Jordan Peterson vs 20 Atheists — Surrounded

[0:00] you're a christian you say that i haven't claimed that oh what is this is christians versus atheist [0:05] don't be a smart ass either you're a christian or you're not which one is it you're really quite [0:09] something you aren't i but you're really quite nothing right you're not a christian i'm done [0:13] with him hello there i'm dr jordan peterson i'm a clinical psychologist a professor emeritus at [0:22] the university of toronto an author a podcaster public speaker and today i'm surrounded by 25 [0:28] atheists my first claim atheists reject god but they don't understand what they're rejecting [0:48] good afternoon dr peterson how are you doing so this claim here that atheists don't know what [0:53] they're rejecting my background is in studying to become a traditional catholic priest daily mass [0:58] daily rosary going on long retreats deep into the magisterium and biblical hermeneutics like i was [1:04] thoroughly in it and it seems like i do know what i'm missing is there something that i missed over [1:09] years of study both this issue formally and living out religion so deeply well you obviously feel that [1:16] you missed something when you were practicing for the priesthood your aim was off then so there's always [1:21] the possibility that it's still off now what was off about my aim in the first time i don't know it might [1:27] take a long time to figure out but it seems kind of like this no true scotsman type of fallacy in which [1:31] you're the arbiter of people's aims and how they understand those aims to be how is it that you can [1:36] claim that people don't know something that you know about their life despite not having met them [1:42] well it's obviously a generic claim just like the atheist claim that there's no god is a generic claim [1:48] in your case it would have to be specified more and i'm not claiming to understand what was going on [1:52] in your mind but my experience with atheists is twofold is that they have a very reductive notion of [2:00] what constitutes god let's say in the judeo-christian tradition and they've often been hurt by someone who [2:06] was religious or by the religious enterprise or perhaps by god himself so to speak and that's [2:10] left him with an animus but i think that you have a reductive view of what atheism is you've defined [2:16] religion so broadly to include any sort of having aim in life any sort of cultural archetypes or having [2:21] a metaphorical substrate and atheism to you is a very specific type of like three people in the world [2:26] that are these raskolnikov type of they're they want to get away with the perfect murder it seems like [2:31] you have the reductive view of what an atheist is well let's start with your claim how do you define [2:39] the god that you're rejecting like what is god to you you studied in the church you found that [2:44] unsatisfactory how would you characterize what you rejected i think the average christian believer when [2:50] they say that they're christian and they believe they mean some sort of god that is all-powerful all [2:55] perfect is somehow involved in the matters of this world and that we look to them through wisdom [3:00] and with logos incarnate in christ and it also seems like you don't believe in religion in the [3:05] way that the average christian says that they believe in religion and there are as many gods [3:09] out there as there are believers because everybody has mutually exclusive and different views of what [3:14] god is so it seems like if everybody had mutually exclusive views of what god is no one could speak to [3:20] each other you're the mere fact of communication presumes a commonality of assumption and definition and [3:27] so and it's certainly not the case that i regard any archetypal manifestation whatsoever as equally [3:34] religious so that's not a that's not a real claim let's let me give you an example for example there's a [3:40] sub-narrative in the story of moses where moses is rewarded with a glimpse of god okay and that's one [3:46] of the ways that god is characterized in the old testament story yes now moses is a faithful servant of god and [3:52] a good man at least that's the case within the confines of the story one possible interpretation [3:57] case within the confines of the story obviously but there's obviously there when we look at the bible [4:04] the bible can't precisely say anything because there are so many different exegetical and hermeneutic views [4:09] of this particular book and that everybody has agreed has story everybody has disagreed historically on [4:15] it seems like even the most benign detail about a book this big and it seems like you can only say that [4:20] the bible says something if you first first presuppose that it's univocal so your claim [4:25] essentially is that moses in the old testament plays the role of a villain or is irrelevant [4:29] because the alternative i'm saying that we can't know because we can't talk to those authors if you [4:35] are going to start with the presupposition that there's nothing i can say about any of these stories [4:39] that you're not going to disagree with from the perspective that there are multiple potential [4:44] competing claims then i can't speak with you so we also have a short time here so i'm i [4:50] want to get to the core of what you're arguing here and i'd love if we could the core of what [4:53] i'm arguing is that atheists