gems in the small, unassuming places. As the saying goes, he uses fools and little children. 🌿🐇

[@elyxtenfer5236]

Me, the intellectual thinking for the first seconds of the video that they are discussing the culture of memes😅

[@chickenmonger123]

They are. It’s just that the candified version is what is happening online and currently.

[@3vil3lvis]

"Intellectual" is actually an insult, because they were despicable people. Reference "The Intellectuals" by Paul Johnson.

[@Hacker1o1]

@@3vil3lvis who was despicable?

[@annallen654]

Me too.

[@TarotThrones]

me three.

[@berryvolcano3787]

He won't answer the simple historical question because a man as smart as him has to say no, since it's not possible to make a historical case here, but he's also aware of his massive Christian following and doesn't want to lose them.

[@CarlWitherspoon-ni4rm]

Remember when he cried when the called him Rabbi?

[@Slippinjimmymcgill]

Do you believe that genghis khan or napoleon existed ?

[@Slippinjimmymcgill]

@@delver1857 explain to me your reality and prove that there is no god

[@wchenful]

I think any rational argument falls apart when you're talking about divinity. It's very easy to tear apart the contents of the Bible and find contradictions but it would be equally as easy to tear apart an attempted proof of the opposite. If you had to prove definitively that God does not exist and the onus was on you to provide the evidence, would you be able to? Certainly atheists have tried but most of their attempts only succeed to undermine Christian beliefs without providing "truth" in its place. It's easy to find problems but not easy to find solutions - and a solution is what we're all after.

[@lukas4235]

I'm more aware of the things he knows that I don't know than he is of the things that I know that he doesn't know.-JP

[@MsElke11]

a puzzle for the ages

[@Jake-dx8pt]

I mean...it's not a puzzle...it's a tongue twister but makes perfect sense lol @MsElke11

[@mateuscrevelin3394]

What a sentence, my people... What a sentence...

[@desnerger6346]

s/that he is/than he is/

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

try to follow it, and it flows just fine

[@SpartanLawyer]

Please do a part 2, if you think it'd be productive and useful! I'm 26, and I've been watching Alex O'Connor's content since I was 16 and still in high school. You two clearly have synergy and rapport, despite your differing beliefs on religion. I think it'd be a great service for those of us who, in the words of your latest book, "wrestle with God." I never would've considered Catholicism or religious apologetics had it not been for the content that you both produce. Thank you both very much.

[@whynot1548]

Really? Alex O'Conner......that's ur guy? 😐

[@eduaguiaro]

Now you know that you can be much more smart than the GREAT, the GOAT Jordan. Because YOU can feel and believe in Jesus and in your resurrection, and Jordan didn't believe yet. You are more smart than Jordan Peterson, what a beautiful life.

[@liesiontheir]

He seems to be very intelligent, polite, open to discussion.... if you're looking for a young person to admire, I can't think of anyone better than Alex.

[@Baronnax]

@@eduaguiaro if you can recognise that Jordan is really smart, why not stop to question WHY a smart man like him doesn't believe in the historicity of Jesus, or in the idea of resurrection?

[@cjbungis]

​@@eduaguiaroits not very hard

[@thomaskoller8282]

The phrase 'Did it really happen?' has a meaning that is immediately obvious to anyone who uses language as a means of communicating thoughts to others. This is what language is all about. And for this to work, people need to agree on how thoughts in your head correspond to language constructs. If you deliberately ignore this, as J. P. seems to do, confusion arises.

[@MarkusGhambari]

Was Alex really born 25 years ago? Did it really happen? Or was he made an hour ago with fake memories about his past? There is no such a thing as really happened in the godless world of Alex. He can't even know if he's real or just a brain in a jar. Anything is possible. Alex is welcome to ask such questions after he solves the problem of solipsism in his worldview. Good luck with that!

[@thomaskoller8282]

@@MarkusGhambari Hm, my comment was about language as a means of communication and the fact that parties using it have to agree on how to do so. I fail to see how your response relates to that.

[@kentshawn8986]

He is avoiding a corner. He does not want to go on record saying “god does not in the most base literal sense exist at all” He thinks saying that is counterproductive. I think he’s wrong. People can handle it.

[@jamescamacho3403]

I imagine Peterson feels similarly to a physicist being asked, "but did the ball fall?" when defending their thesis about modified Newtonian dynamics. Sure, they could answer "yes" but that won't help anyone understand gravity any better. Now, maybe you're suspicious that the physicist doesn't believe balls fall (but rather, the Earth moves up!), but you're asking this only because *you* don't understand what fall means. They can't answer an ill-posed question! The shortest honest answer they could give is somewhat like, "yes, but I think 'fall' is more complicated than you know." It seems Jordan Peterson has repeatedly been asked the equivalent of, "but did the ball fall?" and the entire point Alex O'Connor had this discussion was to get to the bottom of this, so it's rather dense to be criticizing Peterson for this.

[@chickenmonger123]

@@andyk2181I think children can understand far more than you think. I think it is you adults primarily confused. The reason Peterson gives the answer he does. To you adults. Is because it’s as close as he can get to the answer he believes. There is a lot to say about that. I think the point however. Is that Christian’s, Atheists, and all manner of Belief taker wishes to know how he stands regarding their Faith. For Atheists it shouldn’t matter. The validity of his understanding is its merit. For Christians it shouldn’t matter. The validity of his words and ideas are judged by their alignment with scripture. For the rest, it should not matter, but it does whether he speaks of a more esoteric conclusion and promotion of those as orthodoxy. That’s the issue. They want to understand his orthodoxy. When that has never been the context or content of his idea, and all are fully capable and perhaps optimally served without that shortcut to understanding him. Does what he says have merit or not? You have to be the Judge. He is merciful here though. For Christian’s. He says he thinks it’d be historically true. And he’s merciful to atheists. He admits most of what he says is coincident with a dense structure they can never conclude finally upon. And the others are out of luck kind of. Align those with this how you might. It’s not fence sitting. It’s that if you want an answer, he gave your sincere desire consideration, and that is as far as he has concluded. The nice thing for Christians as a whole, is it avoids the question of pedigree for baptism. Denominational divisions run deep there. It’s an excuse to call someone nearly saved but not. And judge the validity of the words not on scripture. Which is the standard. But on the house the individual prays in.

