Evaluating Jordan Peterson's Strangest Religious Argument
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 06. 2024
- Jordan Peterson is one of the most prominent public intellectuals in the world today, and one of his favourite things to talk about is religion. But in recent years he has given a series of arguments that I find endlessly fascinating because of their crossover with a view on philosophy that threatens to turn the whole field upside-down (in a good way!)
If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at josephfolleytutoring@gmail.com. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE.
Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice...
Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
Links to Jordan Peterson videos used:
The Greatest God Debate in History: • The Greatest God Debat...
The Problem with Atheism: • Jordan Peterson - The ...
You Are Closer to Believing in God Than You Think: • You Are Closer to Beli...
Alex O'Connor's video:
• Deconstructing Jordan ...
Books on Philosophical Pragmatism:
Cheryl Misak - Cambridge Pragmatism (this is an amazing introduction): tinyurl.com/2n4h45nf
Works of Charles Peirce: tinyurl.com/yckd4jxd
Huw Price Expressivism, Pragmatism and Representationalism: tinyurl.com/3h8a6wv9
00:00 Peterson on God
01:17 Peterson's Wager
08:42 The Demons of Dostoevsky
15:41 "You Already Believe in God"
23:31 A Pragmatic Philosophy
LINKS AND CORRECTIONS
If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at josephfolleytutoring@gmail.com. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE.
Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link&
Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
⭕ God told Moses on Mt. Sinai to use Pi 3.14 π as the cornerstone to build the Wilderness Tabernacle in 1440 BC. In 94 AD Josephus the historian wrongly described it as rectangular-shaped. Exodus 25-26-27 blueprints build a circular-shaped hendecagon outer courtyard. What is superior, the bible or confirmed secular/ecumenical history?
330 Exodus 26:8 eleven curtains each 30 cubits long
15 Exodus 26:12 one curtain is folded in half to 15 cubits long
- 1 Exodus 26:13 curtain hang over/seams add to 1 cubit long
= 314
3.14 = 314 circumference/100 diameter ≈ π ratio (100 cubit court per Exodus 27:9-18)
.................
Is this discovery like the Dead Sea Scrolls or even Martin Luther's 95 Theses? How did we miss this for 1900 years and does it even matter anymore? Pi is 3 or 3.14... very small difference.
..................
History of finding π:
-(1900-1680 BC) Babylonian 3.125 for π
-(1650 BC) Egyptians gave the approximate value of π 3.1605
-(1440 BC) Moses recorded Pi in the Exodus blueprints 3.141592653... Exodus 26:13 ≈ Pi
-(500 BC) India's Aryabhata approximation was 62,832/20,000, or 3.141
-(429-501 BC) Zu Chongzhi a Chinese mathematician 3.1415926 - 3.1415927
-(250 BC) Archimedes from Syracuse showed between 3.1408 and 3.1429
.................
More than a thousand years removed Josephus did NOT know Exodus 26:13 approximated Pi. He was describing the Temple's structure and NOT, and NOT the Tabernacle from Exodus 25-26-27. See?
Pi is coded in your DNA.
Consider King Josiah & the Prophetess Huldah rediscovering the forgotten scriptures, right? Will Pharaoh let this go? Almost 3500 years ago "Exodus 26:13 ≈ Pi" was lost on Mt. Nebo when Moses died. How will religious and non-religious acknowledge this systemic seed-changing paradigm shift? We going back in time in real-time to change history to line up the Word as it should've been.
Moses recorded Pi 1000 years before Archimedes from Syracuse's Pi. Everyone including myself rejects this text/arithmetic until studied personally. Please use consistent hermeneutics along with the scientific method for our non-religious friends. After confirmation please repent then rejoice. Please remember this is God's big tent.
Exodus 26:13 ≈ Pi ⭕ כְּכֹ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֲנִי֙
Peterson is a scam artist that tries to cater to as much people as possible, he needs money for his family and do not care about anything else
Read Psalm 14:1 and then do a google search for The Metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas / The 5 Proofs of God's Existence :
1 The argument from Motion
2 The argument from Causation
3 The argument from Contingency
4 The argument from Design
5 The argument from Perfection
Bro I might have something to share. There is a big debate in metaphysics about whether sub-atomical particles exist or not and many people say that debate is useless because we have no way of finding out the truth because of certain scientific technicalities but it doesn't matter. Scientists evolved a system in which they predicted that there are such particles and they laid their theories on that principle. I view the God debate in that light too. I don't get where there is so much attention paid on that because it is useless. Like sub-atomical particles, we have no way of finding out the truth. So why not talk and debate about the utility of religion than to roll out heads around what we can never get around. If you could tell me something of value against what I have said, I would be very pleased.
@@JaydayalCharan Generally speaking, I agree with you. However, being honest about one's foundations is important in order to avoid your presuppositions getting in the way of understanding how your engagement with the facts shapes your belief going forwards. The point in discussing and figuring out what is true in a strictly abstract objectivist sense is about figuring out what we have to contend with when we shape our understanding, and even if the conversation goes in circles and confirms that the answer is "we don't know" we can now hold each other accountable in acting as though we aren't certain, rather than pretending we do.
Bro is probably the most handsome philosopher at the moment
Edit: Yes, I am talking about the narrator.
Edit 2: More handsome philosopher would perhaps be Kierkegaard
Haha! That is very kind (provided you are talking about me and not Peterson, one of my female friends once described him as a "silver fox")
At the moment, nice to see you are keeping your opinion open.
I have not watched this video yet but I would like to express that I perceive myself as an atheist but with a behaviour best described as Judeo-Christian in nature.