reject god but they don't understand what they're rejecting so [4:59] i'm trying to give you an example of what's being rejected and its complexity okay so god rewards [5:06] moses with a glimpse of the divine so this is a definition of the god that atheists are [5:11] hypothetically rejecting a possible one i said ah yeah i didn't say the i said ah right that is [5:20] possible yes okay so despite the fact that moses is a stellar character and he's had a long and [5:28] difficult life and can withstand a lot of difficulty and travail god puts him between two cliffs so he [5:35] can just see a crack of what's in front of him and when god walks by he allows him to see his back [5:41] okay so the implication and implication of that story is that the divine is fundamentally unknowable [5:50] it's a pinnacle experience and that people in their finitude have to be shielded from a comprehensive [5:57] vision of the basis of reality well that's not the god that's defined in that manner right is a is not [6:06] it's not a simple personification it's not a simple old man in the sky it's something that [6:11] in its essence is unknowable and overwhelming and that isn't in my experience the god that's defined by [6:19] atheists who are attempting to undermine the story i mean it's the same claim for example that you're a [6:24] finite creature and that you face something that in the final analysis is unknowable and that you have [6:32] to establish a relationship with it regardless of your inability to perceive or even withstand [6:37] perceiving the whole okay is there a problem with that i mean the problem is that when we look at [6:43] famously when you've been asked do you believe in god the question becomes what do we mean by god and [6:47] in the bible it's not even clear the biblical authors know what god is because yahweh has [6:51] historically emerged from an early storm god a deity that doesn't exhaust the category of deity [6:56] and that has changed over the old testament does god have physicality does god not have physicality [7:01] it seems like yes if you define religion to mean anybody that has an aim anybody that looks at the [7:05] unknown anybody who wants to go from chaos to order is inherently religious then yes but also in the [7:11] same way i could define atheists as somebody who doesn't dogmatically believe in a religion or [7:15] somebody who doesn't regularly attend religious services or belong to a denomination to help help [7:20] especially the audience kind of like boil this down there was a lot of words there that the central [7:24] claim is that we exist somewhere between the finite and the infinite central claim a central claim is [7:29] that we exist somewhere between the finite and the infinite infinite no i said that we were finite and [7:34] we had to establish a relationship with the infinite yeah and then in that case then we're all religious [7:40] but then i can do the same thing and define one particular element of atheism it seems like we [7:46] both have reductive view of what the other side looks like to the point where a conversation seems [7:50] incoherent and not just incoherent but not in the way that the average christian understands [7:54] christianity to be do you have a problem pause there sorry you've been voted out by the majority [7:59] hey how's it going nice to meet you nice to meet you david david good to see you tell me everything that [8:11] you know about the polynesian deity lono l-o-n-o i don't know anything about the polynesian deity lono [8:19] so you're rejecting something without knowledge of what you're rejecting i'm not rejecting it [8:26] do more than i'm rejecting do you believe in lono i don't know anything do you believe in lono [8:30] do you believe that he is a deity that exists in the world exists in the universe that exists in the [8:36] existence of everything do you do you believe that lono i'll answer that question once you answer my [8:41] question which is do i reject everything that i'm ignorant of because that's your presupposition [8:47] that undergirds your argument and unless you can prove that that's valid then there's no point [8:52] my question is quite simple yeah but that doesn't mean it's formulated accurately do you believe [8:58] that lono exists yes or no i'm not going to answer that question for the reasons i just described [9:05] you already insisted that if i reject something that i that if i'm ignorant of something i reject it do [9:12] you think that everyone in the world has to know everything simultaneously for that to be valid and [9:17] true i think in order for your answer that question to be true in order for it to be true that we [9:24] atheists don't understand what we're rejecting then you need to also apply that to yourself and to [9:30] christians and to muslims and to any other person on this earth where if you don't understand what [9:36] you're rejecting the belief in then you can't reject the belief in it that's the implication of your [9:41] i didn't say that i rejected the belief in lona i said i didn't know who lono who lono was i didn't [9:48] say anything about rejecting that's because i've asked you several times and you haven't but let me [9:52] get to my even greater point you're saying atheists don't understand what religion is or what god is in [10:00] order to be able to uh reject it fully or completely we have someone over here who studied it in their own [10:06] way i've studied religion i have a degree