[@Enhancedlies]

Alex and Petersen go very well together, Alex pushes back with proper vigour and doesn't let him get away with little oversteps, (as we all do) But it's just really great lines of thought well executed

[@SeekingUltimateSynthesis]

He actually gave a very clear answer it’s just he went into other things when finished. He fairly clearly said, “probably according to the historical evidence.”

[@bkorodi1797]

Then why cant he just f*cking say that?

[@freedomextremist7215]

@@bkorodi1797 He literally said it, and he added important context. Wanting short answers to complex questions is shortsided.

[@jacobstamm]

@@bkorodi1797Peterson explains his reasons for not just saying that in this video. But even after hearing his reasons, I still think it’s been a bad call for him to refuse to do so for all these years. I’m glad we’re finally getting some clarity.

[@vulpinemachine]

@@bkorodi1797 He did answer it. Just because it wasn't of the STRICTLY YES OR NO VARIETY doesn't some how make it wrong. He answered.

[@stormcutter59]

​@@freedomextremist7215No, it takes him WAY TOO DAMN LONG to get there and thats his biggest problem. I suspect hes too afraid to say it himself. And i dont know why. Probably because he doesnt want to make himself responsible later on to some atheists he debates later that will immediately write him off for being a "believer" and thus wont honestly debate his ideas. Which very shortly put, is a ridiculous thing to be afraid of cause its the fault of atheists for announcing illigetimacy based simply on that.

[@bsting601]

Alex O'Connor is one smart man ! Also good to see Jordan not getting angry and projecting it that ive seen so many times .

[@tweegeTX3]

9:10 “Even if you don’t like the question.” Peterson: Thrives on the question, all the more because of it

[@andrewandkaryntoulson1803]

Alex is my favourite atheist. I dont agree with him but i appreciate his approach to having a calm reasoned conversation.

[@maciejbacal5562]

Especially when talking to a lunatic that can't answer basic questions.

[@kittentacticalwarfare1140]

Like Norm Mcdonald said: "these stories may not be factual, but they are true"

[@kittentacticalwarfare1140]

@@lonergraphics4087 R.I.P.

[@alancooper5009]

I would love to have seen a Norm Jordan conversation

[@SuperDuper1_1995]

Oh this one is factual just do a little digging and you'll see.

[@johnharrison6745]

*WHY* do legitimate academics and authorities give *ALEXIS ZERO,* the *COMIC SEPTIC-TANK,* here, the time-of-day? (S)he's just a mouthy little denier with *NO* credentials/authority of "his" own. 😏

[@johnharrison6745]

*WHY* do legitimate academics and authorities give *ALEXIS ZERO,* the *COMIC SEPTIC-TANK,* here, the time-of-day? (S)he's just a mouthy little denier with *NO* credentials/authority of "his" own. 😏

[@pattysayssew3609]

Love that Jordan has found his favorite jacket for all of his religious chats. He's all in.

[@philippecuenoud2949]

Did he lose a bet ?

[@purefoldnz3070]

he needs one with just many images of salads.

[@danielbright2916]

Good reference! ​@@purefoldnz3070

[@Ileroi]

​@@purefoldnz3070 He should get a custom designed jacket that he wears for every debate that is just a bunch of small pictures of his face and a big text on the chest that says "you have been Jordaned."

[@purefoldnz3070]

@@Ileroi Jordanized

[@AmadaHabla]

Great discussion! Appreciate the distinction between memes and archetypes. Finally articulated what felt like it was missing. Also, the truth vs survival!

[@MsElke11]

Why do I feel as if people who enjoy discussing whether there is truth in religion are wildly being taken over by those who are fanatically FOLLOWING their actual RELIGIONS!

[@Saunajallu]

What distinction? They were equivocated

[@CleverGirlAAH]

Peterson has needed to be called to task on a few things. "Really happened" has definitely been one of those. Hehehe. I thought Fry might've done this when he was on, but I suspect he was being polite to his host. He would be another guest I would love to have back.

[@dreez28]

The Word became flesh, and dwelt amount us. We got our metaphysics figured out just fine. It’s both and… really not as complicated a you want it to be, but at the same time completely mysterious to us and beyond our comprehension… miraculous. The relationship between God and man bridges the gap between the physical and the spiritual. It also transcends time and space. They are both true, and happen in concert with one another. You can’t have one without the other. Past, present and future.

[@Rydonattelo]

Bang on . Couldn't have said it better myself.

[@askmeif]

Someday dreez28, you might know yourself as the world having become flesh and dwelling amongst us.

[@beyamoth]

Exactly the problem with imprecise language. Anyone gets to create their own "correct" word salad

[@aceofspades25]

Who likes this hot shit over 50 times? This is meaningless drivel is chopraesque

[@quintessence3991]

I'm guessing that only the exact same God that you believe can truly bridge the gap?

[@charlesmaunder]

Alex showed the patience of a saint. He couldn't ask Peterson anything without interruption after interruption.

[@magic_honey]

Haven't seen much of his content but from this it would seem Alex is really well-spoken. He knows what to push and he knows how to listen.

[@Dionysus626]

Alex is the kind of interviewer who always brings out the best in the people that he interviews.

[@davidnguyen4707]

As an enjoyer of his content, I highly recommend you checking him out. He gives excellent views and perspectives on important issues, and he always probe the opposition to give precise answers without coming off as condescending or confrontational. On this topic, you should watch his old critique of JP, a very interesting watch!

[@whynot1548]

I bet u think anyone with an accent is "well spoken."

[@magic_honey]

@@whynot1548 "i BeT u" listen to yourself. Can't even take someone else getting a compliment.

[@young_dan_kee]

The world needs more conversations between these two.