I think the philosophers during the ancient times believed that beauty is in the intellect and behaviour of a person I am sure seldom interest in personal appearance
But Jordan takes care of his health
I used to be philosophical when I was a teenager and loved being logical, somewhere along the way. However, I ended up dropping the desire from the age of 17 to until now when I discovered your channel.
Your display and cadence and breakdown of philosophy make it very easy for my busy adult mind to understand what's going on while I'm working with my hands.
Just wanted to say thank you for making it more accessible for a working man like me again.
for some reason I kind of doubt your were philosophical at 16 but I guess it depends on your definition
He's like Rationality Rules but not insufferable.
@@kyleschaffrick3845define how you would use and interpret the word
@@kyleschaffrick3845youd be surprise how coping works
@@kyleschaffrick3845What is it about this person's comment that is suggesting they weren't philosophical when they stated they were?
vids been uploaded for 5 mins and he’s already replying, W creator
Ah thank you! Well I figure since I'm already at my desk I try to hang around for a little bit once it's up
Name of the video?
That’s literally the most common time for a CZcamsr to reply to comments.
Not even Peterson understands Peterson's position on religion.
That's probably because his position is evolving. He has many different. overlapping opinions and he tries to make them congruent. But these are difficult topics.
According to his close friend, Jonathan Pageau, Peterson is still figuring it out.
I think that’s fairly
Normal for a lot of people
@@jrd33 I've noticed that his positions tend to "evolve" toward agreement with those who pay his bills.
@@DarkMatter2525 Now yes but before all that controversy's? No way. Who? School board? State? He was amazing back then. Today, aside from jacket I desperately want, he completely lost it.
amazing consistency bro and i really love how you are always conscious that what you say is just your own interpretation of the issue and keep some skepticism like a true philosopher
Ah thank you! I try to be wary of my own epistemic limitations!
"Recovering logician student" new fav phrase
Loved the video. As a fellow agnostic I was always a bit annoyed at agnostics and atheists casually dismissing Peterson's points, calling it "word salad" and incoherent. His arguments always made sense to me and I found them fascinating.
Thank you! And yeah I felt similarly. I always thought it was a bit presumptive to just dismiss them without consideration, given that they’re certainly substantive and interesting
@@unsolicitedadvice9198the world is not only ignorant but possesses narcissistic tendencies as well.
Atheist here. I listened to Peterson for a long time, since he became a public figure in like 2017. listened to hours and hours of his lectures and podcasts and debates. Mostly I thought it was fun trying to decipher exactly what he's saying because he talks in such a weird way sometimes. And he does come up with unique ideas that get me thinking in different ways. So yeah I understood all his arguments for religion. And didnt casually dismiss them. But I did dismiss them because they're all dumber than a box of rocks
@@Will-xf3qe WOW listening so much hours of lectures, podcasts and debates from a person whose ideas are dumber than a box of rocks? You wasted so much time there... don't worry I understand, I used to do that too while I was on heroin.
@@Will-xf3qelet me thoughtfullly and analytically reject your comment in a non casual way.
It is dumber than rock.
There you go, enjoy my refutation.
You are the best dude, you make the most consistently amazing and fascinating essays out there
Ah thank you! That is very kind!
I have no idea how Pascal's Wager blew minds. I was able to poke holes in it when I was a child.
"But what if you're praying to the wrong god?" "But what if God punish you anyway for your dishonest beliefs?" Yeah, very easy.
I must give it to you. Your description and analyses about / of JP is / was spot on. I enjoy listening to you. Keep it up.
It's wonderfully refreshing to hear someone being critical of Peterson in a logical way, while giving him the benefit of the doubt. I don't have full confidence in all of JPs conclusions either but I have been fascinated by the perspective of the practical interpretation of "belief" since I heard it from him. BTW I think over repeated interactions with someone it would be pretty easy to figure out why they are reading a book among all of your listed possibilities, obviously people can be deceptive but most are bad at it.
peterson is NOT suggesting that believing in god is the better option, he is in fact proposing that specifically christian values should be our guide.
if it were simply the belief in a "god" he advocates for then that's all good with me, but that's not the case.
peterson is a right wing neoliberal who uses christianity as a template for bolstering his claim that the hierarchical structure of capitalism is not only just, but also reflective of a true meta order that must be respected.
he is a capitalist/feudalist DIRTBAG LIAR.
Great insights....Love all the way from Kenya... Always love your insights
Ah thank you! I am glad you are enjoying the videos!
Where from specifically 😅
No pazuri kuona wakenya wengine hapa internet yetu, mimi nili ishi tz na Kenya Kwa miaka kumi lakini sasa naishi uzungu. Nimefurahi kukuona kaka
@@invisible__710 NBI
What insights? He is just regurgitating his observation of arguments he has heard or read about. Can you give an example where he shared an insight of any kind?
Best video of Peterson's ideas I've ever seen. An actual honest attempt at perceiving his concepts has been seemingly too hard to do without trying to dunk on him. You got a subscriber because you engaged not just intelligently but honestly. Absolutely love the channel name btw.
What a consistency, you are making videos on such a speed, i am having difficulty to catch up with it. Great content ❤️
Appreciate the evaluation. It would be amazing to see the two of you on an interview or something. I bet we would all get a lot of value out of that conversation.
Have you ever thought of doing discussions or debates? You are beautifully well-read and articulate and I'd love to hear a conversation between you and Peterson. Keep up the great work!