in religious studies uh specialty in christianity and [10:12] mediterranean traditions and further than that beyond me pew research studies suggest that [10:18] atheists and agnostics actually know more about religion and about religious stories the foundational [10:23] principles than believers that's because they're more religious than they think they are okay you can [10:30] there well they're concerned with deep matters and one of the defining characteristics of someone [10:35] who's oriented in religious direction is that they're concerned with deep matters okay in fact it's [10:39] virtually definition right but they also have to identify with a religious tradition and accept [10:44] the foundational stories that go along well that would mean more that they're sectarian than that [10:49] they're religious and most people for example for example in the united states deny that they're [10:53] religious but accept that they're spiritual there you've been voted out by the majority aha hi nice to [11:08] meet you how are you doing good how are you i'm greg nice to meet you okay so i feel like you're [11:14] getting at this idea of polysemy where we have multiple related meanings for a word right like [11:22] for example a famous painting can be emotionally moving in that it changes my emotional state and when [11:30] i was on the highway coming here to the studio i was physically moving i was changing my position [11:36] if i said i believe the mona lisa is very moving and you said you don't really understand what [11:42] you're saying it's nailed to the wall i would say that you're the one who doesn't understand what [11:47] i'm saying not the other way around and the way that relates to this is there are many concepts of [11:53] god and i'll admit i find a lot of what you say about that interesting i'm familiar with it the idea [11:58] of this kind of union hierarchical thing or as a metaphor or a symbol or the kind of you know atheist [12:05] materialist literalist idea of agentic omnipotent omniscient being that intervenes in reality right [12:13] so when i'm saying that i reject the concept of god i'm aware of these other definitions of god but i [12:21] think that when we use words we tend to only imply one meaning at a time so the same way that i would [12:27] say the mona lisa is moving emotionally but i would not say it's moving physically i would say i reject [12:34] the concept of god in this very literal way but what literal way the way that god is this omniscient [12:42] omnipotent agentic supernatural being that sent his son down and has you know caused miracles and all [12:49] these things like that the idea of god is you think that there's an underlying unity of things [12:54] could you explain that question well scientists for example believe that science unifies in a [13:01] comprehensive theory do you yes no or that there are multiple competing truths those are the options [13:07] either things unify or there are multiple competing truths i think that i know that for example like [13:13] in physics people are looking for like a theory of everything why do you think they're doing that [13:17] it's interesting it's helpful but they also believe that there's an underlying unity to things [13:23] in a sense yeah like i mean like the material world and time and space are probably governed by [13:27] universal laws and principles partly that yes yes but that the same thing might extend to a broader [13:33] domain that would include imagination and value could you help me connect that to the prompt well [13:39] i'm trying to define god the god that i don't think atheists do a very good job of defining here's [13:43] another question for you what do you think guides you in your determination of whether or not what [13:49] you're saying to me is true can we go back can we stay on what we were talking about we are okay [13:55] you're just uncomfortable with the question no i feel like you're just kind of throwing different [13:59] spaghetti at the wall i'm not okay i asked you a very specific question what is it that you think [14:05] guides you when you're talking to me to help you determine whether what you say is true uh logic [14:12] memory reasoning um sensory information how do you distinguish that from being governed by something [14:20] that's false an interesting question how do you know the difference when you speak between what's [14:26] true and what's false so you can imagine right i can infer from what principles so and what what [14:33] are you getting at i'm getting at the fact that your conscience guides you is that reasonable conscious [14:39] is defined by conscience my empathy and my reason or my foundation find it any way you want okay so [14:44] that's how i'm defining my conscience is my you know my kind of my conscience is my sense of you know [14:49] right right and wrong yeah exactly where does that come from i would say that comes from an evolved [14:54] capacity to empathize and a recognition of the benefits of engaging with and nurturing that [15:01] capacity and then that empathy is constrained and guided by reason right like for example i am driving [15:06] down the highway there's a kitten in the road i'm going to empathetically feel oh my god i want to save [15:11] the kitten but then reasonably like i'm going to get hit by a car right so that's sort of the process [15:16] through which i make ethical decisions okay how do you be constrained by reason do you think that people [15:20] can differ in their response to something empathically yeah is there a mediating principle that can [15:26] tell you one person who's empathic and another person who's empathic that disagree who's correct [15:32] interesting yeah i mean i think that's where we'd have to you know talk it out right we do that in [15:36] real life all the time when we have whether that's a discussion with a friend about the right [15:40] thing to do in a situation whether that's a policy discussion about law right that's where [15:44] we can converse with each other think about things explain our perspectives and then kind of [15:48] reach a conclusion right that i think that we do that all the time so elijah the prophet elijah [15:54] defined god in the old testament as the voice of conscience within okay that's a definition so [15:59] you're just you're saying it by that definition of god i see this is kind of goes back to where [16:04] i'm saying initially i'm not defining it elijah okay so as elijah's as elijah defines god find that [16:10] way in jonah too okay so as cardinal newman also defined it that i'm sure you know many people who [16:15] defined it that way um and it's impressive you're a very knowledgeable person i'm not trying to be [16:20] impressive i'm just pointing out to you how god is defined in the old testament all right so to [16:25] respond to that um i do think there are lots of interesting ways to define god and that goes back [16:31] to my then how do we specify what we're arguing about we use context clues or we specify or we [16:37] again it goes back to my example of the mona lisa i'm defining god as conscience okay so that's [16:42] interesting but then you're kind of expanding the meaning of god that's how it's defined in the [16:48] old testament okay so elijah and in jonah so whoever so it's not whoever elijah is one of the major [16:54] old testament prophets he's equal in stature to moses okay so it's not arbitrary all right so that um [17:02] is interesting but it's not relevant to the context with which i am using the term god it's directly [17:09] relevant atheists reject god but they don't understand what they're rejecting you accept [17:14] conscience as a guide and conscience is one of the defining characteristics of god in the old testament [17:20] i think you're being intellectually disingenuous in what way because i asked you if you believe [17:25] the conscience guided you just asked me a question and then you stopped me from answering it [17:29] in this setting you understand the way i am using the term god and belief not in the least i don't [17:35] understand how you're using it in the least that's why i'm trying to define it my definition of god [17:40] as conscience is a lot more precise and oriented than your definition of the god that you hypothetically [17:46] disbelieve in it's irrelevant to the fault lines of this debate how is it irrelevant because in common [17:51] parlance when we're talking about atheists god belief not belief i don't care about common parlance [17:56] i'm trying to get to something fundamental i just i think your point is irrelevant to the way that people [18:01] tend to use these words your point that there are these polisimus ideas of god you did i did well [18:08] i mean i made a specific point that god was associated with conscious i just i just feel [18:12] like you kind of retreat into this semantic fog i'm not retreating at all i'm advancing sir you are [18:17] retreating all right well it was very nice to meet you i appreciate the conversation yeah yeah it's [18:22] very brave of you to do this thank you surrounded is now a podcast available wherever you listen [18:31] search surrounded plug in and stay part of the conversation anywhere anytime my next claim is that [18:43] morality and purpose cannot be found within science what is up mr canada how you doing man doing great [18:57] what's your name brian i think it's interesting that you say that morality and purpose can't be [19:00] found inside actually within within sure sure purpose i actually grant you because purpose is [19:05] subjective right unless you want to boil it down to the purpose of life is just to procreate right [19:10] sure whatever morality is actually something that we do see um we actually have examples of neanderthals [19:17] and older individuals found in the tribe missing an arm missing teeth still alive somehow in his 40s 50s [19:23] right typically uh you're a neanderthal you can't eat you can't hunt you die right but we know the [19:28] members of the tribe retain care of him right so we know that at some level early in our evolutionary history [19:34] we actually developed altruism we have examples of chimpanzees who actually have a basic [19:39] understanding of fairness right if you give a chimpanzee two grapes right and uh his buddy gets [19:45] three right he actually freaks out right but you give both chimps three grapes and they're good um we [19:51] have examples of parrots except for the greedy chimps except for the green they want four they want [19:56] four graves you know those do exist right um but we have similar examples uh where we do animal tests [20:01] right and so morality is intrinsic i think so it precedes science i think that actually a better [20:08] way to define it would be that social animals which we are right require some level of morality [20:15] or into what i'm not disagreeing sure why do they require that because it's the only way that