[@grond21]

I'm glad someone is finally pushing him on this. Yes, the archetypes matter. Yes, it applies to this day. Yes, to say whether or not something happened does have nuances. But the promise of Jesus's message is that it is for everyone. Not just the intellectual elites. Not just those who can parse out all of the different themes and nuances while applying them both to the story of the past and the story of the present. It is for even the simplest of simpletons. And to dismiss their question as irrelevant is to miss, in many ways, the very heart of what Jesus has offered

[@defface777]

I really like Alex and Jordan talking about interesting topics like this!

[@yvettelatham1318]

The thought process both of them are capable of, is amazing. I can see it in their eyes. They are way above my level.

[@HIMMBelljuvo]

You can reach their level if you put in the work

[@ricardocantoral7672]

Same here.

[@Drenwickification]

@@HIMMBelljuvonot me lol. But I appreciate watching people like Alex. He has an amazing way of putting concepts across in a simple way for someone like me to understand!

[@drunkargonaut3899]

@@DrenwickificationAnd that’s really dangerous. And treacherous. Read my friend, the most you can, then nobody (not me that’s a fact), will need you to explain you something for you to understand it. And you will need nobody in the same sense.

[@drunkargonaut3899]

One of them is not that way above you, trust me. Peterson also had this “phase” and start to telling himself “shut the f up, that’s a lie” and he had to “burn” everything he believed it was true but knowing it wasn’t. 98% “of his thoughts”, he says. Not making this up.

[@3420undertaker]

I love conversations like this. Very fun.

[@forexdissector9565]

It was a simple yes or no. Do you think this happened is a pretty simple question.

[@DarkRealmLink]

it's true.

[@DJFLDJFL]

Sam Harris said something like this to JBP: "I've been debating this with you for years now, and I *still* don't know what you actually believe..." And JBP still dodged on what he actually believes. And I don't even mind that at all. Call it belief. *Don't* call it truth.

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

maybe you dont know what is meant by truth.

[@MegaMerdeux]

And yet JP has answered the question many times. Not understanding his answer doesn't give you ground to accuse him of not answering.

[@thegrunbeld6876]

@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue I can tell you have some obscure esoteric elusive definition of truth.

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

@@thegrunbeld6876 how so?

[@DJFLDJFL]

@@MegaMerdeux Not directly he hasn't. And as we can see here, in his discussions with Harris, etc...he's almost delighting in not answering directly. He's being deliberately evasive. O'Connor does the best I've ever seen at not getting frustrated w JBP to the point of basically just giving up. JBP is really coming across as a guy who's done way too much acid, experienced way too much different stuff, expanded his brain too much in ways that we mortals just can't understand, etc that it's hard to have a conversation with him. Substitute "acid" with "decades of internalized intellectual rabbit holing", and I think here's where he's ended up. It's quite frustrating to try to follow him nowadays. He's not more brilliant. He doesn't have better insight. He just seemingly refuses to be direct on questions like these, insisting on stunning "so open minded your brain falls out" levels of open-mindedness. Except when he's being the exact opposite...incredibly direct and *closed*-minded. Climate change, Trudeau, and several other topics on which his mind is just made up and the venom is evidence of that. It's a really weird Jekyll and Hyde dichotomy. Too direct on some topics vs, whatever the polar opposite of direct is.

[@thugson1166]

This is one of the best conversations I've ever seen with peterson... This needs to happen more.

[@andrewstephen6777]

At 11:50 Peterson essentially affirms that he is a mystic (subjectivist) rather than an objectivist. The thing keeping Peterson totally safe from his critics is that he hasn't stabilized the mystical experience. From the point of view of "no self" and a "non-local awareness," he would not find himself as readily in these debates. Sam Harris has pointed both Peterson and O'Connor in that direction. It seems these convos between O'Connor, Jordan and Harris can go on forever, at this rate. What I would be interested in, is 'what happens when Peterson commits himself fully to understanding what Ken Wilber is saying and has said about him. I mean there could be a great opportunity for integration and helping others as well.

[@WarfareJournal]

This is one of the most important questions to nail down with Dr. Peterson and Alex has done a fantastic job at it!

[@Cmkrs34]

Alex is so cool calm and polite. So far all i see is jordans attempt to evade a straight answer using his usual tactic of trying to complicate the straightforward question.

[@jlolson53]

There's an old saying: "He who wants to obscure the truth muddies the water."

[@EstatesOfMinds]

Nietzsche

[@jlolson53]

@@EstatesOfMinds I'd like to think that was my "old" saying, but it does sound Nietzhean. I'm a big fan, and he certainly influenced me greatly, but I don't recall N saying that exactly. Could be wrong. N inspired my short story (PARABLES AND PARADOXES) BEHOLD THE MAN: " Blessed are those who satisfy their own hunger, for they shall never go without..

[@enriquesuarez7113]

14:06 EXACTLY!!! Jordan Peterson puts into words thoughts I have been struggling to convey for years

[@omnialive]

The layers and depth of assumed meaning that allows us to flow effortlessly through our daily lives is astounding. Which is why we need deep thinkers like Dr. Peterson and Mr. O’Connor to hit pause on assumptions and dive down to first principles. Would be too inefficient and exhausting to do all the time but worth examining still.

[@Kib-of-God]

Diving down is the only way to be sure that what you are standing upon is unshakable. It must be done fervently, consistently, and openly. Otherwise you build upon shifting sand and could waste your life and the lives of those you lead from some future clarification that destroys all you strive for.

[@C_R_O_M________]

Mr. O'Connor is still a shallow thinker. He's a Left hemisphere powerhouse (which means analysis and then more analysis about details and then some more details!). That IS exhausting and at the end of the day futile. Kierkegaard had done the same but with the philosophical freedom (open mindedness) to arrive to his "leap of faith" conclusion. O'Connor just isn't comfortable with surrendering control. That's a psychopathology I'm quite familiar with.

