Jordan Peterson: Do You Believe That God Exists?

[@hypemugen]

"Lots of people live in hell and lots of people create it" Man, I really love this perspective.

[@lazyfoxplays8503]

Luke Passos It’s the most basic white girl depth I’ve ever met. “Coconuts live on trees because they like to get high off life.” “Some people are rich in wealth and poor in meaning, but being rich in meaning you’ll never be poor.”

[@akaakaakaak5779]

I must have seen him address this question 3 or 4 times now, totalling maybe about an hour of him explaining and I still don't know what he believes.

[@ryu7597]

well it depends on which part u identify as not clear ... just kidding ... i do not know if u got the answer yet or not XD but i will answer it any way... he pretend that God exist ... because the world from his point of view needs a God to make sense ... so he pretend that there is a God to make sense out of the world... that is not exactly believing in God but it is not disbelieving ... he simply does not know exactly but he leans to believe in God more ... so u can say that he believes in god... and the other question he have no answer to, because there is no clear definition to the term used... it is just like trying to explain what "power" is... u can define it as how much destruction can something make or how much kilos can someone lift or how much energy should be used... this word has a lot of meanings and people are just using the word and assume that everybody use the same word the same way ... he mentions that problem and ask what do people mean with that... and then he answer according to a definition he explained ... and some question... he is just being honest and say that he does not know ...

[@johnheuer6540]

That is the greatest non-answer I've ever heard

[@YoungMommy14]

Yeah. This guy is infuriating. To be fair, I don't want to be too harsh. He's troubled. And profound stress can obviously negatively effect his cognitive faculties. He's got a severe 'rambling problem' which makes it next to impossible to discern what the He'll he's trying to convey. If he wants to issue a proposition, and did it in a structured way like a syllogism or something, we could all analyze his premise' and arrive at our conclusions. He doesn't do that... He rambles for an hour about 'shit'. He switches the topic constantly without warning. He has no regard for chronology or anything. It's a giant train wreck!

[@fellipedasilva99]

He’s basically saying he doesn’t know, not all questions can be answered

[@notloki3377]

@@YoungMommy14 It's called thinking independently. You might want to take notes.

[@notloki3377]

@@fellipedasilva99 if that's all you got from this, you weren't paying attention.

[@frenchnoodles7546]

@@YoungMommy14 It's really not, it's just that his conception of God is so far removed from the general consensus of what belief in religion/God means that it's almost impossible to describe it in terms of the original meaning of the term. If you'd have listened to what he's said (I'm not going to mention anything in particular since you clearly have not listened to enough of him), then you would come to a conclusion about what 'belief' in of itself means. Instead of being the ideologue that you seem to be portraying yourself as, please open up and try to think from his perspective (and no, what he is saying is not nonsense, think it a bit through for a bit longer and you'll understand from where he is coming from). Questions of the metaphysical cannot be described in terms that make sense to humans, hell, there are concepts in science that still haven't been unravelled due to their inherent counterintuitiveness. If you think the structure of existence can be explained in a dialectic that you can wrap your head around, then your arrogance is astounding.

[@setha.4283]

In the wise words of Xavier: Renegade Angel, "It helps no one to be reductive."

[@notloki3377]

It helps people who have a hard time being expansive.

[@Epiousios18]

I just learned about Dr. Peterson about 12 hours ago, and I find him absolutely fascinating. I have been watching videos of him talking almost non-stop.

[@DANCEGARAGEPUNK]

Yes he does talk non stop : (

[@DeadEndFrog]

"im an religiousfluid person"

[@brianivey7733]

DeadEndFrog Transtheist

[@MsHojat]

I identify as a non-binary religiofluid person.

[@ABW941]

Iam a Demigod, I only take prayers from genderstraight girl/boy hexasexuals.

[@charmingbilly1685]

and thus e.i. fluid

[@dave474c]

Shreyas Misra - If you're going to tell someone that they don't know jack then you must provide an argument as to why you claim such higher intellectual ground. You have done no such thing and therefore your comment can only be considered lazy and juvenile trolling.

[@YuGiOhDuelChannel]

Well the physical body Resurrection is so vital in Christianity because it was physically seeing Christ in the "flesh" that led to the disciples becoming so fervent in speeding the gospel so soon after seeing their leader die. Usually when the leader of a movement is killed off the movement dies down or dies off

[@MikeJunior94]

Usually, but there are also cases where this is not the case...

[@stevenw2933]

actually its often the opposite, if you look at the more recent cases of people holding seemingly ridiculous beliefs they are more fervent after it has been debunked or faced with facts contrary to their beliefs. This is true of the many doomsday believers and cults.

[@maryangelica5319]

Steven, this isn't so much the case with claims to be a Messiah, though. There were many "Messianic movements" in ancient Judaea. Jesus was not the only one who claimed to be the Messiah, and in every other case where the alleged Messiah died, the movement died with him. The whole point of the Messiah in Jewish thought of the time was the liberation of Israel from oppression followed by the conversion of the whole world to the Jewish God. If your Messiah died, he was considered defeated, and hence could not be truly considered a Messiah. When you look at the Gospel accounts, the disciples were not acting in denial about the supposed failure of Jesus shortly after he died. Quite the opposite, in fact. They were dejected, and some had to be convinced with physical evidence when news came out that the tomb was empty and Jesus was in fact alive.

[@timothyblazer1749]

Paul was vital in creating the Christian religion over again, as an organized movement. It had splintered and was thoroughly a Gnostic mystery cult, like all the other ones at the time, until he came along. Paul, a former tax collector, essentially created it out of whole cloth in a way he thought would work.. and it did. He breathed life into the seeds and they sprouted, for better or for ill. He did that through charisma, and a story of having experienced a miracle at the hands of Jesus, which was never corroborated of course. He was the FIRST Jimmy Swaggert. The first religious flim flam man using Christianity as his lever to gain power. And it worked. Joseph Smith followed in Paul's fine tradition and created Mormonism. The list goes on and on. They are all "Cults", created by charismatic men who wanted power, riches, or some combination of those things. Scientology is an example of a religion created out of whole cloth, that we KNOW WAS CREATED out of whole cloth, and.. persists today. It is no different than Christianity whatsoever.

[@YuGiOhDuelChannel]

Timothy Black Your comment is very weak in it's assertions. 1. Paul hated Christians, why would he champion something straight to his death, that he absolutely hated, had his encounter with Christ been false? 2. People do not go to their death knowing what they are saying is a lie. People will follow a lair because they don't know it is a lie, but the individual spreading the lies do not get tortured for a lie. 3. Paul was not just put to death, he was tortured, and put to death for his belief, to say he was just delusional makes zero rational sense. 4. Paul performed miracles, which lead authority to his claims.

[@EnoYaka]

Peterson is non-binary lmao

[@OlviMasta77]

ShirtSon Oneakay lel

[@LeekowalskiWalker]

ZiisusChrist whats It like to be completely humourless?

[@LeekowalskiWalker]

What you aren't getting is that the comment you are replying to is a joke about the fact that Peterson refuses to recognise non binary pronouns for all this gender stuff that's going on recently but then announces that he himself is non binary as to whether god exists in a literal physical historical sense. And you totally missed the joke, you humourless fuck.

[@RoflCraft96]

just because you think like that and 2 others, doesn't mean everybody on earth does it. Ziisus had a good point.

[@julioarcaiko]

Lol I'm a fan, but this was funny.

[@dairycans]

"I've experienced the mysterious in a variety of different ways and it's very . . . mysterious."

[@williamvallespir5509]

Just has no idea.

[@tygyrlylly8079]

I know exactly what he means

[@chrisloukas8530]

@@tygyrlylly8079 Can you help as understand the problem ?

[@tygyrlylly8079]

@@chrisloukas8530 absolutely not

[@chrisloukas8530]

@@tygyrlylly8079 Then so be it . Go make your bed or we will all end to the bloody Gulag , roughly speaking .

[@Deciheximal]

"Do you believe you're sitting in that chair?" "I don't like answering that question, because I don't like being boxed in. Second of all, what do you mean by 'chair'? Humans all need a foundation to rest their posterior at some point in time, as the Greeks would put it, 'assos ess restarus'. But such an action dismantles and rebuilds your center of gravity..."

[@user-sc7nz1kr3b]

anony mous what some atheist do not know is god a compilted thing

[@elizabethann8939]

anony mous I agree

[@dylanstump7389]

Atheists dont believe that a god exists its not about how complicating he is.