I've never seen anyone break down Petersons believe, non believe question so thoroughly. Well done 👏
And he does it so quickly and concisely, far preferable to having to listen to Petersens rambling word salads for an hour.
peterson is NOT suggesting that believing in god is the better option, he is in fact proposing that specifically christian values should be our guide.
if it were simply the belief in a "god" he advocates for then that's all good with me, but that's not the case.
peterson is a right wing neoliberal who uses christianity as a template for bolstering his claim that the hierarchical structure of capitalism is not only just, but also reflective of a true meta order that must be respected.
he is a capitalist/feudalist DIRTBAG LIAR.
It's a pleasure to listen to you/your thoughts. Thank you
Amazing work. Can’t wait to get your thoughts on more philosophical arguments. Your intellectual honesty really makes you stand out and is a rare thing to find on social media.
Very well pit together and very digestible. Thank you
Thank you for watching!
Would love to see you and Jordan Peterson discuss Nietzsche together
and Dostoevsky
Peterson misrepresents Nietzsche almost every time he mentions him. He would have us believe that Nietzsche mourned the “death” of God and the church, whereas Nietzsche positively hated Christianity and rejoiced over the possibility that man might finally be free of its (in his opinion) sickly, weakening, decadent influence.
@@CrazyLinguiniLegsPeterson gazed into the abyss and the Benzos stared back at him.
@@CrazyLinguiniLegsWhat is your definition of decadence?
@@HiddenBlade156when an organism prefers what is unhealthy for it
So well spoken. I’m impressed with your thoughts and conclusions.
Súper fan, love ur choice of topics. And am very grateful for your shares/ channel ☺️
I like butter
facts
Margarine fans are shaking in their boots!!!
This deserves more likes
I like turtles!
😮
Thanks!
love how clearly and concisely you present these topics! not a single word wasted wow
This is far far better than anything I thought it would be, love your enthusiasm to delve deeper and yet keep it accessible.
It’s the classic “cart before the horse”. You “believe” you can jump over a gap based on past experience, and update that belief based on current and future experiences.
Just follow Bayes rule and remember you can be completely correct for the absolute wrong reason, and vice versa.
I searched Young Handsome Philosopher and this is what I got (great video btw, glad I found this)
Lol a rare combination of traits, props to the search on that one
Thank you for the wonderful subtitles. It is very helpful for keeping up and learning how to be better at english.
This was an awesome video. So well thought arguments and ideas. You truly are a master of your discipline, and your enthusiasm about these subjects are almost palpable. I salute you, you definitely are a teacher.
greetings from the Czech Republic
This was actually a really good video. I am glad that I subscribed. The last part specifically about how utility and truth are interlinked, and the quote about "Something tangible and particle [must be] at the root of every real distinction of thought." really articulated something in a concise way that I hadn't yet done, and, at least I think, I had been trying to do. God bless you man.
Really enjoying your content mate well done
Just discovered this channel, keep up good work man! 😊
Peterson is using a utilitarian based argument to guide people back to a duty-based ethic, which is required for placing individual rights at the center of a value system.
Since it seems most agnostics and atheists are utilitarian, I think this is an excellent tactic to get people to at least consider other possibilities.
Well put. It's too bad via Jungian existentialist woo lacks coherence and is a bit thin on community to keep his appeal as the agnostic professor daddy to wayward millennials and zoomers.
@@avertingapathy3052 What makes you think he cares about individual rights? The cult hes built up around him sure doesnt.
@@grapenut6094 You can look into any of his lecture at U of T before the recent controversies and before the last few years when he admittedly got more political. I think he is genuinely a liberal with a good heaping of trad/christian values and a bit and his share of eccentrism, but I doubt he is a totalitarian by any stretch - his study of totalitarian regimes, recognition of the fact that societies that degenerate into chaos do so multiple levels simultaneously, and then working for 20 years as a therapist and clinical psych professor to do his best to empower individual and promote their personal agency and integrity serve as evidence enough for many not completely drowned in the cult on the other side. Willing to bet its the ageist leftist cult that can't see past his boomerism and being a white male as in a position of power to stop frothing at the mouth long enough to engage in conversation. Although recently with Destiny that has been changing a bit.
@@grapenut6094 On the off chance that you actually care to know the answer. The lefty cultist politics are just called activism these days, as we all wait for trickle down social justice to come as they sacrifice another generation of men for sins of their forefathers. He seems to have dedicated 20 years of his education, research and therapy career to learn about the individual and has espoused the same notions that when societies trend towards tyranny it happens at all levels of society at once. Individual, family, and social, hence his focus on strengthening the individual and their psyche against tyranny. I think he is a very eccentric person, like many of above average IQ, and has no doubt his flaws which have gotten worse the last few years, but considering the people supporting Biden and his history, I don't think anyone on the left or center left cares particularly.
@@grapenut6094 What rights does he eschew?
I've never clicked on a video this fast. Been following Dr. Peterson for nearly a decade now and Unsolicited Advice is one of the only channels I regularly watch.
Dr. Peterson introduced me to Dostoevsky. I pray for the day that Unsolicited Advice uploads a video on one of the greatest novels ever written, The Brothers Karamazov.
"The Noble Lie" referenced in this video reminds me of the Grand Inquisitor
Same same, though only recently started watching the channel regularly
@@johnoliverfainsan3115 i think he already did, check his older uploads. he also already did crime and punishment
This is deeply helpful. Thank you.
Very good breakdown and commentary, bravo!
Pascal's Wager only makes sense in a world where there's only one religion with one god.
The minute you add in other religions then it falls apart. What if you're a good Christian and it turns out the Vikings were right all along? Or Islam? Or Buddhism?
Pascal fell into the trap of his own belief. Because he believed in the Christian god there was no consideration of other religions being true. But each has as much evidence of truth as the next one and as much moral contradiction to make you doubt its validity.