[@vinvin4884]

Sometimes it boggles my mind that people so intelligent and verbose can spend so much time talking in circles. I'm at minute 13 and they've just arrived at the conclusion that truth can mean different things. I don't understand why Jordan can't just respond to questions about truth in the Bible like your typical everyday citizen would. He obviously knows what is meant by the question, but it's like he tries to be purposely obtuse. Maybe he should just respond to these questions with a deep explanation, rather than going on a rant that confuses everyone. He's making a very important and subtle distinction and then acting like it's the most obvious thing in the world. Dude. People are not going to pick up on that. That's why you're here to teach them.

[@Jaiksana]

The comment I was looking for

[@tuffwith2effs899]

He's trying to elevate Christianity beyond a point where it can even be criticized, reduce questions about biblical accuracy to absurdity... Like... we get it it's actually not nearly as deep as he tries to make it seem either. Someone who isn't trying to pull the hood over your eyes could explain it in a much more clear and concise manner. I could go ahead and learn all about the literary traditions of this and that so that I can properly appreciate the good book... What does it matter though? Even if he's right it does not provide a shred of substantiation for the literal existence of God, it's still every bit as unbelievable and preposterous to me as it was before he opened his mouth. If anything, the fact that you can't even so much as make statements about its literal truth value just serves as further evidence that it's a work of fiction. So why should I make the sacrifices religious systems would have me make? It's 2024, not 1204.

[@aidantwa5929]

I so badly want J Peterson to listen to R.C. Sproul's "The Consequences of Ideas." Not for discussion, not for content but just for his own personal enjoyment. I really found Sproul's treatment of philosophy helpful for my own understanding of reality.

[@letmesummarize1176]

Cant wait 70 years from now when some person hears for the first time about Peterson and goes about looking into him and then is greeted by his suits. Love it!

[@slkjvlkfsvnlsdfhgdght5447]

a rare highly intellectual video on youtube! i like it, and i got here completely by accident!

[@djohnson2536]

Alex's ability to calmly and reasonably debate people is a real breath of fresh air nowadays, compared to the ideologues of the modern day who interrupt and miscontrue what the other person says

[@jamesoncross7494]

Catholics present the material as actual FACT! You can not question it. That is the main problem I have with religion.

[@CarlWitherspoon-ni4rm]

Well you cross them off your list. Only a few hundred denominations to go by this method. Or you can figure out what the bible actually says about which ones are false and which are Christian.

[@jamesoncross7494]

@@CarlWitherspoon-ni4rm it is all false. Not one once of proof. People are truly sheep. So easily lead. They will believe just about anything.

[@wchenful]

@@jamesoncross7494 Lack of proof is not the same as being false. If a person says "God doesn't exist", there is not an ounce of proof for that either. The concept of people being sheep is inherently Christian, so your assertion of such would suggest that you also share at least a part of the Christian beliefs.

[@bobcatpnw9123]

Yes it did really happen. -Paul

[@johnjameson6751]

Citation needed

[@bobcatpnw9123]

@@johnjameson6751 APA Style (4th ed.) The Holy Bible: King James Version. 1995 (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc. Сору

[@kevinbateman9929]

If the poster is St Paul, my response is Paul you were not there and are relying on a hallucination that you had which is an extremely unreliable source, in fact nowadays if people have hallucinations and keep insisting they are true they tend to be locked up.

[@johno1954]

@@kevinbateman9929which his men had as well? Didn’t know collective hallucinations was a thing

[@masona.9875]

There is much respect between these two and you can tell they are doing everything they can not to offend each other with their challenging questions.

[@carldom1264]

A true interaction of people of different thought.

[@kazhemian]

I didnt really respect Alex O'connor much before this video, I always saw him as someone with an opinion that would not accept anything else but his own opinion before this video, BUT after this video, I see him as a very reasonable person trying to "get to the bottom of" one of the most important and influencial questions/ideas of our age. This was a great video and very eye opening for my own opinion development on such an evident subject. Thank you to you both.

[@MrBlakeleyden]

To Alex’s point, you have a guy like L.A. Marzulli (known as one of the Godfathers of his niche with ancient biblical history) who actually goes to ancient historical sites and/or megaliths where he SEEMS to collect actual evidence of some of these biblical stories being true/historical. For example, he personally owns multiple elongated human skulls that have been professionally analyzed. It lines up with the giants in the biblical stories. Then he also visits the people groups and learns about the ancient histories around ancient architecture that would SEEM to be far more advanced than an ancient civilization with almost no technology would put that much effort into building/ is even possible for them to do so. Some people groups, like the Aztecs, admit that they didn’t build a number of ancient structures, but they just came across them and chose to inhabit them. Now whereas this doesn’t automatically prove everything, the correlations are ASTONISHING! (In my opinion). So to back Alex’s point here, if Jordan Peterson looked more into this kind of evidence that Marzulli presents in his channel and conferences in particular (which are both here on KZbin), he might be able to make up his mind on this question for once! Whatever his decision was at that point is his alone to make, but he would be making a much more informed decision on the topic

[@angban401]

Wow Alex is brilliant

[@jamessieker1712]

I absolutely love that Dr. Peterson has chosen to "Wrestle with God". His study into the deep weeds of the text, has really helped me enjoy Christianity again. The world seems to be collapsing into dakness, and these types of talks, help me see that proverbial "Light at the end of the Tunnel"

[@acason4]

“Why do you think it matters to people”??? 🤦🏼‍♂️ Something either “actually happened in history” or it didn’t actually happen. There’s no middle ground. I’ve always been a fan of your work in Psychology, but this is just embarrassing for you JP. This is the type of postmodernists gibberish you so often rail against. I thought your conversation will Dillahunty made you look silly (God is real because some guy quit smoking) but this exchange in particular has really upped the ante. There’s no historical evidence outside of the Bible (which is the CLAIM) for the Jewish exodus. Props to Alex for trying to drag him back to clarity.

[@xiaoliu7071]

That's a bold claim for someone who has never studied the archaeological record outside of a few Google searches.