[@user-sc7nz1kr3b]

Dylan Stump i wasnt talking about you dont believe in god, i am talking about the way you see your self as a superiorhuman just because you dont believe in god, and the you start to think is "god exist or not" question is simple, ifs not , you have to understand god first, or you will be like 80% of atheist who becoming atheist because of dawkin

[@dylanstump7389]

well I personally became an atheist when I was around 11 and it had nothing to do with anyone else because back then there wasnt internet at all, so from my personal experience God is no more than what you can read from the bible the bible is the only supposed text left behind from him; furthermore, this text wasnt even written by him nor was it completely accurate as it had to be translated from a forgotten language into many other languages which brought about many different alleyways for peoples beliefs in what God is. This makes it where the bibles God cant be narrowed down into a category of yes he is this or no he isnt this because we cant actually receive any accurate information about him to begin with. This leads into what is the true meaning of the bible? What morals does it display? some denominations believe you cant be gay others do, some say it agrees with slavery others dont. How can you truly say you even know what your bibles meaning is when there are so many other people saying the opposite, and how can you truly no the complexity of something from inaccurate text. Trying to explain complexity in language that is distorted and word patterns that arent used in modern times should seem unreasonable to you right? Edit: sorry if I seem like im rambling at points

[@JediNiyte]

I want to know if Jordan Peterson believes that consciousness survives the death of the brain.

[@JediNiyte]

I missed it. I'll give it a second listen. Thanks!

[@t-rizzle0509]

This is already a fact, so he really doesn't have any reason to believe.

[@adventurer3645]

You sound like a typical teenager that thinks he already knows far more than he actually does on the topic. Of course consciousness can possibly exist independently of the brain. Write a book on what you're thinking and after you die your thoughts continue on just in a different form. Only partially but as technology advances that partiality can possibly grow to near if not completely 100% someday.

[@JediNiyte]

I both agree and disagree. Having your thoughts survive in written media isn't consciousness. Possibly replacing your own neurons with technological upgrades sounds like a perfectly reasonable path to immortality, and one I'm banking on. In fact, I have a cryopreservation policy through Alcor for just that eventuality. I'm quite serious about seeing how far I can go on the immortality train. But I am NOT banking on the idea that consciousness exists separately from the network that creates it (whether neurologically or digitally). There's simply no evidence that consciousness is a thing that exists out in the aether. ;)

[@adventurer3645]

+JediNiyte I didn't mean written media was the same as consciousness. It's only when someone reads it that it becomes conscious thoughts again in their mind. Of course they might think about it differently than your original thought. As far as evidence that consciousness exists outside of the mind, it is possible to measure the electrical signals of the brain from outside of it. They even have an interface to control your computer's mouse by only your thinking about where you want the mouse pointer to move.

[@Nick_Shirley]

he answered simply, "I dont know". if you listen to many logical atheists Sam Harris from what I can see is entirely reasonable, still gets stuck on his own thoughts on life to which he cannot answer. Not to say that he does quietly believe in God, which we know is not true for him, however when you really listen to him in interview amongst friends he does have a lot of unknowns in the way he thinks and cant seem to put a finger on the source of those thoughts. Peterson is similiar in his observations that he knows intuitively that something else exists in from within or from without. They both in their views are honest enough to admit that they dont have enough wherewithall to understand these facets of themselves and of the world that seem to at the very least appear to have a transendant resemblance, although that does not neccessarily mean that they are transcendant. I always appreciate someone one who can admit that they do not know, when it comes to philosophical matters too many are too quick to create answers that look like psychological gymnastics to fit their worldview, they invariably see these issues pop up when theyre thrown a "curveball" to which they cannot fit their dogma. Atheists and Theists alike both can fall prey to this when asked fundamental questions about their beliefs and expected to apply them to their world view dogmatically. Materialists struggle to find metaphysical answers to philosophical questions that dont fall within their worldview simply because many of the questions they are presented are immaterial ie; morality, consiousness, emotions, to which many reach beyond simple neurons firing in their brains in response. Theists struggle placing metaphysical answers to natural or material happenings such as natural disasters or "where was God" questions. I credit both sides because they are genuinely pondered in both camps. The difficulty follows when we throw in an arguement that we are (potentially) material and spiritual, matter and metaphysical, eternal and tempora existing within a spititual and physical context. I can always appreciate the honest answer "I dont know" so long as the individual follows with an open mind to want to know at some point.

[@IVilnn]

Holy fuck this is an A grade comment

[@thomasfolkerts6754]

*Applause*

[@pablowall]

i think your response is very elaborate, but a bit misguided? why is it assumed that every single question is in fact valid? the question "does God exist" is a lot like the question " do i have an hermaphroditic albino walrus in my garage?" there's absolutely no reason to entertain such a claim. There are infinite hypothesis which are impossible to disprove, much like the existence of God, this fact does not give any relevance to the question however. Unless there is a plausible hypothesis or evidence for something, it is irrational to consider it seriously. Brb Wally the walrus is hungry.

[@Havre_Chithra]

What he's saying is that "He doesn't know for certain if God exists, but he's going to behave that way because it's beneficial to do so". We don't "know" if other people are really and truly conscious -- we can't know -- but we are still going to act as if we can know and that it's true because it is in our best interests to do so.

[@pablowall]

But Ryan, why not act in accordance to if Allah exists, or any of the 10's of thousands of Gods? why is he acting in accordance to the Christian God when there's no more or less evidence for his existence? for political gain is the answer, he doesn't want to piss off Christians for some reason or another. But there is no logical reason to tailor your actions in accordance to the Christian God's existence .

[@dear_totheheart]

I highly appreciate his honesty, insight, and willingness to still learn and be open to these very complex concepts. This is quite refreshing and I hope that he'll keep striving for truth

[@guitarfoundry]

what about his dishonesty in this video?

[@mr12aT]

I had to stop watching 4:28 ... he might be smoking too much dmt

[@joblow9752]

deartotheheart - there is no truth as there is only what is true to each individual. You would never know love without hate, peace without war blah blah blah... all must exist for if truth is known, there would never be conversation and hence no energy generated for the entities that control humans

[@pablowall]

really? it looked like a thinly veiled excuse to not answer the question literally and therefor alienate either the atheists OR the religious.... he just aimed to make the question seem more obscure and complicated, when in reality it can be assumed that he was asked whether or not he believes in the literal, common definition of God. "do you like fishing? well that depends on how you define fishing, if you're talking about fishing for approval and support then yes, i like to do that".

[@andrearace1168]

There is objective truth. Scientific laws and math among other things are going to be consistent regardless of individual belief. Even if we assumed you were right, what happens if one individual decides that in their truth it's okay to kill someone? Legally, how would the courts determine if the killer was right, or if the victim had a right not to get harmed if everyone has an equal say on what's true, and there aren't any objective ways to measure it? I'm not sure I understood the part where you say, "All must exist for if truth is known", but given the context, I'm understanding it to mean that if humans know what is true then there wouldn't be any conversations. I think if we did know everything about everything, yeah, there wouldn't be much to talk about, but luckily that's not the case, and might not ever be. As far as the stuff about energy generated for entities that control humans... idk... I'm hoping that by "entities" you don't mean like intelligent ones, but like social structures and upbringing and other sociological kinds of things.

[@terrapax5065]

Many people believe they are philosophers, few people actually act as them. Thank you Jordan for your insights into a question that has been responsible for so much animosity in our society.

[@L7lighthouse]

Peterson's holistically comprehensive and honest open-ended approach is more than just refreshing. I suspect he will become a game-changer in the way philosophy and religion must be addressed.

[@Transliminal]

**The channel author has since been kind enough to contact me and ask permission for reuse--if you'd like to support my original work, please support me on Patreon. Thank you!** Please be so kind as to ask me first before pirating my material, arguably "fair use" or not. I'm a reasonable person. At a bare minimum, please clearly include my channel name and a link to my Patreon account in the description. It's the least you can do in exchange for my having put considerable time and expense into conducting and editing the video, then putting it up for everyone to view for free. Thank you.

[@philcowan5456]

Transliminal it seems you have been having many problems with other channels using your content. Might I suggest cutting up the 3 hour interview yourself and putting clips on your own channel.

[@Transliminal]

No it's fine, actually, there is recourse, id just rather not take it, and simply have people ask permission first. So far everyone's been reasonable, current channel included.

[@Transliminal]

Phil Cowan I'm actually quite happy to have people do it themselves, and share it around--just need them to ask for necessary permissions as per the law. So far everyone's been reasonable and mostly compliant when I raise the issue. All good.

[@philipcollier263]

Transliminal I have no idea how you can be so calm when confronting somebody who has stolen from you. I won't be watching this channel again.

[@Transliminal]

Philip Collier No, no it's alright--he's since contacted me and included my Patreon info, etc., in the introduction at my request. I'd have expected him to since delete the comment, but it appears he hasn't. Please don't feel obliged to boycott--instead please just support me on Patreon! :)

[@robbyschwartz]

My favorite part of this is Jordan Peterson saying: "I don't know..." I feel like its brave for a celebrity intellect to say this, also I think its important.

[@mspixiedust100]

I can't help but think that JP is adorable. I always feel that way when watching his talks. God bless him.

[@intrinsicrauss]

When you don't want to answer a question, just ask to define every word in the question.

[@chaueter1041]

Yep

[@LucidSoundz]

Not really. Context is important when answering a question that deep. And its deeper than people would like to admit.

[@BrotherTree1]

No, that kind of a conclusion suggests stupidity and that one isn't thinking enough, multidimensionally. The kind of box or pigeonhole that Peterson speaks out which is just solely and overly focused on one side of matters. Also if he didn't want to answer the question, I think he would have said so and refused to answer it rather than go into a detailed analysis. And if you dismiss it without any detailed analysis of your own, you're not understanding him.