Once you factor in the high probability of choosing the wrong religion it becomes much more sensible to be agnostic on the whole issue: believe or not believe you're more likely to be wrong than right so as religious belief is a bit of a kafka trap the only reasonable option barring a direct revelation from the divine is not to play the game.
The closest i ever came to a religious experience was meditating. It felt like i connected with something but it didn't reveal anything to me aside from complete emotional release. There was no voice of god or vision of prophets or divine revelation. Just a profound sense of release. And that could easily have just come from inside me as i let a lifetime of buried feelings out. 🤷♂️
Pascal’s wager may run into issues when choosing between religions, but it makes sense when deciding whether or not to believe in (a) God or not.
Speaking broadly, believing and behaving that there is a superior deity is more reasonable than choosing not to believe in a superior deity.
How can you say is more reasonable to believe in a God then not? When in fact, it has negatively impacts our world view severely then to have realistic perception and expectations what our world is. While, any God (s) don't fit anything in our current understanding and the nature of our reality, however, it is only a personal beliefs for an individual. Not to be part of multiple-nature of our world.
Yet, you defy this issues and reason your way out, for seek of faith. How can your accusation be true when yourself can't address the major imperfections of your faith? Without having a very bold reasoning and argument, the same as you swear to us. @@During_o7
@@goodmaninthemoonyt4778 You assume that I have faith, which I don’t. You also assumed that the God I was referring to was a theistic deity, which I was not.
I am a deist, and don’t believe in a conscious, active deity.
Pascal’s Wager, as I stated above, runs into issues when comparing the gods of different religions, however, I believe that has to do with the specifications and characteristics of different gods amongst religions. If instead, we speak more broadly of a supreme deity, with no further attributes or characteristics, Pascal’s wager makes sense.
In other words, for an atheist decided whether to believe in a supreme deity or not, Pascal’s wager is perfectly reasonably.
@@During_o7 What I see is that you think you have to suspend rationality or laws of logic when trying to find which religion is true.
A true religion wouldn't require you to suspend rational thought.
I don't believe because of Pascals wager. I believe because of direct experiences, historical and scientific evidence, paired with logical reasoning.
You're guys' mistake is thinking
1. You have an objective world view of reality, provided by science or athiesm
2. In order to believe a religion you can't think about it logically and base it in evidence.
3. All religions are equally valid, logical, and backed up by evidence. This is 100% incorrect.
It's kind of uncanny how quickly you can release such high quality videos.
I am Christian for multiple reasons not the least of which is Jesus's historicity and the fact that His resurrection is a more cogent argument (to me) for the fact that twelve dudes chose to abandon everything they knew and die gruesome deaths to convert people to the Gospel.
This is a fantastic philosophical essay! So accessible and yet so deep.
Great video!
From my experience religious belief is hardly ever gained through intellectual means. I very much do subscribe to the wager theory being a believer myself, however I understand why atheists take issue with it. I find that religious zealotry is gained through a spiritual experience that shifts your entire perspective. For me it was a fellow believer having passed away and witnessing how he touched the lives of others through his compassion, stemming from his belief in the sovereignty of Christ. I felt compelled to submit to Christ having realized that if his people were blessed with such goodness and love that surely Christ is even greater. I don't think I can ever convince someone to believe but I am compelled however by scripture and command to inform you that Christ bled and died in order to give you a new life just as he gained new life himself. Great job in giving a fair assessment of Jordan Peterson, he truly is a riddle wrapped in a mystery at times.
This is exactly my thought as well as an atheist. Though my much bigger criticism of the wager is that I see equal possibility of the Christian God existing as any other god or deity from any other major or minor religion (or even one that no humans worship and is completely unknown), therefore it's really not a 50/50, where Christianity is the good answer either way.
Now imagine, and just assume for a moment that the claims of Christ are not true.. does your friend’s incentive for being decent disappear and if the answer is no, what point in believing the claims is there now?
@@ezshottah3732 okay but assume that a group of people that are capable of great compassion are telling you where that compassion is sourced from, why would your first instinct be to disbelieve them?
@@gottesurteil3201 I don’t know how to respond to this because I feel like you missed my point. But I’ll say it’s not an instinct but “ upon further review”
@@ezshottah3732If I can interfere, I would say yes someone’s decency (to that extent) may diminish if they didn’t believe. As it is clearly stated by him that his believe in Christ propelled their decency to higher levels. Bottom line is I think belief is important otherwise there is no incentive to be decent
And yes incentives matter. Similar to how I would say professional athletes may be motivated by money/fame to be as good as they are
Amazing video brother.
Thank you!
Just found this channel yesterday and I'm addicted. There's something cathartic about studying philosophy. And this guy tells it in a way that is so easily digestable, while leaving room for the desire to look into these philosophies yourself.
This is one of your best videos ever.
I was kind of dreading some return of Anselm's ontological argument from Petersen.
I like the fluid mechanics analogy. The basic assumptions are so close to the truth, that to add particle theory (non continuity and non infinite divisibility as well as the hilarity of quantum probability theory) to the calculations provides no improvement in results but adds to the cost of the calculations. Ultimately a logician must resort to pragmatism when it comes to beliefs. A distinction without a difference makes no difference.
Why when discussing morals , does noone ever mention evolution. Morals are a product of evolution, it's really not difficult. The morals and values that allow tribes and groups to survive, continued. It's why not everyone in any society is a a psychopath
@@thebobman69Because it's pointless, you could ask again "why should we follow evolution?"
@@oggolbat7932You don't have a choice, just like you don't get to choose if gravity effects you, or your genetic matter
@@thebobman69
If you don't have a choice, what's the utility of taking it into account (and thus taking on the extra cost of accounting for it)?