[@acason4]

@@xiaoliu7071 I’m appealing to the consensus of experts that HAVE studied the archeological evidence moron & if there was evidence outside of the Bible (any type of evidence) surely you can’t point me to it right?? I’ll hold my breath… 🤦🏼‍♂️

[@lexou4852]

@@xiaoliu7071 that's a bold claim for someone who doesn't know anything about the person they replied to

[@theslugboiii5969]

you're right that something either did or didn't actually happen, but the middle ground I guess would be trying to prove which of those two options is true.

[@acason4]

@@theslugboiii5969 I disagree. There is no middle ground with respect to the historical & archaeological evidence. Either the evidence points to the conclusion or the null hypothesis is that it did not happen especially if appealing to anything novel that we don’t any empirical evidence for: magic, mythical creatures, ghosts, demons, Gods, spirits, etc.

[@lm58142]

3:51 "I am more aware of the things he knows that I don't know than he is of the things I know that he doesn't know." 💥

[@baltzarbonbeck3559]

It's always suprising how much disagreement simply stems from a difference in defining words. I would argue close to the majority of disagreements overall have to do simply with differing definitions of words.

[@blanktrigger8863]

But that's because worldviews differ. It's much more than just definition of words. It's a microcosm of trying to argue with someone crazy about a rock when the crazy person sees a tree.

[@Xhayl]

Such an enjoyable watch. Thank you!

[@manguy01]

The reason a lot of Christians ask this question is because what they are trying to ask is, _"Is the Bible a verbatim account of past events?"_ Now, you might ask "Verbatim from whom?" You might say "verbatim from those who lived the events." You might say "verbatim from those to whom the events were recent history." But the "yes"es and "no"s to those questions are not what Christians are interested in. They want to know _"Is it a verbatim account from God?"_ Is it "God's Word"? This is also why people ask _"Do you believe in God?"_ or _"Does God exist?"_ Because it's a prerequisite assumption to the above questions. Now, you also might ask what people mean by "believe" or "exist." And what they are asking is "Do you believe that God is a person with whom you will be able to speak face to face some day, just as you and I are doing now?" Is He someone from whom there can be a verbatim account of His words? Because these are key tenets of Christian theology. They want to know how closely you relate to them. Mostly because they love and admire you, and want for you to go to heaven. But also because they think these beliefs will enrich you in this life.

[@yesenia3816]

No. I would ask because I want to know what motivates his theology. If he's a believer, I am more likely to take his theological teachings seriously. Since he is not a believer, I take his theological teachings with a grain of salt.

[@thegrunbeld6876]

Christians should just read Qur'an then

[@randumgaming]

My favorite part is when a man who can't even publicly state "I believe that Jesus is God" or "I believe in God" generally, then tells me as a Christian what is wrong with me asking a very straightforward question. If every single human conversation went as Jordan thinks it should in his mind, we'd all be standing there with our brains whirling like dial up modems trying to find the best way to ask if we're hungry or not until we all starve to death. It doesn't NEED to be this complicated. Did the Jews historically leave Egypt? Yes. Did the bush Moses heard God's voice through actually appear on fire? Yes. How do I know? The Bible tells me this happened and I have no reason to believe that: 1. it's not historically possible (because it hasn't been proven to be impossible, at the least) and 2. it's not metaphysically possible, because if I believe that God came into the world as a man through a virgin birth, performed miracles, suffered, died, went to Hell, came back, and rose to Heaven, I sure as hell can accept a burning bush. Like come on, man.

[@thylabyrinth]

It needs to be complicated if you have any hopes of winning large numbers of new converts. JP’s psychological-evolutionary approach to Christianity is far more palatable to modern audiences than “It’s true because the Bible says so”.

[@randumgaming]

@@thylabyrinth The only people who try to convince you of the truth of Christianity because "the Bible says so" alone are modern Protestant denominations. Catholicism is the fullness of the faith, intellectually rich, and the arguments for our faith abound. My point was I believe x simply because it's written, but in light of zero evidence to currently prove the contrary, having faith because the Bible says so - and I have ample reason to trust the Bible - is in fact good enough. What Jordan will bring is a bunch of converts to accept the abstract ideas of Christianity as "sort of" true, while rejecting them at the same time. Did the resurrection ACTUALLY happen, or "sort of" happen, for example? If we make everything into some abstract symbol that can be broken down into a "Jungian archetype" then we lose what God actually did for us behind some faux intellectual nonsense. God really and truly did die on the Cross and rise again for us. There needn't be more to it than that.

[@MattBronwyn]

Whatever your feelings on JP or Alex, it is nice to see thoughtful discussions being had on substantive topics. More of this please, algorithm.

[@MattBronwyn]

Actually I just got to the bit about Forrest Gump and, yeah, JP is just bloviating.

[@joshualup9529]

Alex is actually really good. Very impressed with his growth

[@braydenweese1407]

I honestly knew this was Jordan’s position months ago, but he articulated it better than I could. I appreciate his honesty and humility to say he doesn’t know but also challenge believers. I hope he finds a more conclusive someday soon.

[@noesis.8051]

Alex is dangerously Brilliant, i'm glad my generation has a mind like his.

[@CleverGirlAAH]

He does seem to be quite an exception in being able to follow through on conversational prompts and queues. As well as following through on clarification.

[@HMStar10]

Also fortunate to discover his talent very early on and refine his verbal skills.

[@trvst5938]

@1:32 Peterson doesn't know wtf Alex said. LMAO

[@BrandNewLibertarian]

😂😂😂😂

[@emilyosler6664]

😂😂😂 totally...Alex is incredible

[@blasebarrett8397]

Great stuff!!

[@McCallaFilms]

Uh! I've been waiting for this match-up ever since I saw Alex' "Deconstructing Dr.Jordan Peterson" video, which I found interesting, but also kind of "strawmanny". I felt Alex did not fully represent Petersen's ideas, and position, genuinely, and I always wanted Petersen to be able to respond to Alex. So this should be good! I respect both of these fine gentlemen, and look forward to seeing this! Hopefully the full conversation will come out at some point soon.

[@MegaMerdeux]

Alex is good at strawmaning as you said

[@Rave.-]

The whole conversation came out before this clip. It's on this very channel. And it's amazing!