[@tygyrlylly8079]

@@BrotherTree1 💯

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Lucid, in This case... yes, really. This was an egregious exercise in question dodging.

[@markhutchins7808]

Listening to this man makes me feel engaged. And I think more about what I am doing and how I am living.

[@evilallensmithee]

If I ask, “do you believe in God?” I mean “do you think it is more probable than improbable that an extremely potent (probably omnipotent) creative intelligence predating this universe designed the physical world in which we live, exists?” And I suspect most people mean more or less the same. Am I wrong?

[@evilallensmithee]

So am I alone?

[@KudistosMegistos]

No, you got multiple upvotes from people agreeing with you! But it's worth bearing in mind that the topic is so contentious that a lot of people _prefer_ less precise questions; imprecise questions leave a lot of room for weaseling out of proper answers without hurting anyone's feelings. Ultimately, most people don't like giving concrete answers to those kind of questions unless they know their audience will be sympathetic.

[@GrammeStudio]

@@KudistosMegistos yes, leave as much room for interpretation as possible. so that one millennium later, you can condemn those who dismiss your ideas because they can't understand it. and while you're at it, condemn them for being skeptical of dragons and unicorns as well. after all there are komodo dragons in the Archipelago of Indonesia and rhinos that are of single(Latin: uni) horn (Latin: cornu). brilliant. we have just proven dragons and unicorns. condemn them for refusing to perform mental gymnastics with the intellect that is gifted to them. and any justification they use you can dismiss as excuse because you're the higher authority on logic and morality.

[@AE0N777]

Sure. He knows this. However, what is omnipotence? What are the characteristics of a being which possesses it? Think about this, and you might understand why he’s saying this.

[@aryebell3466]

Its not as binary as you propose. Ithink that the smartest ppl dont know the truthb to this world dont know if tgere is a creator with will or not and dont kbow what happens after death. Could b nothing but again, you Dont really know. So just enjoy ur time and dont listen to religious/atheist s

[@solarnaut]

Is the sky blue? You WIll NOT box me in with blue skyers!

[@ssmall8311]

sol rayz Well, problem is that colour is merely a human observation of different wavelengths of light. Asking a colourblind person what colour the sky is will probably result in "a shade of gray", because of limitations of human observation. However, if one were to ask: what wavelength does the light in the sky have? This can be answered with specific measuring apparatus.

[@BizVlogs]

I act like the sky is blue

[@drmadjdsadjadi]

Define what blue is please as well as sky according to how you view them. Then and only then can the answer be given to your question. If we begin from different assumptions, we will misunderstand each other.

[@PureBrutalSickness]

the sky is blue? "looks out the window" looks pretty black to me. lol

[@clrusaf]

What your eyes detect as blue may not be the same as what mine do.

[@nicks3283]

Sorry if this sounds like an insult but Peterson would make an amazing politician or at least an interview prep specialist! Because seriously, way to give an answer without an answer 😂 Of course you can derive his standpoint, but he tries hard to not "box" himself in.

[@holysecret2]

Nick Stark I think many or most politicians are happy to be boxed in with their group

[@poopymcfartass1640]

People follow things blindly, like the idea of god and christianity. He is saying he is open to the idea about it but that he doesnt know, and that if he talks about it he would just be saying things that he is unsure of. The idea that there is a god is interesting, and nobody can say with 100% certainty that it it exists or doesnt.

[@beefwarrior9196]

He is a psychologist after all. these people are trained to answer questions without giving an answer.

[@poopymcfartass1640]

I think he is on the fence about it. Old folks tend to do that when they know they only got a decade or so left.

[@BattousaiHBr]

+Shane Micpre he is clearly pretty far on the "i do believe" side. saying he doesn't know whether jesus' body actually resurrected is a clear indicator of that. no sane person would ever take this seriously as to consider a near 50/50 probability. besides, if he didn't, why would he bother basing a ton of his arguments and opinions on what the bible has to say? why would anyone care about what the bible say if they didn't think it was true to some extent?

[@swmient]

Excellent. Thank you for posting. An honest philosopher. No BS.

[@cockoffgewgle4993]

Lmao. He babbled on for 10 minutes and didn't answer the question. He sounds like a postmodernist. He obviously does believe in God and is ashamed to admit it because it undermines his whole "rationalist" shtick.

[@basedchad6035]

@@cockoffgewgle4993 bruv he didnt babel. Ur just to goshdamm stoopid

[@zatcharybelltucker735]

"Sometimes it's such a big part of you that y o u a c t u a l l y d i e . " This goes so deep.

[@kontra]

I would like to see a discussion with Peterson and Ravi Zacharias. Two erudite individuals. Would be a great conversation

[@BatmanAOMC]

Well... Too late, Zacharias died yesterday.

[@soapbxprod]

"I act as if God exists." Blaise Pascal's Wager. Groovy. I'm all in.

[@enemywithin1295]

The problem with Pascal's Wager is that, surely, with God being omniscient he would know that you were just playing the game for fear of reprisal, as opposed to genuine faith.

[@stevescoffee8325]

@@enemywithin1295 that is a good point but also Pascal’s wager ignores the fact that there are about 4000 religions, hope you picked the right one.

[@marcusernst]

Pascals wager is as I've read it a wager. But from how I've interpreted the lecture of Professor Peterson. He uses god as a practical solution to an innate problem with natural hieararchies. At least that's how I interpret it.

[@seanmoore4269]

No one knows, so who cares. Just live your life and be amazed.

[@Russoxo]

8:40 "Magical things happen as the logos manifests itself. Now, that's self-evidently true." Jordan Peterson. What?!

[@manubishe]

People being cured from 4th stage cancer. That's the closest to magic that I've heard.

[@hisoka8031]

@@manubishe I think it would be awesome if someone who had lost their legs growed them back, but god seems to be limited

[@manubishe]

​@@hisoka8031 You might also be connected to said someone, and take your own legs for granted. Where's life without appreciation for what you have, if those that don't never cross your sight? There's no cure for cancer, but lost legs are replacable with various ingenuities from other children of god in men. Can't let humanity all wishes granted lest they go do something stupid as stick their fingers in the socket, just for the thrill of it.

[@hisoka8031]

@@manubishe Nah, people lost their legs before we could replace them...

[@manubishe]

@@hisoka8031 Let's go back in time

[@ppopa_022]

He is such an intelligent and educated person. You rarely see such a complex and complete individual. He is a true inspiration.

[@SSmotzer]

"I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing. True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing." - Socrates Jordan here knows too much for his own good. A smart man believes nothing, he has not tied himself to an idea that could sink. Smart men swim freely. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

[@YoungMommy14]

He's educated. I don't personally construe him as terribly intelligent. He loves to ramble on and on and on, without ever making a single proposition. He'll speak for an hour in a complete ambitious nature. He never makes definitive arguments. He also never reveals what he truly believes about anything. He's the most frustrating person to listen to I have ever come across.

[@lilrollie3642]

This is the most insane comment I’ve ever heard get mental help you absolute weirdo

[@zer0python]

If I'm reading him correctly, the answer is "yes", He believes in "god"; However, his notion of "god" is not the same as the normal connotations associated with that word. Being a psychologist, He has a very good understanding of how the audience's psyche will interpret a line like "I believe in god", and immediately associate it with their own interpretation of the word. Words are trickier than many people give them credit for. (Does hearing a certain word, or seeing a certain symbol really trigger the same neurons in every individual?)

[@zer0python]

Obviously just speculation/conjecture. Take it for what it is.

[@kevfoda]

This is the best interview I have ever seen of Jordan Peterson. The interviewer is incredibly smart and is one of the rare people able to follow Dr.JP and not only that he adds to the topic very wisely

[@JamesSmith-cm7sg]

Can we get to the point?

[@hrbeta]

James Smith you (we) can’t handle the point 😶✌🏼

[@nvision26]

What a beautiful mind, I'd love to have a long conversation with him. I have never heard anyone think through things the way he does.

[@tygyrlylly8079]

He is absolutely fascinating

[@hisoka8031]

Its just cause he is famous...But maybe there are people around you with greater thoughts and you dont listen

[@michealtackie1216]

I think belief in the resurrection is a key foundational point of Christian belief. If he can't give an unequivocal answer about the resurrection then he can't really call himself a Christian.

[@Shackkobe]

The question: "Do you believe in God?" is not complicated. As someone who once struggled with this question, I can assure you that Peterson's approach is one which indicates that he is uncomfortable with the ramifications of giving a "yes" or "no" answer to this question. In order to cover up his insecurity, he overly complicates the question in order to obfuscate it. If you listen to his lectures, you can see that this man is very knowledgeable on many topics including the Bible. But in this interview, he says "I don't know" many times. Considering his portfolio, he isn't supposed to be this ignorant on this topic. Therefore, I am inclined to believe that it is willful ignorance on his part, stemming from his reluctance to deal with the ramifications of the answer to the question.

[@abbacuspotter9232]

I just don't think you understand how people engaged in the field of psychology think. Also, if Peterson was the kind of man to care about the ramifications of what he says, he wouldn't have protested the use of compelled speech for "gender" pronouns.