social [20:21] groups can actually survive right that's my point with regards to science thank you very much is that [20:27] precisely the point that you just made that science has to exist within a moral framework that isn't [20:32] in itself scientific how's that not scientific well because it's not derived from the scientific [20:37] process as you just indicated my brain from the scientific process it's the fact that hang on [20:41] a second we are social animals we need that to exist as a group i agree sure you pointed to the [20:46] morality of neanderthals to the morality of chimpanzees they didn't derive that from science they don't [20:52] need to that's not how that's my point science explains it no science doesn't explain morality [20:57] it doesn't explain how social animals would need to be well that that's a complicated question but [21:03] we see it though yeah but explaining the evolution of morality and explaining morality itself aren't [21:09] the same thing okay so you're asking why does this happen i'm asked i'm yes that's that's more [21:14] accurate because we're social animals yeah but there's more to it than that is it sure sure for [21:19] example so we're moral animals that have a sense of the future sure okay that makes us unique and that [21:25] structures our morale no actually there are other animals that can predict the future no tigers [21:30] actually there was a tiger at the sf zoo that killed somebody um and so actually no no no no no no [21:37] kids threw shit at the tiger the tiger actually plotted its escape and it found the kids saying [21:43] that animals can't think okay no but they can give the future what i'm saying well voted out by the [21:48] majority thank you man good man yeah how are you doing my name is luke nice to meet you see you luke [22:00] so your claim that morality and purpose can only be found in science is a little shaky because i think [22:05] that your claim is really being framed to be morality and purpose can only be found in religion is that how [22:11] you're kind of framing it i would say that the domain of religion is the domain of morality and purpose [22:16] yes exactly and also that science is actually structured at least in part technically to eliminate such [22:22] considerations from its purview a priori okay right that's why we define science as value free [22:29] but that has to be wrong because scientists have to prioritize their attention towards something [22:35] before they can even engage in observation okay and that act of prioritization of attention is a value [22:41] predicated act and so we as i can continue there's all sorts of things we have to assume yeah about [22:48] science before it can take place okay so what i'm specifically pointing out here is about religion in [22:53] particular since you yourself are a christian right that's people debate about that and i generally don't [22:59] discuss it publicly okay i understand that and me myself i am a former uh young earth creationist [23:05] fundamentalist oh yeah um so i have experience in this i used to run a tick tock channel uh directed about [23:12] apologetics about the bible specifically in this type of facet with morality uh evolution and such and [23:19] going back and forth with that so in the bible it talks a lot about slavery right uh yes yes so in [23:25] that it teaches you how to take care of a slave rather than saying slavery is wrong i think it says [23:30] that in the story of moses it says slavery is incorrect it says that's why moses leads his people away [23:35] from slavery but why does the bible predicate and tell people exactly how to take care of a slave [23:41] isn't that immoral don't wouldn't you say that culturally we've evolved as a species as [23:46] he said earlier about empathy yeah i would say that the reason we evolved so to speak away from slavery [23:52] was because the west was founded on judeo-christian morality and the presumption that every person was [23:57] made in the image of god and so slavery itself became immoral and that was established by protestant [24:03] christians in the uk who then convinced the uk government for 200 years to go to war and you [24:08] say that this is about the cultural evolution of humans in general rather than just christianity [24:13] it's the flowering of the ideas that were embedded in the biblical texts across long spans of time [24:19] i feel like this is just humans editing based on the cultural evolution what do you mean by just [24:26] just yeah just humans well human editing well based on culture and history right we [24:32] we get better they did do it based on culture and history but culture and history have their [24:37] foundations too so well yeah but we we're talking about slavery it so many people bolstered it it [24:42] based on everyone except based on the bible they looked at it and they justified it in the united [24:47] states in the deep south they justified yeah but the main thrust the main thrust of protestant [24:52] thought in particular was stringently against slavery and it was about the only movement in the [24:57] history of the human race that had an anti-slavery direction which was driven by humans and their [25:02] understanding morality well it depends it's the same with woman's suffrage i mean women's in the [25:07] the patriarchy what do you mean it was driven by humans humans drove slavery too yes exactly they [25:13] also there's no argument there if slavery and anti-slavery