@@seancooper5140 The same reason you continue to talk utter tripe whilst under the illusion you sound intelligent.
I'd also like to make the conjecture that you don't need to believe in god to have 'faith', but as an absolute, if you don't have any faith, you will fail or even die sooner in your life. This is because faith is not owned by the notion of god, faith is not owned or connected to religion; faith is actually a human emotion that allows us to manifest things that would have seemed nearly impossible.
Now I want you to imagine a hypothetical scenario of two primordial mystic human tribes at war. Between the two tribes is a wall, and the only thing between the two tribes and the wall is the faith they have in their ability to defend or attack that wall. They have no science to measure the wall and say "We cannot defeat this.", they have no catapults/sappers/tunnelers etc.., they have their faith. And so reality plays out as so, the attacking tribe either has faith that they can defeat the wall and win, and/or the defending tribe has faith in their wall and fight back, but THE ABSOLUTE BOTTOM LINE is that if the defending or attacking tribe had no faith in themselves or the object of battle, the defending or attacking tribe would lose. You cannot overcome a lack of faith with confidence or strength or numbers-- the lack of faith is directly SUBVERTIVE to those higher emotional constructs! (in history, larger armies have been routed by smaller armies. Strength and numbers are secondary to faith.) I guess what i'm saying is, having faith is a basal emotional construct that allows you to achieve your goals of survival. If you don't have faith, you won't believe in your ability to achieve those goals.
Great video man🎉
This video has been filled to the brim with insights to not lose a single second and I really love the way you approach sharing your ideas. Thank you for your efforts. I'd love to hear what you personally think about Ludwig Wittgenstein's philosophy, and which other philosophers' perspectives you would correlate it with just like this video.
The counter to Pascal argument is that if he wants to play safe he should then choose the cruelest god possible therefore avoiding the worst fate. In that case most humanity should embrace Cthulhu not Christianity.
It's worse than that, you can come up with an infinite amount of equally plausible gods that all demand opposite things. Theramin trees has a video on it called "betting on infinity".
Belief in chtulhu does not grant you salvation from him, a boat does
Cthulu was invented and written on by a deeply disturbed if not inventive individual. The fact also being that there is no penalty following death for but believing in cthulu. There is no worst punishment than being denied God's grace for all eternity.
No because Christianity makes the most sense. And cthulu wont get you a ticket to heaven.
@@sandels5805then why not Islam or Judaism or Buddism or one of the hundreds if not thousands of other religions that have existed?
As some already stated, faith is by far not the same as (logical) belief. In fact, logic is a totally improper tool to understand and discuss faith, because it is an - by definition unlogical - emotion - where unlogical does not mean by far "wrong". Materialistic truth is something quite different from an emotional/spiritual truth, and logic is only suitable for the materialistic realm.
Pascals and Peteron's argument practically means "it is better for a man as well as for a society to have "good" emotions rather than "logical truth". After all it is emotions which rule our behavior - without regard to our "logical intelligence" (as scientifically prooved). This is a simple fact which is somehow incomprehensible for highly "logical" people.
But, most importantly - in the light of old spiritual teachings as well as modern scientifical revelations - reality as we perceive it is created by our thoughts and beliefs - so, if you believe in God, God - at least for you - "really" exists. Of course not the god of Old Testament if you are not a jew or a fundamentalistic Christian, , but a god "of your own creation". As demonstrated solely by your KNOWING (not just believing) it. You KNOW your emotions, you do not just believe in them.
In matters of faith it is more logical to study and consult mystics - they are the specialists in this field of activity. It is of no use to listen to the atheistic/agnostic amateurs.
You’re good at this. You have a very interesting and captivating camera presence as well
Many great philosophers who we copy were the forefront of most modern day religions. It's a dangerous path to tred on when rejecting cultural significance like the idea of God when several cultures around the world use that as the basis of why their society should exist. It's either you choose to live in a morally objective world or you don't.
I'd never clicked this fast on a video 😂
Haha! Thank you! I hope you like it!
It's really good!@@unsolicitedadvice9198 I truly think there should be more videos like this, carefully going over what these prominent figures say, which more often than not goes unchecked. Dillahunty's debate was great at putting JP on the spotlight and MD really held him accountable to each point he was making, instead of just letting things like "you're not really an atheist" or "tapestry and fabrics of a societal imaginary" slide. I appreciate this video in the same way I appreciate that debate (:
Thoroughly enjoyable, one of your best efforts yet! Can we please hear more about your views and opinions in relation to JP’s ideas? Jb
You really brought a good faith attitude to this discussion that I am not sure that I could have, very well done!
Thank you! I do try to make all my interpretations as charitable as possible
I like that zoomers are trying to rehash early 2000s debates, but there is a serious aspect to Peterson you seem to be missing.
Just starting at Pasquel's Wager, this is NOT Peterson's argument.
Peterson's argument is more like: So we can all see the logical flaws in Pasquel's Wager, for example the simple fact that there could be any number of 5000+ gods, so it's really not a binary choice.
What you're missing is that Peterson steps ahead of this argument to say that it's not even about whether god exists or doesn't, or your reward/damnation in the afterlife. It's about your life now, and the lives of all human beings. How does adopting something like Pascal's Wager impact people's actual lives? His claim is that it is for the good.
So it doesn't even matter whether god exists or doesn't - it's more of a utilitarian argument.
Well yes. That's what I end up saying :). I just used Pascal's wager as an example of a historical pragmatic theological argument I figured more people would have heard of.
He desperately wants reality to not be a material one.