[@jacobstamm]

@@MegaMerdeuxMaybe long ago, but in recent history, he exemplifies more fairness and sometimes even steelmanning in his arguments than anyone else I’ve seen. In particular, his critiques of Peterson prior to this video were extremely fair given Peterson’s lack of clarity up til this very interview.

[@Zevelyon]

The answer is no. Jordan does not believe the literal claims to the supernatural of the Bible. He only believes in their psychological significance, their usefulness to society and MAYBE he believes in God, but certainly not in the claim that Yahweh is literally that God and Jesus is literally his incarnation.

[@Cobbido]

He might believe the kind of thing where God is the universe itself as such we are all "incarnations" or "avatars" of God seeing as we are made of the matter of the universe, Jesus included, he just happened to be a more enlightened incarnation of God more in tune with some specific aspect of an underlying greater will. Aspects that Jordan Peterson aligns with, greater good, certain morals and that type of jazz.

[@Zevelyon]

@@Cobbido Yes, I suspect Peterson is a Pantheist as well. Specifically, a Gnostic.

[@edumacha]

well, not so sure about the resurrection of Jesus, which is a supernatural event. He suspects that it is a historical event and that it literally was very possible to have happened, go and watch the whole video brother. Alex: "If there was a camera at the Tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, would we see a man walk out? JP: I suspect yes" Start at Minute 25 in the interview.

[@bike4aday]

The problem is that people are trying to understand spirituality through materialism because they don't actually know the difference. Supernatural does not mean magic and super powers. Those are Hollywood/materialist depictions of the supernatural.

[@ASeekerOfLife-k6o]

@@Zevelyon You know certain gnostic texts like the Gospel of Mary are written around the same time as The Gospel of John (100 AD)? According to most scholars, the gospel of john has as much historical relevancy as a gnostic text, which is why they reject it entirely and rely on the "Synoptic gospels." They also reject the notion it was written by John, just as they reject the notion that apostles were the authors of various gnostic gospels. So gnosticism has about as much historical validity to it as mainstream Christianity, which is to say, not allot.

[@thomasmusso1147]

Very interesting discussion .. thank you. However, respectfully, Dr Peterson should really make an effort to come down to our level, the rank and file and communicate (give and receive understsnding) at that level. Sometimes, simple questions require simple answers (no matter how complicated the subject may be) .. however onerous they may seem to them being asked to give a response.

[@tammyschilling5362]

I'm afraid that I'm starting to think that the problem isn't that he needs to "come down to our level" but that he is being deliberately cagey and refusing to be nailed down to any position, almost to the point of dishonesty. I'm afraid he wants to have his cake and eat it, too.

[@jaymkz3225]

@@tammyschilling5362 This is my assessment as well as someone who has listened to him as well. I believe that he is a man who unwilling to truly take a hard stance on Christianity and truly come to Christ due to the implications (i.e., he can no longer idolize his intellect, he must give up control of his life, he may lose subscribers, etc.)

[@chadnine3432]

And then we have the issue where simplyfying the answer causes people to misunderstand. "Peterson declares God isnt real!" "Peterson admits he believes in Jesus!" It solves nothing because then we have to get the clarification we removed in simplifying things.

[@kimbronun6649]

I'm a Christian and some of the most brutal people are Christian, Peterson doesn't want to take any leap and I get it.

[@JahtotheRod]

Maybe he just has realized that you aren’t “owed” the kind of simple “hard stance” explanation you seem to want from him, and that no one else is owed that either.

[@silverfox8484]

Im sure JP had a blast talking to Alex. Hopefully the first of many talks 🙂

[@markd3250]

I certainly hope so. This is the first time I think I've ever seen Jordan so apprehensive and defensive. He clearly had 'shields up' during this. I didn't see that kind of respect for who he's being confronted by for anyone else that I can think of. Alex is a very clear, articulate and focused speaker. This was almost like watching a chess match.

[@C_R_O_M________]

O'Connor is still a very shallow thinker and I know his fatal flaw because it is exactly what I studied as a psychologist. It's the inability to surrender control so as to allow anything else besides his already shaped conclusions. It's an insurmountable confirmation bias which points to a very strong Left hemisphere in control. Just like Dawkins and Harris. They are both Left hemispheric dominant which makes them blind to the bigger picture (which Kierkegaard definitely nailed). Harris's case of Left hemispheric pathology is so profound that he stated that he'd preferred Biden over Trump even if the former had chopped children parts in his basement which is bonkers and got ridiculed for that absurd statement - as he should. It was ridiculous.

[@silverfox8484]

@@markd3250 Not sure I saw shields up, I genuinely feel like he had loads of fun. Just look at how many times he actually smilled and laughed during the conversation. He was being pushed, pushed to think deeper and explain more clearly, and that is hard, but I think he enjoys that. I felt zero combativeness between both, and Im pretty sure JP will speak to Alex many many times in the future. They will become good friends for sure.

[@markd3250]

@@silverfox8484 Combat? No. Competitiveness? Yes. It was like a tennis match between two very capable players. Jordan is always 'deep' thinking. What I saw was Alex trying to get him to prioritize meaning into one frame at a time instead of the whole movie. It was very entertaining to watch, and I hope they get together again.

[@CB-dl1vg]

In a parody version of this interview Alex would say “you’ve probably spent more time in Forrest Gump than anyone I’ve met in person”

[@levipeelen9118]

''Christians that have a metaphysics that's not Christian''. Beautifully said, it is the symbolic and non-literal dimension that Christianity provides that is so interesting and enriching.

[@St33lStrife]

'Do you think it really happened?' Yes.

[@lemasteraustin12]

Okay, but what do you mean by “yes”?

[@danieldornyo3041]

Thank you

[@danieldornyo3041]

@@lemasteraustin12 what kinda d*mb question is that?

[@Whereempathsgather]

Jesus died on the cross...? The bible is history regardless of what anyone thinks about it. I rather know the bible then anything because it's a endless story that we need to revisit it often.

[@JesusFriedChrist]

Magic isn’t real. It’s time to grow up.