[@hadoukengad6109]

I think I differ. My take on thisnis that his careful approach and vulnerability here is but an extension of his openness. He might have certain bias towards a specific answer. But this is the truth, we don’t know. Therefore he can’t make up his mind about it. Now you might think it’s crazy that he’d entertain irrational and seemingly impossible ideas, but have you heard his anecdote about the ghost incident? His openness allows him to think about the experience he had, and I’m fairly sure that other experiences might have influenced his undecisiveness regarding the topic. Like anyone would, when presented with things outside their understanding

[@BattousaiHBr]

+Hadouken GaD if i had a ghost experience, i would not jump to supernatural conclusions as my 1st, 2nd, 3rd and not even 100th option. an actual ghost would bring up a whole slew of more questions, which could be easily avoidable with a barrage of individual and simpler natural explanations.

[@hadoukengad6109]

BattousaiHBr and you’d be leaving behind one conclusion out. And yes, maybe one of those hundred conclusions would be right. But what happend when your natural conclusions become so convoluted and complex that the odds that they happened are lower than a frigging supernatural experience. Haha, give it a thought.

[@drmadjdsadjadi]

Knowledge is "justified true belief." So much about the nature of God cannot be known because it is impossible to determine if it is true. Saying "I don't know" is the only reasonable answer to most metaphysical questions.

[@hamnchee]

That he answers the question "do you believe in the literal resurrection of the body of Christ" with "I don't know" doesn't baffle me, as we don't really "know" anything, but to ignore the implications of literal resurrection seems willfully dismissive of reality. If he was resurrected physically and attained eternal life, why is he not walking around? Obviously because he ascended to heaven, but where is that? Clearly up, at least according to witnesses, but how far? Into space? Does a resurrected body no longer need oxygen? Was Christ still breathing anyway before he left? What happens to useless lungs in a resurrected body? What does the body do at all, and how? It just seems a very silly, stubborn, and unnecessary position, even in the context of, presumably, 'acting like God exists' for the sake of building strong character. Answer honestly and say you don't believe in literal resurrection due to "being in line" enough. This is ridiculous to me. The wisdom is in the literature, the myths, and the legends. Is there a need to conflate myth with fact to make it more valuable?

[@verticallogic5909]

no, Jesus was not resurrected with a physical body..............

[@michaelbaggett5542]

vertical logic how do you know?

[@teh_hunterer]

I must say, his refusal to accept that the literal resurrection of Jesus is impossible really disappointed me. Really disappointing.

[@michaelbaggett5542]

@Hunter Poelsma why so close-minded? If there is a God (which Peterson seems to believe) why couldn't a literal resurrection happen?

[@Chris-ls1vp]

It is disappointing because he is a logically minded person who, if applying any knowledge of science, knows that ressurrection of the dead is not biologically possible for a human being.

[@ShogunV]

If you act like there is God then you essentially believe in God. And if you're a materialistic atheist who acts as if there is value to the human being beyond just a bunch of molecules then you essentially believe in metaphysical values that you can't prove.

[@castor3020]

You are skipping past so many things, atheists give human lives a lot of different and inter-connected values: on top of your "bunch of molecules" are: - Consciousness - A member of the same species - Potential ally/friend.... - Law - etc. Do I believe in metaphysical values that I can't prove? Seems to me that Peterson is riding way to deep into the idea of god here to bring anything useful out of it. it's pondering for pondering's sake.

[@ShogunV]

Kastor Hallavainio That's nice, but you're missing the fact that under a materialistic worldview there is NO reason for why you OUGHT to value all humans just because they're conscious or because they're same species. Why is it immoral to put my greed and personal gains above the wellbeing of others? Under materialism the only constant rule is selfish survival (survival of the fittest, remember?) The human value is variable and arbitrary.

[@billylad879]

ShogunV Acknowledging our pointless existence does nothing to shift our views on the value of life. Sure, it may have no porpose but we may aswell give it one. In a sense it's optimistic nihilism. I personally want to enjoy life, even though I believe I'm just a bunch of molecules with no real porpose, it doesn't make my experience of life any less real. I can still feel empathy and sympathy for others as it's a natural effect of societal development among humans.

[@ShogunV]

BillyRacer 3736 Your "optimistic nihilism" is still nihilism, albeit with a cheap tuxedo. And you only BELIEVE our existence is pointless, it is not a certainty. But it does leave you with a morally absurd position; you believe in value when your worldview says there's none. What is it that you guys call believing in something that doesn't exist?

[@gracebosch7484]

ShogunV I'm sorry to hear that you believe people only receive their intrinsic value from the carrot and stick your god calls heaven and hell. That is the ultimate morally absurd position. To see the world through the eyes of the vicious monster Yahweh is a sad thing indeed. With him there is no intrinsic value. Whatever the boss says goes, whether that be enslave your fellow man or slay the nonbelievers. I believe people are worth more than that: ensnared in a cosmic game meant to separate the goats and the sheep. Obviously believing in something or wanting it to be true does not make it the case, but I can surely say that I'm very thankful this ultimate evil does not exist, except in the minds of those who have traded away their humanity for a comforting lie.

[@bluemeeni1658]

Even Satan believes and acts as if God exists

[@deltablaze77]

Be there a Satan he needn't believe in god at all, he would know. Interesting concept though if there was the classical Satan figure, the idea that he might take god's existence on faith.

[@gerry5955]

bluemeeni Does satan exist ? Try to the full extent of your limited intellectual ability to listen to what Jordan is saying and do not try to be a smart ass . because you are not smart.

[@pastorandrewsouther3824]

God acts like Satan

[@pastorandrewsouther3824]

the chosen potato read the Bible I’m plain English and you’ll see a petty evil narcissist named God.

[@franmorrison1080]

satan simply means 'an adversary' if you check the Hebrew. Peter was a 'satan' to Jesus when he opposed the will of Jesus. New International Version Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns."Matthew 16:23

[@Scottytoohotty41]

As a canadian myself, and as a guy who has a canadian teacher as a parent, i can tell peterson is canadian just by his body language. The way he holds different fingers as if hes counting is something canadian teachers and profs do all the time. Anyone else notice this ?

[@paradisecityX0]

Short answer, he's sort of agnostic but cultured enough to appreciate the bible and Christianity as a whole

[@eunomiac]

All I know is that, for twenty years, I've viciously defended rational viewpoints from theistic worldviews on every level. Peterson is the *only* person who has come even *close* to convincing me he has a rational leg to stand on. At the moment, I'm stuck at 5:39. If Peterson manages to convince me past that, it's going to be a very interesting day. My problem right now with Peterson (and it spreads to his discussions with Harris) is his too-easy conflation of the metaphorical and the real. Most atheists (myself included) are MORE than happy to engage in a discussion of societal archetypes and the Darwinian underpinnings of civilization... but we just need Peterson to say "no, I have insufficient rationale to believe that Jesus-the-man literally walked on water." Has he done that? Has he broached the topic of the *literal* and *scientific* implications of the supernatural corollaries of Christianity? Please let me know if he has!

[@ryu7597]

excuse me brother i do not know if u changed ur mind but i am answering ur comment ... and i think u made a mistake ... "but we just need Peterson to say "no, I have insufficient rationale to believe that Jesus-the-man literally walked on water" Peterson is not dismissing the idea that God is able to do anything ... he does not deny God's existence because the Human can not walk on water... he knows that God is defined as a Being which can do anything and making his servant to walk on water would not be a big deal ... u can't deny the existence of God because the normal human can not walk on the Water and Jesus blessing and peace be upon him walked on water ... u need to prove that God does not exist which would prove that Jesus blessing and peace be upon him did not walked on water and not the other way around...

[@eunomiac]

@@ryu7597 "You need to prove that God does not exist"

[@ryu7597]

@@eunomiac no.. Do not decide what my life is.. Just because u are convinced with something it does not necassairly mean that pepole behave because of that something... I do not believe because my parents raised me to,although it is a part of the reason, but i depand on logic in my believe and believeing in god is logical... I do not know if ur mindset got better but from ur comments it is clear that u make some fallacies which shows something....

[@eunomiac]

@@ryu7597 If you were born in India to Hindu parents, you would believe in Ganesh and Shiva, and think that Jesus was a charlatan. And the only difference there is who you were born to. You believe that Jesus was real and that Ganesh and Shiva are myths because you were _raised_ to believe in Jesus. Well, unless you _do_ have a "logical" reason to believe in Jesus but not in Shiva?

[@johnbarrett5229]

It sounds to me like you want Jordan to pick your side. He's deeper than that man - a lot deeper. And on the subject of Sam Harris - I'm still shocked that Peterson wasted so much time talking to such a disingenuous, shallow, ill informed "thinker". Harris is a fraud and Peterson is one of the 21st Century's great intellectuals.