The noble lie reminds me of an old polish movie where there's been world nuclear disaster and just a few hundred people survive inside a dome. A man creates this lie that an ark is coming to save them in order to give them hope. Some people don't believe in it but many others developped a kind of religious adoration for the ark and its promise of salvation. The problem is that by giving them this idea they don't actively work on any form of escape or make the life inside the dome any better, they just sit and wait for a lie to rescue them while the dome is slowly collapsing.
Maybe so. But usually people cannot sit still for a prolonged period of time. Especially in danger. Unintentionally, their minds could be trying to find a back up exit or some way to keep the dome from collapsing. He gave that hope as a catalyst to break their paralysing fear in order to rationally think, is what I believe. In that case, that faith expands the potential for possible consequences. Sounds like an interesting movie. What is the name of the movie?
Do you have the name? also you should read/watch the silo
Well, who would like to live in a post-nuclear world? Ark or no ark, many of us would just sit and wait for the merciful death.
Apparently there are different kinds of noble lies and different contexts to apply them.
And the nature of our reality - as even science comes to understand - is such, that your belief alone can turn a "lie" into reality. See placebo effect for instance.
@@alena-qu9vj Yeah, the nuclear apocalypse is not precisely the most optimistic scenario ...yet, we can still be surprised by our actions and the outcome.
CZcams deleted my comment:// The movie is O-BI, O-BA: the end of civilization.
It's on youtube but people in the comments say the subtitles are terrible.
Excellent video. Thank you.
Damn, this channel is just like one year and the videos kept getting better and better
As someone who adores Peterson, is Christian, loves your videos and has read Dostoevsky, fwiw, I would like to see you converse with Peterson in person. Imo you guys would get along. I hope JP sees this and offers to meet you lol
(commented the above before I watched, now that i've watched the whole thing...) I love how you are able to adopt a rather neutral stance, your ability to keep much bias out of your statements on a touchy subject like Peterson + religion is incredible. I also quite like the pragmatic approach to God, and Peterson approaches "God" from an angle that I can wholly support, same goes for your approach to Peterson. He's a struggling man, trying to reconcile his life experience with his logic and religion and whatever else such as people "canceling" him. I truly appreciate how fair you kept the whole video
Most of this is answered in basic presuppositionalist arguments and epistemology. If we continue to grant empiricism access to metaphysical concepts without justification we'll keep going in these stupid circles.
I aspire to be as thoughtful and organized in my videos as you are in yours. Thank you for the amazing content and keep up the great work! 😇
love your vids so far, just subscribed
Thank you!
I love Pascal's quote: “Fire. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and the scholars. I will not forget thy word. Amen.” (You are being way to nice. Peterson is an absolute charlatan.)
I think Pascal is a really underrated thinker. And to be honest I largely wanted to talk about pragmatic arguments for belief. I was lucky Peterson was there to be "bait" to to speak. If the video was just about Charles Peirce I doubt anyone would watch it haha!
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 I'm sure everyone would still watch. You are incredibly talented and a joy to listen to!
You're absolutely right, we would still listen, he's an absolute gem of CZcams @@TwoDudesPhilosophy
Someone can't separate the argument from The profet. That says more about you then abou JP.
@@fernandogutemberg261
I can and I enjoyed the video. Yet someones context, endgoal, ... is as important to understanding a specific argument that they are trying to make.
Sidenote: I have actually made a ton of video's on the types of logical fallacies that JP makes.
I don't think you quite grasp Peterson position. Peterson often say your actions are a far better indicator of what you believe than what you say. So it seems to me he believes a person does not choose their beliefs, rather you can tell what a person believes based on what they do. So to use your example, a person does a somersault therefore they believe they can do a somersault. I would even say Peterson position is that no one can believe in God because the actions required by a person to demonstrate that belief are so difficult to maintain its basically impossible. He give a whole 30 min lecture on this "who dares say they believe in god" I think is the title.
Well yes, that's what I explore in section 3 of the video :). I actually argue in favour of this definition in many ways. And I am alluding to that lecture in particular when I say Peterson recognises the question of seeing what a belief in God implies
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 yep got there, so on the transcendent. I find your examples kind of poor, I don't think reading a book is a good comparison. Who cares what you believe because you read a book. When Peterson makes these arguments he makes them about extreme moral claims, slavery is bad, equity is genocidal, etc etc. I don't think he would hold that all belief that could be inferred from mundane actions lead to something transcendent. Point being I think you need to give examples of a similar sort to demonstrate the issues with his argument.
The point of the more commonplace examples is to bring the theory of belief down to earth - if anything the connection to consequences becomes more difficult to decipher as you get more abstract (as I go on to say using the example of Christian belief). The point of the book example is to demonstrate the pragmatic theory of belief, not the transcendent quality, which I discuss later. The drama inherent in the example isn’t really relevant to its logical role there. It’s just generally seen as good practice to use a down-to-earth example to illustrate a theory as that way you have the fewest unfamiliar elements for the reader/watcher. It’s something you see in philosophy papers quite a lot.
I adore your videos! You talking about religion is all I need!
I'm very impressed by the way you produce your video's. It must take a long time to make.
I've also tried to figure out what Peterson means by God exactly. And he doesn't mean that he is person and either heaven or hell is waiting for us in the afterlife, but (as he put it) "God is the sum total of all good things in some transcendent sense", or an ideal.
In other videos he talks that people used the see and evaluate the world in the form of drama, before the scientific, rational approach. In all those old religious texts and mythologies they considered God to be that kind of ideal I previously described, however though thousands of years, the religions fell prey to fundamentalism and started to interpret those text literally and only literally, thus loosing the real essence of what they symbolised.
Have you read the God is Love passage? Or God is Truth, Life, and the Way.