[@djmaydraws3862]

This makes sense now. People might think he’s still avoiding the question, but he’s not. You can see it when he talks about the word “real” and is very careful to choose the right words. And he talks about truth and articulation being moral imperatives, which to him is a kind of worship. To him, all words should carry the weight of their complete thought. I think what he means is something like this: he does not like to define God in terms that apply to the physical world. When someone asks him that, he’s assuming THEY mean it like that. To him, God is not “real” in the same way a table or a chair is. To say God is would be speaking untruth, the opposite of what a Christian should do. God is not flesh, not bound by spacetime and he’s the source of thought and language, so such words don’t explain him accurately. To Peterson those that try to aren’t truly living up to those moral imperatives and thus he would conclude that he’s more christian than they are. But in times past, in this interview and others, if you ask him the right questions, with a clear respect to his emphasis on language and truth, he will answer in a way that I think answers people’s questions. One person asked him would there be a God if humans didn’t exist. Good question. He responded with he’s not sure how to answer that. Then he’s expressed emotional reactions towards what he deems to be “miracles” such as when he and his family recovered from illness. He knows they are real (truthfully occurring) in a way but doesn’t know how to answer why or how they happen. Then in this interview he expressed that the events of the Bible, as mythical as they seem, are plausible (and in the case of Jesus’ resurrection “likely”) to have a basis in being historic events that actually occurred and are the source of what the myths are predicated on. As a student of Jung and Campbell however, the lessons these stories teach carries more value then whether or not the events occurred historically just as they are written and so his certainty doesn’t go much beyond that and he’s candid that he’s not at the point where he can explain what those things mean, how they happen, and why they happen. If you were determined to categorize him and put him in a box, he could be considered more Christian than a lot of folks that go to church today. I myself have heard churchgoers themselves say the Bible is more metaphor than even Peterson claims here. And these people along with their social circles are confident enough to call themselves Christian. However, if you took the Bible at face value, and looked at how IT defines a Christian. Not just someone who has respect and tries to follow Jesus example’ as best they can but who also expresses faith and confidence that there is a God being who is the origin of humanity and acted through a real Son, then you would consider Peterson something of an agnostic. A hybrid term might also be more fitting. A Christianized-agnostic. One thing seems certain. He isn’t an atheist. This interview will hopefully be a step in the right direction of people knowing the right line of questioning when dealing with this topic with Jordan. Questions like “is God just a product of human thought and innovation or are humans the product of God’s thought and innovation?” “If I time travelled back to the time of Moses when he was a shepherd would I see a burning bush along side him and hear a voice coming from it?” “Do you think Jesus thought it’s enough to believe in his words on conduct, but only believe his miracles as being “plausible”? Awesome interview. Jordan was more clear this time. Hopefully people are able to understand his views better now.

[@samfayezawad]

This made me an Alex O’Connor fan

[@terrorkf]

Pretty simple stuff, as your faith in Jesus strengthens, it becomes more difficult to deny that Exodus happened. But Dr. Peterson answers this perfectly. From a logical perspective, he mentioned that some parts are verifiable and others, not as much. But what most people tend to do is lean more on one side and completely disregard the other side. But he's clearly paying full attention to both sides, taking the texts for what it is and not forcing his beliefs on the texts. Definitely watching the full episode.

[@MrTakealookaround]

i have never seen such two intelligent humans never getting anywhere in a conversation, this is beyond me xD

[@doctorpaul8138]

Nice jacket, Sir!

[@MsElke11]

I want that in a DRESS!!

[@craighart9278]

​@@MsElke11His name is Jordan Peterson. 🤦‍♂️

[@gismoogity]

​@@craighart9278 Nuh uh... it's Alex.

[@craighart9278]

@@gismoogity haha

[@Meyer-gp7nq]

JBP has the most insane wardrobe

[@danmor2349]

Loved this....a good bridge between a skeptic and Dr Peterson's thinking and manner of speaking

[@danny_perez]

The reason this question matters for Christians is because Christians feel concern for the salvation of big celebrities. That’s “point blank” why the question matters to them. And it’s not a bad desire, since it’s born out of desiring goodwill for the celebrity, but often I wish Christians could simply appreciate Jordan for this new branch of psychological theology that he has blessed us with. Peterson has single-handedly expanded our understanding of the Bible from angles we hadn’t noticed before. As a Christian myself, Peterson’s work causes me to praise God even more; to me, it’s a visible synchronicity of God working across time, sort of like leaving His fingerprint on the Bible. And for non-believers it causes them to become very intrigued with the Bible. And Peterson understands that he functions best when he stays in that lane, unpacking the psychological significance. Whether Peterson will ever “believe”, Peterson has made it very clear that it is none of our business, because it detracts from what he’s meaning to tell us. Any orderly Christian should respect him by no longer annoying him with that question and simply pray for him privately. Peterson is already aware of all the reasons to believe; he’s even surrounded by believers within his own immediate family. So, now just simply pray for him, Christians. If Christians want the historical veracity of the Bible to be widely known, there are already many great Christian apologists and also Bible archaeologists. You can make them famous by watching and commenting on their content, and then the KZbin algorithm will push their content more. But Peterson won’t be that person for you, at least that’s what it looks like to me.

[@pomtubes1205]

most sane Peterson commenter

[@surfinalien]

I would argue that the “did that really happen” question matters so much to people is because THESE STORIES ARE TOLD TO TINY LITTLE CHILDREN AS IF THEY WERE UNDENIABLE HISTORICAL FACT.

[@zachkarls5061]

To pay the devil his due, the Christians concerned with his salvation are concerned because they already appreciate what he has brought to the table. It's why they pay attention to him at all.

[@pmaitrasm]

People worship God for their own selfish reasons. Everybody wants to go to Heaven. Humans are selfish by nature. Self preservation is a natural trait in humans.

[@jacobstamm]

What the heck does anything in this discussion have anything to do with celebrities? Do you seriously think Peterson has celebrities in mind while answering questions about God?