[@marylynmikuen2212]

I died twice by asthma .I was brought back to life by Jesus. The second time I saw him .This is my poem .We are living in the day's of the book of Revelation . Dear Jesus You came in the night. So bright was the light. To bring me a gift. A heavenly sight. You look at my soul. Your thoughts are so pure. You bring me to life. So hard to endure. I look at your face. And see love for me. And all the little ones to be. What did I do to gain such a love, To receive such a blessing from heaven above. Eye witness Marilyn

[@capoman1]

Peterson uses such foggy language on this topic. It is because he wants to have it both ways. He doesn't want to be stuck with the irrationality that comes with defending the Bible as literal, but he wants to pander to Christians and religionists and bolster their claims and position. He'll redefine almost any term that has specific meaning when used by theists. I have heard Peterson redefine heaven and hell to not literal places that exist, but just "a state of being," like mental suffering is what is meant by 'hell' when Christians use it. He has redefined "spirit" in this interview to mean "a pattern of being," rather than the classical usage by theists which is akin to a ghost. He also refuses to say that he believes Jesus was resurrected or that God exists! I'd hardly call him a Christian. I think most Christians would disavow such statements. But they'll take him into their camp for the same reason they accept slimy intellectually dishonest apologists; because he is convincing, persuasive, eloquent, and can appear to "win" arguments. So those that act like Peterson "will school atheists" is hilarious. He is an atheist. He does not acknowledge the existence of a God. Don't get me wrong though. I love Peterson, I could listen to him all day. Although his field is not philosophy, I'm more interested in his philosophy than I am his psychology lessons.

[@dh00mketu]

I don't think he uses a foggy language. He tries to get a deeper understanding of the concept by questioning all the aspects of a question. Asking the right questions is an art in itself.

[@AndrewAtkinson1]

Surely, Dante's fictional decent into hell also plays with the idea that hell is a state of being, the sort of displeasure that Judas feels after he has the silver. Also, when you try and get to the bottom of what the golden age greeks and latins might have meant by spirit you are definitely dealing with the question of "being." Peterson is being slippery, but it the sort of slipperiness that you'll also see Charles Taylor engage in. It has to do with teaching religious studies in a secular context. It's pretty difficult to engage in disinterested debate about issues if you've already declared your final position. Most academic discourse is a language game and the language game is different than an internal state, or the teleological gaze of faith.

[@capoman1]

I'm not saying Peterson can't discuss these things, or that they've never been discussed before. I am just pointing out that Peterson is defending typical Christian concepts, and using non-typical descriptions, and then proceeding as if all of Christianity does not think hell to be an "actual place," just a state of suffering. This is a large departure from Christian orthodoxy. That is all I'm saying. And Christians will hear his explanations and applaud, because his analysis is rational. But the Christian will mentally support the traditional view of hell, they will just champion a rational speaker that actually disagrees with the orthodox Christian views.

[@jamesfarrell7465]

With you 100% on this. He's fleshing out and personifying Pascal's Wager. At times I think Peterson simply doesn't want "to be pinned down" because he wishes to retain some credibility in academic spheres. And professing unshakable belief in God is an existential threat to academic credibility; 90% of your colleagues will never again take you seriously. So he's being evasive on the point and, in doing so, he just dances around the question. A Christian would answer the question in one word without flinching. If you want to stump an atheist, simply ask them how the author(s) of Genesis (Torah) got the order of creation right. Given what little people knew of the universe thousands of years ago, the odds of laying out a coherent order of creation which generally conforms to contemporary science would not have been possible unless the Creator told the author(s). The creation myths which have arisen in other cultures are light-years-away-fantasy compared to that laid out in Genesis.

[@6idangle]

Yes Peterson does this on every topic.

[@songkipac]

Honestly i loved hearing him talk about it like this. The problem with many people today is they love to identify everything in the world and the universe around us as black or white as a definitive yes or no. The problem with that is that there are so many things that we do not know. Our mind is so finite and so limited. The honest truth about us is that we do not know everything. No One can disprove the argument that the human brain is a wonderful machine yet flawed in the fact that we do not have the answer to everything. That being said, no one can disapprove that God exists. The same can be said that no one can prove that God exists. And if God exists and everything in the Bible is true then it would be as God planned it. If we could definitively say that God was real then it would no longer be a choice to believe in God as the Bible says is necessary to eternal life. It would then become a very easy decision on if we would like to spend eternal life in heaven or hell. I think most logical human beings would prefer living in heaven Over hell. everyone would be obeying God‘s Commandments simply to gain entry into this eternal utopia. It would no longer be about believing and having faith that a creator of the universe would care and love us enough to send his son to die for us. It almost takes away free will which is what God values very highly(if God is real). To say that God does not exist would be to say that we have full confidence in our logical reasoning and man-made science and mathematical rules. And in the end if atheists are right and the theists are wrong then we die and nothing happens no consequences. But if the theist is right and the atheist is wrong...

[@SuvacoDoce]

Could someone help me? English isn't my native language and I'm experiencing some trouble to understand whats he says arround 1:27: "...now I believe that... for all intents and purposes I believe that the ???????? is divine" Thanks in advance!

[@Kanzu999]

I could be wrong, and I definitely don't know Jordan Peterson well enough to conclude anything, but I imagine that he was raised in a Christian/Catholic family and have therefore been trying to make his faith fit in his worldview, which doesn't seem very easy for him.

[@stratmandufus]

Everyone wants him to answer a simple yes or no, but the reason we are watching a Peterson Video is to listen to his brilliant dissection of reality. Any idiot could answer yes or no.

[@shughl1]

I think the reason why some people accuse him of being awkward is that many of the people in the US and UK spend a decade and a half in school and don't have a lot of time for introspection. So when they meet others, they use arguments that they have been given during the schooling process that they actually believe are their own and not a collective worldview that has been boiled down and given to them in pieces. So when you engage in conversation and you have stepped outside of that system and construct but you are speaking to someone still under the influence of that construct, you have to do a lot of explaining. Looking at the conversation and where he is directing it, I would say that Dr. Peterson is most likely Eastern Orthodox based upon the style of argument and discussion. If not, then he is probably Old World Catholic or Byzantine. It is doubtful that a protestant would be speaking in this way about the Logos and using such mystical theological terminology.

[@awyeagames]

Damn, what a clever and fascinating human being. I'm so glad that there are still people like this around the world.

[@blainefiasco8225]

You admire his postmodernist view of religion?

[@edwaggonersr.7446]

"Lord, if it be not Thy will that I know that I love Thee, please Lord, grant that I will always act as though I love Thee." St. Augustine circa 340BC

[@Tinto4]

Like listening to what he has to say for the most part...but this guy has verbal diarrhea and trouble with the meaning of words. Dead=not living. Doesn't mean "spirit lives on". And so on. Here, he clearly demonstrates why Sam Harris was correct not to let him off the hook when it came to defining the meaning of the word "true". He's absolutely spot on with the SJWs, but we part ways when he says he "doesn't know" about resurrection mumbo jumbo.

[@capoman1]

4:00 I love Peterson, he can appear arrogant about some things IMO, just in his presentation. On some things, Peterson will give outright statements of fact, even though he would admit he is stating his conclusions and opinions, not empirical facts. For instance Peterson has said matter of factly that humans are evil in nature. But ask him a simple question like "does x exist" or "did x resurrect?" where we still just expect Peterson's opinion on that issue, and Peterson resorts to the more humble position of "we don't understand x... we don't understand the world... we'll leave that one up in the air..." You can listen to him speak and each time he gives any answer or explanation, take into account if he is sharing something as fact, or if he is merely interrogatively exploring the topic with you. One could argue for the virtues, validity, and all of the details *of astrology* in the exact same fashion as Peterson does on his favorite religion. One could describe archetypes and psyochological mechanisms... Peterson could be a great advocate of astrology.

[@UrielCopy]

On point criticism, i agree with you!

[@louicoleman2910]

4:04 basically all he said boils down to this

[@Deciheximal]

So, essentially he said: 'Maybe? Magic might be possible, we don't understand the world very well, maybe if someone truly manages to be all they can be...' He's hanging on hard to his culturally instilled beliefs but doesn't really want to admit it, so he uses his intellect to weave and bob with fuzzy answers. He said it best himself, what is irrational about getting what he wants from everyone all the time - his self interest is king, and how people judge him is a big part of that.

[@wazoo652]

anony mous I think the answers very true he doesn't know. I don't know the extent to which he believes it but in reality he simply doesn't see himself as capable of making a conclusion. Not to judge but peterson always seems conflicted between his modern ideologies and his belief in christianity, they sometime work together but more then often collide and cause him to avoid questions like he did in this video.

[@harrissimo]

I know that this is a load of bullshit. I know this for sure.

[@JMichaelG]

Omae wa mou shindeiru

[@visuallena8730]

Loui Coleman I don’t know

[@gbrinch]

As a composer and a teacher of music working with the mysterious, which JP is unwilling to dismiss is actually my daily task and experience and the core of my passion for my work...thank you JP for putting it out there!

[@markbeeman6105]

checked your piece out, do you have any more?

[@mikebiro3148]

I died in a industrial accident 20 years ago. What I expearanced in that time was amazing. Time ment nothing I was watching my life as a movie. I felt like every molecule in my body was embraced, I was full of joy and happiness. I was never so content, as I looked up i saw a light and a man in it telling me its not your time. I just felt compelled and was happy to obey no doubt . When I woke I was sorrowful that I was alive because I felt a peace I never knew could exsist. Before I was emotionally broken after I was happy and at peace. God does exist 😂!