Peterson is referring to God as a being that is beyond of scope of this reality and is more real than this reality.
As I understand it, he talks about God in a philosophical way, which means it's the metaphysical and causal origin of everything.
@@oggolbat7932 More real than reality itself, as he said. Witnesses of heaven and hell mention that these realms of eternity are more real than this world.
The problem I see with this is why not just call this the highest ideal instead of god because then it introduces a religious element to the conversation that not everyone agrees with, it’d make more sense to say god is a type of highest ideal people pursue
@@enzoarayamorales7220 Because God is the highest ordeal. Christ is the highest ordeal human. You cannot replace him with a creation.
First off, I commend you on your excellent handling of the material. Well done.
Having said that, I find Peterson’s “involuntarist argument” rather weak, at least as he frames it. For instance, in the debate with Matt Dillahunty, Peterson asks Matt something like, “If you don’t believe in God, then in your talk with Sam Harris, why didn’t you just throw him off the stage?”-implying that a true atheist would, without fail, behave in a violent, sociopathic manner, whether provoked or unprovoked. That is a ludicrous assumption that, in my mind, doesn’t even require a counterargument to refute.
Granted, as you’ve already mentioned, Peterson shifts the goalposts and redefines “God” as something like “the highest good you can imagine”; but I still think it makes for a weak argument and was particularly transparent in the debate with Dillahunty.
Anyhow, just my two cents. Great video.
Agree 100%. Peterson was a fool in that debate.
I agree that Peterson wasn't prepared for Matt's disingenuous discourse. However, it was hilarious when that random dude was prepared and sent Matt running with his tail between his legs. 😂
@@jrfii-yt what random dude?
@@CrazyLinguiniLegs I don't know his name, but if you search "Matt Dillahunty rage quits" you'll find some vids. Preferably, watch one that shows the entire exchange.
I think that the idea is no matter how you look at it, every human on Earth has a subconscious moral law that’s natural law and God given. As the Bible describes the idea of three things that make mankind's consciousness are, good, evil, and the freedom of choice. And the fact that we abide by any rules whatsoever, is a reflection of the idea that you're using/appropriating the benefits of being holy and having good will when it suits you, but not as much as you would be thankful to a God for it, or that you'd just as likely act in a wilfully sinful way when it suits you either.
I swear i love your videos. Just an African guy in STEM watching from Ghana.
What a fair, deep and respectful assessment of Petersons concepts. Well done!
I personally find myself to now be in an agnostic spiritism of sorts. I feel it's a much better way to go about your own personal faith. I believe whatever government that is in charge should always be secular. The people themselves should always be free to practice their own agnostic spiritism.
Me too. Almost exactly this.
@@The-Doubters-Diary People are supposed to be their own spiritual authority. Like personally I think God is real. God is just the collective unconscious of all of humanity.
@@nothomelessonyoutube”just” 😅
My only problem is "truth" is intangible, it's definition is circular. So Russell's point makes no sense, if belief should be guided by truth then we should be able to define it first. Practicality on the other hand is way more important like you mentioned. I am an atheist, and I think morality ultimately comes from self interest not from divine god or something like that, but religion does make morality standalone from the person and makes it more "objective", I think that's why Christianity was so successful.
Do you have a definition of truth, or heard one you agree with? Do you believe truth exists even if it’s amorphous and intangible?
@@milesmungo "Objective truth doesn't exist."
"Is that objectively true?"
Works every time.
@@jamespierce5355 Nothing is "objective" so that ends the discussion.
@@milesmungo I guess there is relative truth, relative to everyone. "Maybe" for the last question.
@@Zex-4729 "2+2=4" is objective.
Great vid!
I love your content . I’m Mexican and I not only use it to reflect on it, but to learn new vocabulary.
Jordan Peterson is extremely misunderstood on this topic and often ends up being mocked by philosophically shallow "intellectuals" like Matt Dillahunty and memed by 16 year olds who just wanna see someone win or destroy the opponent.
Great video
Agnostic secular Buddhism with a leaning toward virtue ethics is the way ☺️
At least, for me. I find no point in concerning myself with whether or not a higher power exists. I think it’s most important to just live your life in a way that brings goodness to the world around you and to appreciate each moment as it happens. Secular Buddhism has been a great guide for me to that end. If there is a god and he is upset with me for that, for whatever reason, then I think he is a cruel god that I have no desire to please and I will accept my fate whatever it may be. I aim to die knowing I did whatever I could to be the best version of myself, not just for myself but for those I love and for the greater society in which I participate and rely on and that’s enough for me.
Cheers!
@@NalesnikZdrzemem lol heard. I’ll try harder to entertain you next time. Don’t want ya gettin all sweepy on me
Thoughtful and insightful video, thank you.
Interesting ❤ thanks for the food for thought
Thank you for watching
you're doing God's work here heh
Which one?
Intelligent people lose all mental coherance when it comes to their religion.
Although, honestly, I have never met a devoutly religious person who blew me away with their intelligence.
Ahistorical comment, especially in the field of philosophy. Kierkegaard, Aquinas, Ed Fesser. Different periods yet very coherent.
It's actually quite coherent, you just don't agree. You can disagree, and that's fine, but is it irrational to believe that nothing comes from nothing or perhaps something such as a creator? It's all a smokescreen of language and meaning most of us would agree if we saw what each other meant and not accusing large swaths of people of being mentally incoherent or stupid.
@@Chase-vq6eqI feel like a line needs also to be drawn on what the person considers as religious. If the mere statement of “I believe there is a God” counts to him as being religious, then I can safely say I’ve met a lot of “religious” people who you can debate with.