[@BunnyWatson-k1w]

At 4:46. I agree with Terry Eagleton's assessment of Dawkins. At least Hitchens was taught early in life by Anglican priests. He knew something of the Old Testament, however limited as it was.

[@adamborowicz7209]

"when you don't understand me - that's not my problem" 9:32 Wow. Woooow. Makes you think (about his level of arrogance).

[@timmyt1293]

What? He's concerned with the mythological record of religion, not so much the historical record. He explicitly states this over and over. If you don't like that, it is your problem not his lol.

[@Skybosh]

Trying to get a straight answer from him is like trying to “grab” water with one hand.

[@victorguimaraes3305]

I think he answered. He doesn`t know what historically happened and it actually doesn`t matter, it doesn`t decrease the value of the message.

[@Jordy_NL]

The irony is that his answers are probably in the top 0.1% of the most straight answers, but people can't see it because they don't have his high level of resolution.

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

perhaps you’re demanding he hand you water when thats not the offer to begin with

[@chilldude5456]

​@@Jordy_NL No they are not. Why can't to the question "Do you believe resurrection happened?" respond "I don't know but i still think that the bible is the right way to seek patterns to live your life" and instead starts questioning the definition of truth. He just doesn't want admit to the public that he doesn't believe because a lot of his audience is religious

[@Jordy_NL]

@@chilldude5456 That souds like a fine answer to me if that would be your answer. But dr. Peterson has his own answer. The point was if his answers were straight forward, which in my opinion they are. Wheter you agree or not is a different question.

[@oswaldomayberry9260]

JP is a smart guy. Smart enough to not believe in Christianity, and smart enough to know it’ll hurt his $ if he tells his audience he doesn’t believe.

[@charlimander]

"was JFK the president?" JP: "he still is"

[@brothercaleb]

Yep, still happening 😂

[@MapleGoodness]

It seems clear that JP is saying he avoids giving straight, honest, answers to some of the questions talked about because he's afraid of where the conversation might go if he were to give a straight answer. Telling.

[@goodvibekidd696]

There’s a clear distinction between healthy skepticism and the pursuit of disproving ideas. It appears that Mr. O’Connor is more focused on dismantling arguments rather than engaging in the opportunity to broaden his own viewpoint.

[@loudenlaffnite246]

Establishing fact over fantasy is not just some pedantic game of "dismantling arguments" -- it's essential in getting at historical truth. If I say I saw a unicorn last week, and you say prove it, can I just avoid the proof by claiming "you're too damn hung up on dismantling arguments, and it's at the expense of broadening your viewpoint on unicorns?"

[@FarOutKidd]

Defining truth is important

[@FarOutKidd]

Are there genres of truth? I believe truths are proved evident by fact. Again, defining truth is important. If truth is a mountain we all have a different perspective and position. The absolute truth is that truth is relative 😅 ☯️ a belief, a construct of mind and matter agreed upon by our infinite species of consciousness and stuff 😊

[@thetruthstrangerthanfictio954]

@MFletch87 The only problem I have with that is it can devolve into relativism or the "my truth isn't your truth" kind of thing. We can see where that leads with some people's "truth" is 2 + 2 does not have to equal 4 because they claim there is no such thing as objective truth.

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

@@FarOutKiddthe rules of logic are unrelated to facts and yet are true

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

@@thetruthstrangerthanfictio954truth and fact can be separate things (and are) and still have zero to do with moral relativism. Jesus himself taught truths with parables, which were not facts - they did not happen, they were fictional stories and not facts - but they were truths

[@thetruthstrangerthanfictio954]

@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue I agree with you that Jesus's parables taught spiritual truths, and very deep ones at that. That is not what MFletch87 was talking about though, because they said you can tell the truth but be incorrect. Jesus's stories were not incorrect because it was obvious to everyone that they were metaphorical. What MFletch87 seems to mean therefore is if I believe something is true then it is true, hence "2 + 2 = 5."

[@raulyaeger]

Did I eat ice-cream yesterday? Yes, that happend. Did I die and resurrected today? No, that didn't happend but it could happended metaforically speaking. Those too facts are easy to diferenciate. Come on Dr Peterson!

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

…your shallow understanding reflects on you not Peterson

[@MegaMerdeux]

That analogy doesn't work in the slightly

[@MegaMerdeux]

That analogy doesn't work in the slightest

[@jonathanstatham88]

This has nothing to do with current video. Your truth, your honesty, has caused me to love you. It's undeniable. Thank you for guiding me through so much. I love you as a comrad, as a father, and as a friend. Thank you for everything.

[@Slumpdunnet]

'I'm more aware of the things that he knows that I don't know than he is of the things that I know that he doesn't know. Right?'

[@RohannvanRensburg]

What I would love to *finally* see is Peterson, along with other "New Atheist" rehashes like O'Connor, grapple with the centuries old established metaphysics of the church and deal with church intellectual greats like Aquinas. There is no "Christian metaphysics", there is sound metaphysics.

[@paradisecityX0]

Yes it really happened. It's just that there's more to it than most people realize

[@JesusFriedChrist]

Magic isn’t real.

[@paradisecityX0]

@@JesusFriedChrist No shit sherlock

[@cleftturnip7774]

Definitely not

[@paradisecityX0]

@@cleftturnip7774 Definitely so

[@paradisecityX0]

@@JesusFriedChrist Do you think men can become women?

[@cleftturnip7774]

The Atheist / religious debate is very repetitive.

[@short207]

I agree.

[@user-md3wm7vu1f]

All debate subjects are repetitive past a certain point

[@maxdecimus13]

The argument that say Dawkins isn't qualified to talk about religion because he hasn't studied x, ignores the fact that 99.9% of believers haven't either and the vast majority do have a simplistic level of belief.

[@ryaneliasbaker]

The ultimate crossover episode of the self-help and philosophy KZbin multiverse.

[@Paintit33]

Sometimes knowledge isn’t power

[@DJeMo]

Too much knowledge is insanity

[@8888Funkytown]

Ok sheep 🐑

[@comac2373]

1 Corinthians chapters 1+2

[@deshon3523]

​@@DJeMoexplain more?