[@rudeyjones1621]

It's been 5 years. How are you doing?

[@parableproductionsvideo]

Playing a little loose with the way terms are traditionally defined in analytic philosophy.

[@notloki3377]

Who cares?

[@thecommenter1466]

What did he mean that he experienced the mysterious before?

[@OlviMasta77]

TheCommenter146 I wonder the same!

[@thequasar7058]

Prolly saw a ghost that told him not to jack off when he was eight.

[@faerlynfae6961]

Well, first of all you have to know what do you define the word mysterious is?

[@anastase2727]

Mr Peterson is a regular "god of the gaps" theist. The logos is certainly divine in the way Einstein meant it; mathematics is formal, not empirical. However it is in the knowing where the divine part is found. Mr Peterson's general ideas are contained in a realm of reward and punishment, but he seems to have no idea how this is actually works empirically.

[@tatjana9229]

you are fundamentally underestimating this guy.

[@Luftgitarrenprofi]

Tatjana Samardzija And the vast majority of his following is severely overestimating him.

[@mchristr]

Perhaps a better question would be: If God exists (hypothesis), how would God communicate that reality to humanity? Is the physicality of the cosmos sufficient or would special revelation be necessary? How can we know the revelation is from God and not simply natural phenomena?

[@blubobo99]

*doesnt wanna be boxed in* 30% of the comments are saying hes christian, 30% are saying he is atheist, and 30% -- that hes avoiding/overcomplicating the question.... Absolutely amazing.

[@agro0]

Meh, it this interview it feels like he wants the cake and eat it too. He uses a lot of foggy language and tries to redefine every critical word to something that hasn't a clear definition so he doesn't have to take a clear position. He doesn't want to commit to all the irrational and absurd things religion states, but he also doesn't want to upset all the religious community that admires him so much...

[@tf2er584]

L. Willis Everything looks irrational and absurd to the ignorancy of men. If you would only realize how much knowledge and studying is needed to form a valid view about religion.... apologetics together only contains already far more knowledge then science together

[@xGALEXYx]

Having thoroughly read some of Peterson's work this is a gross simplification. Peterson believes it is essential to believe in the highest possible good as your beliefs dictate your aims and actions - he argues most atheists (in a psychological sense) don't lack beliefs, you need beliefs about value in order to act. So the God that Peterson speaks of is the conception of the highest good and Jesus is the perfect example of living an honest good life. He's not stating much literally, just using religion as a framework for belief. Sure you can make up your own beliefs, but it will lack much of the depth gained in an emergent religion which manages to manifest thousands of years of human experience condensed to a story. Peterson views it all symbolically and indicates that nothing will compete with the profundity of the mythological stories. Watch his first bible lecture to get a sense of how he views things if any of that seemed interesting.

[@cloudoftime]

That's what he does in all interviews pertaining to these same topics.

[@Mcdonaldrod75]

Agree it's not a very good interview.

[@cloudoftime]

Birdhouse Yes, Jordan is attempting to equivocate these terms like he does with many things to try to make it fit his worldview. When people talk about God, or Miracles, or Jesus, or truth, or Divinity, or Resurrection, they don't mean what Jordan means. Because Jordan is trying to take what people believe is literal, and bastardized the definitions of these words so that he can say he is a Christian and he believes in these things, when he doesn't. It's intellectual dishonesty. Instead of using reasonable, accurate language to describe these things, he's attempting to redefine words that already have well-established terms and definitions which are used by the vast majority of the people in this category.

[@joeyj344]

DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD?!!!?????

[@e.t.gohome8042]

No.

[@Azirahaelx]

Or any supernatural being or phenomenon?

[@raygon8]

He said, He acts as if there is a God. Cause no one can explain the spirit in words

[@Azirahaelx]

what spirit?

[@thepainkiller4939]

noone can explain the spirit in words because it is made up bullshit

[@dou40006]

It is a bit of pointless discussion to be honest, it really looks like this guy can't go beyond a certain level of reasoning. Like he means : I want to bring the discussion beyond the religious aspect of things but then stick to religious circular reasoning all along. Very bizarre indeed

[@timwtucker]

'can't go beyond a certain level of reasoning', on the contrary it is almost certainly you that cannot comprehend beyond a certain level of reasoning.

[@fusion772]

Dude. The immutable laws of the universe, the Logos, change for no man. God's ultimate truth is majestic and sublime and you are sitting there with your bitch-ass Atheist assumptions, totally unable to wonder at the beauty and mysteriousness of the universe, because you can't see that God created it all for us. I can't help but feel sorry for you. Atheist existence has no morality or appreciation for Life because you have taken a look at God's book and all the wisdom he has laid down for us to see and to learn from, and you have ultimately rejected that wisdom and education. What a dumb move!

[@chrisnunes2876]

A question to Jordan Peterson. Have you looked at the works of Dr Timothy Jennings?

[@cs-op8td]

I am very impressed how prof Peterson fights for truth. " I am the way, the truth, and the life". I wish him finding the truth.

[@archilocus20]

What a useless ramble. It begins nowhere and goes nowhere. It's virtually a resurrection of medieval discussions of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. "Magical things happen as the Logos manifests itself. Now that's self-evidently true." "I've experienced the mysterious in a variety of different ways, and it's very...mysterious!" Really? The only sensible statement here is "I don't know." He should have left it at that. I gather Peterson is respected by a lot of people, but this doesn't encourage me to explore him further.

[@chinogambino9375]

Good assessment. I tried to get through a lecture and its just endless stories that meander around a point without making it.

[@evitam.7071]

Kyr Arnsugr That's because you didn't allow your mind to open yet...

[@benmaghsoodi2067]

All I see is a man who is well educated, well read, and even almost smart who fails miserably when he faces the deepest dogmas of his upbringing.

[@fusion772]

Oh, I see. Are you staring into a mirror?

[@MaxwellsWitch]

0:20 No shit it is a binary question. It's not a spectrum. There is not belief in a god spectrum. There are only two possible answers Peterson...

[@NumbBlaze]

So what if he dosen't belive in Allah.. or Buddha.. or Ra.. or Zeus.. or.. wait.. which god are we talking about?

[@DrMakak]

Any

[@TheExtremeCube]

Maybe youre just stupid, its probably that

[@JohnRossiter5]

I really appreciate Jordan Peterson honesty and candor. I believe Lee Strobel's documentaries would have an enormous impact upon his studies along these lines... I have recommended them too many people over the years.

[@marionpage1668]

Doctor Peterson I love an active mind. Being religious all my life, and I’m 78 years old, strangely enough I’m not religious now. Let me explain: I do believe in a higher intelligence, but not in the religious since. When I look at creation, and our eco system one has to admit there’s just too much intelligence for me to believe that we simply evolved without direction. I use the science of probability to understand most things. The science of probability is nothing more than odds of something happening the way the bible tells it to be, or the way religion has propagated it to be. Most children figure out there’s no Santa by the age of ten, why? Because they understand some things just aren’t possible. However religious people will swallow any story regardless of how outrageous it is. Most of the problem is in the book of Geneses. It doesn’t take a genius to figure of many thing written in this book to know it’s just not possible which I could deliberate on but time, and space doesn’t permit. The term the Force is probably the best description of the extraterrestrial intelligence involved. Now whether this being or beings are good or bad is for another discussion. However after having over twenty surgeries, and thirty hours under sedation that part of my life is missing, and I can only suppose that if I had died I would have never known I had ever lived, so death would not be a punishment to me, how could it if you never knew that you ever existed. Think about the idea of a resurrection of what purpose. Life is about family, and friends, and the way things were, that’s why there’s saying that you can never go home because life is always moving, and when you are away your home town has completely changed, maybe a few buildings remain as before, but the friends, and family hove moved on or died. I traveled the world, and after retiring I moved back on the same plot of ground I was born on, and I hate it because nothing is the same. I could go on, and on but time doesn’t permit.

[@kamilfrompoland7]

How are you sir? By what you wrote, and you wrote it some time ago, i see that you are on the very beginning stage, since in Romans, paul wrote that everyone know about God by contemplating created world: we all know that He exists, creation is not a coincidence. But this knowledge must lead us to seeking this God, we cant stop at this point. Everyone who seeks God finds Him and gain informations necessary to live good righteous life. This informations are in the Bible. Without faith in Christ, we have no fellowship with God, we are His enemies. As long as we live we have a chance to make peace with God by faith in the Gospel. Christ died for us and He is alive at the right hand of God. His return is near and so His Kingdom. Please tell me about your misunderstandings in the book of genesis and i will try my best to remove your stumbling blocks. Sincerely.

[@liamw6295]

So.... does he believe god exists or Not?

[@holysecret2]

Steve kickass what is commonly understood as god (physical, biblical god), he implies no, he doesn't believe in that

[@princememphis7726]

I think he was making a joke

[@paradisecityX0]

Yumidori Iro God never was physical (except as Yeshua). The biblical, quranic, veda, avesta, etc. God _is_ God. Just varying versions

[@Fenixyy]

Yes he does. At 1:05 he confirms it by saying "I act as if he exsists", which is the definition of believing.