I personally consider myself a believer of God and my friends are atheist/agnostic yet we can come to a common ground. (It depends a lot on the person’s preconceived notions though)
Another great video.
I enjoyed this very much.
p.s. jordan peterson is just regurgitating old ideas in his weird mythico-conservatism: you can find a better elucidated & pure variant of this notion within Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit; specifically, where he speaks about virtue, and the ethical substance.
That's really interesting. I am not as familiar with Hegel as I would like to be. From what I saw researching this video he seemed to be doing a riff on some ideas from Kierkegaard (but I literally only know this argument of his, it's why I preface the video by saying I'm not commenting on Peterson himself because I've only looked into this aspect of his thinking). It was suggested to me by a friend as an excuse to talk about Pragmatism (which is essentially what I end up doing here).
I have to say I agree with you about Peterson's strange way of putting things though. At points I could not tell if I was missing something or if he had just put something especially obscurely for the sake of dramatic effect.
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 I'm not sure Peterson is keen on Hegel either; my guess is he's picked it up from some of the Post-Jungians who reconciled Jung with Hegel. It's essentially an idealistic notion that since God is the absolute knowing, anything which is not known by you, in its cause or effect: can be displaced to the knowing of God; insofar, as you are responsible for determining how this unknowing is known by God, but not necessarily why: 'for God works in mysterious ways'; all indeterminacy is chalked to the knowing of God as the absolute: it's our job to determine the reconciliation between the absolute and real: he mentions that this self-determination should ultimately be shaped for-consciousness, but also in so referring to God: which is an absolute which abstractly refers to an Other through the Universal Virtue it espouses: it is both for-self as consciousness, and for-other as conscience
@unsolicitedadvice9198 he's a anti left culture warrior. Better to see him as plant mccarthyist.
@@michaelcastady6600 he'd take jung and hegel over Freud and marx though, and thats his political bias. Jung because he famously said he was against Marxism, and hegel because he prefers a gap where historical materialism exists.
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 Peterson has a habit of being as unclear and convoluted as possible so noone can catch him if he got something wrong... IMHO.
Peterson is a perfect example of why you dont trust someone just because they sound smart.
You should never trust anyone whether they sound smart or not. You go by the arguments. You probably need to watch more of Jordan‘s videos, especially the ones where he is teaching psychology courses at his alma mater. It’s all available on his CZcams channel.
@@mbmurphy777you should probably watch less Jordan
@@kevinbeck8836 clever. But if you don’t know what you are criticriticizing then you’re the one ignoring information, and then you can’t make informed decisions.
@mbmurphy777 Unfortunately, I have listened to him. For someone who focuses on psychology, he blatantly lacks the ability to comprehend how discustingly irresponsible it is to talk about a field we know very little about as if it's absolutely factual. He also talks about history as if it's absolute. Dudes an agent of misinformation discussed in actual peer reviewed information. Not a good guy.
@@KillianTwew I think those are fair criticisms. But everybody’s gonna have their own slant on history as interpretation of events of subjective. And psychology is not a hard science, but there are some things that are at least backed up by some evidence, and he tends to stick to those in his lectures.
Hello. i wanted to thank you for your work and your ways , you seem like a really educated and good manners person. it's a pleasure to listen your diction, very natural and captivating.
Sorry if i made any mistake in my message
Greeting from Argentina.
Brilliant video! It's refreshing to see a video deconstructing Peterson's arguments without it being one of the Peterson circle jerk or Peterson hate train videos.
Reasoned, honest, articulate... Bravo 👏
Unsolicited advice on Jordan Peterson's strangest religious argument.
Keep it up ❤
I think there will likely be a video about Dr. Peterson in this channel but didn't expect it to be sooner than expected. For me, it took me a long time to understand the concept of Jung's map of psyche when he mentioned it through many video I watched until I facing my own shadow in real life. It was a great approach to relate with many field.
Embracing your shadow is demonic. Reject living for the flesh. Embrace Christ the Light of the world ☦️
love the video I never expected you my favorite philosophers to talk about my favorite psychiatrist
How very entertaining. Absolutely fascinating..
Thanks for the video! Very interesting and fun to watch. Keep it up mate.
For me i feel like the religions/ancient philosophies i resonate with are Buddhism and taoism (will expand on Taoism later).
Buddhism main premise is that there is suffering in existence and that there is a reason to it and there's a way out of suffering.
Also impermanence and no self which are interesting ideas.
And it makes sense logically and i guess intuitively as well. It isn't trying to convert as many people which i appreciate isn't like missionary.
In Taoism i love the ying and yang concepts which is also very logical and intuitive.
There is no one without the other.
There is no definition to happiness without sadness, there is no tall without short, there is no philosopher without layman's ECT .
And in Taoism there is no defined end goal like heaven, nirvana ECT which i think is kinda healthy as well, its a very humble religion.
So yeah i think there's something to learn from many ancient philosophies and views our task are to extract the correct and useful information, to practice it somehow by doing or not doing things (yang), and to keep our humility doing so.
I highly appreciated the ease at which speaking objectively and without bias you carried yourself in that video.
Being an Orthodox Christian, I certainly have a differing set of beliefs from that of an agnostic, but that's a real treasure you've been able to acquire to speak with little to no accusations but rather humble curiosity
I hope you continue looking for the truth and help people to untangle themselves from whatever lies that feed off of and limit their intellectual freedom
Great videos, subscribed. You definitely seem like the kind of guy I'd hate to have an argument with, armed with the subtlest and rarest insults
I think a video on Spinoza would be very useful. Your take on "Freedom is recognition of necessity" would be interesting and it could help to clarify some questions on freedom, authoritarianism, maturity etc...