[@igieswainebragt]

Fenixy and if i act as if i like you, i probably don't. So in my eyes Jordan Peterson is atheist

[@apocalypznow]

Scientists should ask: is science enough to explain reality?

[@Fragoul27]

Carlos Choy science can't explain every thing, religion can't explain anything

[@gendoruwo6322]

Science is not perfect, but it's still our best shot. Much better than just "But I believe it in my heart!" kind of argument.

[@Codycjhh]

We use reality to explain science not the other way around.

[@joblow9752]

science is just another religion... who gave a scientist a degree? another group of stupid fuck humans

[@BattousaiHBr]

+Timmy Zarysky there are actually no authorities in science. saying science is a religion is one of the most stupid statements one can make, along with "it's just a theory". maybe pick up a book or two, or, you know, open wikipedia and enlighten your ignorant self.

[@nedgey]

He is a closet theist (christian) who has constructed an elaborate framework to indirectly justify his beliefs, I think without having the courage to admit it.

[@jeptime657]

nedgey perhaps it's not courage that he needs. You see, unlike other atheist like Sam Harris or Hitchens (I love Hitchens), he doesn't think or he can't see the world as an accident, and that's a fair fact because who can say for sure that it is? Not does that mean that he believe in God? No. But it does mean that there is more to humanity and life than a random sequence of events. That is something he want to delve in, and there are the things that the Sam harrises of the world fail to see.

[@Daniel-dg3np]

Yet every single piece of verifiable evidence ever collected says that life is a random sequence of events. The only evidence we have of it not being so is a book stroking our egos telling us we are special and will live forever.

[@imoretull]

@Daniel - so why do anything "purposeful' in the first place; why strive for anything if everything is random. Don't say "I decide to live the way I want to live" because that is just a belief in whatever world decides to wake you up in the morning and wanting to counter this argument. You have "faith" in something, even a rational universe which you cannot explain why exists in the first place, why anything exists. You are basing on blind "rational" faith. I've come to realize a "rational" is a personality temperament where logic is most comfortable to them. Without logic the entire structure falls apart. All meaning is lost.

[@YemYum]

imoretull of course. You have to live logically. And currently, there is no strong evidence of a Devine presence. Now this immediately makes people think that nothing matters and life is meaningless. But to contrary, it can mean that everything matters. If god doesn't exist, then life becomes less of trying to please god and more of trying to live a happy life. Life isn't black and white like religion may make it out to be. Being skeptical of the Devine does not have to mean utter meaninglessness. It frees everyone to decide meaning for themselfs.

[@imoretull]

I agree with your existential view of life. That's the way I try to live as well because I don't believe in god. For a good portion of the population, though, the relative meaning of life would result in a conflict of values for society to function properly. You might be an inherently a "good" person however you define good. But, I doubt this would translate well for a portion for the population. Because humans have arrived at this point in history with a concept of a "god" to derive it's moral structure, without this, purely relying on reason and the scientific method would remove the very foundation that has evolved us (morally) to this point. The scientific method is not good at this point to handle moral values for everyone to generally mutually agree on. You might be genetically oriented to think beyond all this BS, but I firmly believe most people do not think like you (abstract in thought and can separate the dogma). Plenty of people who will take the value of a dog eat dog world to get by. Without an "ideal" or "god" evolved over 1000s of years, it would be utter chaos I think, even though your thought process is more in line to what I personally think. I think there is a human need for faith. When you are drowning in water, for example, you are not thinking logically what is happening, and what you need to do, how to hold your breathe, you just want to get out of the water because you will die. That has nothing to do with the scientific method. Logic only works so much. There is an inherent non-logical part in humans as well. It's like logically describing your first kiss. Logic can simply resort it being a biochemical reaction for the purpose of initiating pro-creation. I think you can't rely on the scientific method and then pick and choose what is important for you, since everyone has a different "meaning" depending on personality type, and upbringing.

[@me2143658709]

Professor Peterson's answer is frustrating but very real. Belief is a more complicated thing than many people are willing to admit. I'm in a Greek and Hellenistic religions class right now, and I find that he articulates many of the things we come across in class. It's often a focus in scholarship of did the people actually believe these things, and that, as Peterson said, is not a particularly useful question- specifically because we can never know what dead people believed. What Peterson gets at is that action is more important, it shows what you value and how you believe you ought to behave. You can't always articulate what the meaning behind rituals is, but that doesn't mean you don't value the ritual, or that you don't benefit from participating in it.

[@mikecane]

Are there any videos or writings where he goes into the mysterious things he has experienced?

[@nakedmongoose6837]

Dodged the question like a boss.

[@mad76s62]

Naked Mongoose he didn't Dodge the question he answered he kept repeated we don't know which mean that he agnostic.

[@Qugyuk]

I enjoyed watching an intellectual weasel his way out of answering a question lol.

[@Qugyuk]

just say "no" dude.

[@napoleon8017]

Qugyuk but he's saying ''yes,but I don't have any arguments why''

[@Qugyuk]

That’s not the impression I get- when u break down the statement “I act as though he exists” there is an implication there. Namely that he doesn’t exist.

[@napoleon8017]

Qugyuk I feel he didn't want to implie that

[@soapbxprod]

"I act as if God exists." Blaise Pascal's Wager. Groovy. I'm all in.

[@alexwarren1637]

Dr. Peterson puts an emphasis on LOGOS and how the highest fundamental thing people can do to be in alignment with reality is to speak truly. So, isn't it crystal clear that if he assumes Jesus is the best example of someone who is "completely in alignment" it means that Jesus spoke truly about himself? Jesus either spoke truly about himself and is divine, or, he is a liar/lunatic who wouldn't be worth admiring at all unless it was admiration in the same sense that one admires Hitler's cruelty.

[@thombran]

I agree. It's kind of all or nothing with these established organised religions which is why Peterson trying to pick apart their more interesting theoretical and philosophical connotations seems to miss the whole point. They're not designed to be picked apart and individualised... they're there to collect your time, identity, psyche...and money. Christian is not a word I would use for him. Spiritual or aware, perhaps. But being spiritual and religious seem contradictory to me.

[@RussianChelovekus]

I genuinely love that I have not his great burdens of society's dialogue he gotten himself into and can easily say I believe. Thank god that for now I can say it easily to myself.

[@dmhii8073]

@8:20 he tells us his stance.. he gives his clearest answer on the topic from his own personal viewpoint

[@HR-yd5ib]

No, would have been shorter.

[@BattousaiHBr]

he actually does...

[@HR-yd5ib]

You get that from this long winded "answer"?

[@BattousaiHBr]

+Radel Dadel no sane person would "not" believe in god and still mention it left and right and quote from the bible once every three arguments.

[@BattousaiHBr]

+JOHNNY i heard what he said, did you read what _i_ said?

[@BattousaiHBr]

+JOHNNY oh sorry lol

[@lazyfoxplays8503]

I’ll save you 10 minutes. He says, “You can decide for yourself,” “I don’t like to be boxed in” He avoids the question like a politician being asked if they believe in god. Saved ya 10 minutes. You’re welcome.

[@PrincipalSkinner3190]

TLDR He believes in God but construes that belief to be rational so as to avoid the obvious intellectual leap needed for such a belief.

[@mariogomez3262]

I like how both the Atheist and Religious are presenting arguments in order to have Jordan Peterson fall into their group....he obviously doesn’t want to be in either group.

[@jldkrank]

"When the Logos manifests itself something magical happens." In Christian tradition Λόγος (logos) literally means word in greek, which can mean discourse, or reason, but most importantly refers to Christ himself. It's one of the titles given to Jesus. To me, it sounds like he believes the Jesus was divine.

[@ohlawd3699]

Do you believe in God? Well, you have to first define what exactly you mean by "God", lulz.

[@prod.blukaas2598]

its a valid question

[@daxross2930]

Very valid question. I don’t believe in any kind of religious God but I’ll believe in something bigger than us whatever that is. I don’t think it can be put in the language

[@Strange9952]

That depends on what your definition of "is" is.

[@cookiecutter6735]

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 Entity of divine nature, omnipotent and omniscient, usually responsible for all creation. You cannot argue that it was out of context or that the interviewer might had been asking about oher kinds of Gods, he is known for discussing about the Bible a lot, it takes hardly an idiot to understand what he meant by "God". He needs to stop playing dumb and evading the answer with his vaguery and nonesense. Easy version for retards: -Do you believe in God? -What do you mean by _Go_ - -Shut the Hell up already you're not a toddler you are an old man you know exactly what I mean, now answear.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Classical theism is either true or false. No middle ground, which can be seen from conceptual analysis. Ditto for modified-classical theism (I.e. neoclassical theism or “theistic personalism,” although the latter is often seen as pejorative, a sentiment I don’t share). These are yes or no questions, even if we grant that the arguments for those answers are complicated with critiques and rejoinders. 1 second ago meow meow meow If Peterson lacks belief in theism, that’s fine. Just admit it. Lack of belief can be broken down into either agnosticism or so-called “strong” or positive atheism, with the latter asserting “there is no god” or “theism is false.” I am okay with “I don’t know,” but he would then need to clarify if, in saying that, he’s admitting that he lacks belief. This really isn’t that complicated, although the arguments for these views are.

[@h54h52]

I just love listening to this guy expressing his thoughts. I'm a born again Bible reading Christian, and what I would say is that Jordan is a man of integrity, a seeker after Truth. I think he would go where the evidence leads, and even if he didn't feel it led to God and His Son Jesus Christ he would still treat the whole issue with thoughtfulness and respect. What more could one ask for? I loved the description of this world as a musical masterpiece.. beautiful!

[@edsmelly]

Begins by saying that the term "God" is undefined and then promptly states that he lives as if "God" exists. What a bunch of crap.

[@willymiller8494]

Ed Smelly okay if you are so sure, that there is no God, why do you argue about it, but have you ever thought of this, what was her first the egg, or the chicken, or is there anyone who can make an egg .

[@fusion772]

God is undefined, because his power and presence are limitless, he is everywhere and in all things and at the same time he takes different forms sometimes. Since Atheists wanted to be a bunch of science-obsessed bitches and ask a lot of annoying questions about things for centuries upon centuries (can you guys give it a rest, already?) many doubts have been raised about God's "literal" existence (what does the word "literal" even mean, anyways?!) so Jordan HAS to concede that MAYBE God isn't real just to appease you damn people, but yes, obviously he is going to live his life as if the God of the Bible exists because, duh, that makes you a better person in your life if you do so.

[@StephanieTips]

7:29 - 7:33 the body doesn't resurrect accoring to the Gospels. It's the soul that resurrects. There is no glorification of the mortal body nor any elevation of the material (8:19) if not only the fact that the body is still a vessel that was given us and we can't throw away

[@jimmorrison8020]

"Patterns independent of their material substrate" - Spirit Jordan Peterson

[@sashajade8223]

I didn't believe in much of a heaven until I realized what creates hell.

[@Chimpanzaayyeeaaahhno]

wow what an edgy totally original quote that you most definetly made up on ur own. ur so cool. pls let me have your autograph

[@nosnova2048]

believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[@nosnova2048]

believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved THEN WHY DOESNT MY MOM LOVE ME ARE U SAYING GOD IS MY MOM?

[@dunn0r]

What a cruel piece of shit that makes him. Come on, the omnipotent god couldn't find another way to get us into paradise after death apart from brutally sacrificing his son? Like, you know, simply absolving us from sin the moment we die?

[@redwatch.]

He says it is self evident that magical things happen. For a person I respect, that is some heavy bullshit.

[@DirtBikes_MathGarden]

red watch I think you didn't get the full point he was making and I understand how that can happen with words like "magical" being used. But he stated that magical things BEGIN TO HAPPEN as the logos manifests itself (and this is what he finds to be self-evident). I have a hard time comprehending what this means exactly because I'm not entirely familiar with the term "logos" in this context, and I am unable to use significant context clues to extrapolate the precise meaning of it. However, if I can clearly establish the meaning of "logos" in this context then I believe we will be able to clearly understand the point he is making, which I do not believe is what you had initially suspected, respectfully.

[@bruce7548]

Okay, since it is apparently not self evident to everyone, I'll try to explain it a different way. What is called "Magic" happens constantly in human interactions. For example: Step into a crowded movie house and yell “Fire”. That single word will almost certainly alter the physiology, psychology, and behavior of a number of people. Sometimes it might not work as intended by the speaker, and sometimes it might have some unintended side effects when the police arrive and arrest you for practicing Naughty Magic. “Logos” simply means word. It has a mundane use and a sacred use. If someone says “I’m doing this for you” before making a heavy sacrifice, those words can have have a powerful effect on the two or more people involved, and can visibly and subjectively change the relationship between them for a long time. From an empirical sense, the power is not in the words alone as isolated sounds or marks on a page, the power is in how words are offered and how they are received, in what they mean to the speaker-actor and the listener-observer. Most people (my age at least) were taught that “please” is a magic word. It doesn’t ALWAYS produce the desired intent, but then socket wrenches don't always produce the desired result either, and intelligent people have no difficulty in discerning whether socket wrenches are real, even if they don't like using them and don't know how to use them. When the word “please” does not work, we might seek different words, or add time and dinner and mood music to, let’s say, a request for a kiss from a certain someone. Devious Seduction and Respectable Courting are both widely understood (and related) art forms and when done successfully, people sometimes use the word "magical" to describe what they experience, even if they understand that their emotion means a change in their bio-chemistry. Physics and romance can both be difficult, frustrating subjects, and not everyone is well advised to pursue them, because for some people there will be greater health and happiness elsewhere. With regard to the idea of "logos" in religion, words can have trans-formative power. At times, they can be totally inadequate to the task, and so a different type of activity is required, but generally, words powerfully alter relationships between human beings. We can't always draw someone else a picture, especially if we are imagining a series of pictures, but if we can use words well, we can transfer an image, both a mental image and the physical image-stream of an active performance. Humans want and need to alter their emotions and their biology and their social relationships and their economic condition and their genetic lineage. Word(s) or Logos have a significant effect on those things, as do music, costume, lighting, script. Collectively, those things have the effect on humans which we call magic - good, bad, or indifferent. Sometimes, brute force and intelligence are a lot more effective than craftiness and romance, but the magical effects of a long lever is a different conversation than what JP was looking to have here.

[@paradisecityX0]

Much more coherent than uber-materialist bullshit

[@mamoor619]

I try so hard to be calm when I talk to atheists , But you people are so literal and simple minded that it frustrates me . Search for "Our lady of Lourdes" in France , Not the story but the "miracles" of the its water I know you want to label it "bullshit" right off the bat , But really , Try researching that a bit and see what actual scientists and doctors have to say about it . I'm not saying it's Jesus , or God , Because how do I know ? I'm saying , There might be something more to the world , other than hyper simple materialistic world view . But hey who cares right ? Lets just say something fun and popular to get likes . The age of social media , At one hand it gave us people like JP that make you think really hard , often in different ways that you never thought of , And then there's people like you , Having no avatars , Trolling like pathetic losers , saying something popular to get likes and bend public's opinion by resorting to mockery . Just , Don't . All you succeed in doing is : angering people with common sense , And getting useless likes on the Internet .

[@Monsolido]

Archvile You're doing a great disservice to religious people.

[@baflange6477]

This is maybe the oddest video I've ever seen an intellectual proudly explains how he squirms and avoids actual important question

[@dw2369]

That's because he is struggling with the questions himself.

[@fellipedasilva99]

Some questions can’t be answered

[@millier.206]

I get it. There are a lot of people who write your intelligence off immediately if you say you believe in God.

[@manubishe]

You have your answers to the important question. How does that work out for you? Existence of God is not tied tightly to belief in God.

[@notloki3377]

People who avoid this question don't squirm. They already "know" the answer.

[@paladinascendant2446]

This really puts a wonderful spin on the subject. The elevation of the material.

[@therealawakener7]

Unfortunately Mr Peterson has overlooked one vital factor in relating to YHWH & Christ Jesus, and that is this, if it has not been given for you to know these things then you CANNOT know them. (Matt 13:11), "Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them." (Luke 8:10), "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, "'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'

[@Erict887]

He creates his own definition of words to avoid making a clear answer. He seems like the typical intelligent person traumatized by growing up in a religious home, unable to shake off his roots

[@Damalatorian]

Shouldnt you do that though? If the question is a fundamental one shouldnt you go on and answer it in the most individual way possible based on your own thoughts instead of the mass voices? Your own definition is the only one that counts if YOU are to answer a question of that weight.

[@bretmuldner]

He is still lost without his FAITH in JESUS!

[@jack50019]

no

[@rickwyant]

Deepak Chopra ,same thing. This guy is an intelligent nut case.

[@Daniel-dg3np]

More than smart enough to fool himself his whole life. His ego is bigger than his brain.

[@julioarcaiko]

Daniel T I love people like you guys, that know so much. You help so much, and your understanding does so much for society.

[@RoflCraft96]

Jewis this one was an extreme subtil one, holy shit

[@bitmastermac]

It’s beyond the scope of possible knowledge. I understand exactly what he’s saying and I feel exactly the same. It’s hard to be a rational man and have concrete opinions about things we’ll never know about. He’s a psychologist reconciling philosophers, and they couldn’t figure it out either

[@YoungMommy14]

I'm trying to figure out the name of the informal fallacy, you began with. (Paraphrase) 'The proposition is accurate, but you couldn't know because it lies beyond the scope of knowledge (whatever that means). If it lies BEYOND the scope of knowlege, how can you know it to be True. You just said that his claims lie beyond the scope of knowledge, you could not conceive it, which necessarily means that your proposition is Devoid of merit.

[@Brooklynbaby47]

Where is he a professor? ? I need to go back to the university

[@Strange9952]

Nile Whent He's a charlatan

[@GaganKPolska]

University of Toronto