were both driven by humans what what [25:18] does your claim that they were driven by humans have to do with it evolving morality based on the [25:22] culture that within the society that they live okay so with i think suffrage as well as a very similar [25:27] topic in the bible there are denominations in christianity such as pentecostal movement which [25:32] do bolster women to be pastors right which i i think that's a great thing to do but most like to [25:39] disregard where do you think the idea that human beings were sufficiently equal to all vote and not [25:44] be slaves came from humans yeah but so did the idea of slavery so did the idea of god fine but what's [25:51] your point like you're not making an argument you're just saying all thoughts come from humans regardless [25:56] of the thoughts it's not driven by a higher power it's driven on our experiences which is what is [26:02] best for all people is it driven by conscience it could be which conscious is also something that [26:07] has evolved over time and i think that's what's the evidence does evolve within morality and empathy [26:12] okay i i don't understand the point that you're making my point is that god influenced slavery people [26:19] looked at the bible and went this is moral because god says so just like woman's suffrage there's [26:24] lots and just like homosexuality all human societies were slave owning so you can't blame [26:29] that on the bible if humanity decided oh wait address that first what all human societies were slavers [26:37] so you can't blame that on the bible well you can say it bolstered it well not if you look at the [26:43] broad sweep of history because it was the protestant christians based on their interpretation of the [26:48] bible it was the protestant christian which evolves over time there you've been voted out by the [26:53] majority all right well it was great talking with you nice talking to you too dr peterson good to see [27:05] you man pleasure what's your name brian uh so the first thing i would like to say is i would like to [27:09] engage in this discussion in a symbiotic manner i would not like to engage where there is one clear [27:15] winner and one clear loser emotions are activated and ultimately comes about ego so i'm just saying i'm [27:21] really trying to understand your position and i would just like you to really try to understand my [27:25] position deal okay sounds good with that if you're saying that morality and purpose cannot come from [27:33] science is the opposite of that true that morality and purpose can only come from god that's a way of [27:41] defining it yes okay that's right that's good so i would say that with regard to the first claim say [27:47] atheists don't understand what they're rejecting because i would say by definition god is the unity [27:54] upon which moral claims are based that's a definition right okay if there is a god what is [28:00] the purpose of life well and in the christian tradition the purpose of life is to engage in [28:07] voluntary upward self-sacrifice so that the kingdom of heaven can be established on earth so you're [28:16] trying to make it to heaven and avoid hell yes that's a good way of that's a good way of thinking [28:21] about what is the purpose of heaven do you understand so so here's the deal we can at minimum [28:28] it's the opposite of endless suffering how about we can okay and so should we not try to achieve [28:35] infinite suffering on planet earth and if we can achieve infinite suffering on planet earth without [28:41] avoiding avoiding it if we can do that without god and that does that defeat your claim [28:47] well yeah except that it doesn't you circumvented my initial definition because i said that by [28:53] definition god was the unified source of morality and so if we engage in a moral exercise when you're [29:00] when you're talking about morality though when you really reverse engineer it and you get it down to [29:05] its root you're a psychologist it really seems like it just has to deal with motivation people are saying [29:11] there is a god there is more specific than that well i so let me ask you this so if there is a god and [29:17] there is a moral code and it doesn't come at your benefit are you going to follow it it depends [29:23] on how you define your benefit if it if you find your benefits if it's going to come at your expense [29:28] would you still follow it if god came down and said here is my moral code and you should follow it [29:34] but even if you follow it you are still going to end up in hell are you going to follow it well that [29:41] was the question that was put to job and to christ right because they were required hang on i'm asking [29:48] your question they were followed they were required to withstand trials that would break anyone and [29:56] maintain their upward orientation regardless and they did that with the motivation of believing that [30:02] this omnipotent all-loving god would somehow turn it into a benefit so they still did it solely for their [30:10] benefit so when you well yes they did yes they did hang on let's define benefit like if i did something for [30:16] your sister would that be to your benefit like how are you defining your benefit do you mean one of [30:23] your whims gratified now or do you mean you and everyone you love and know over some reasonable span [30:30] of time so when you're talking about whims i think you're talking about something that's more dopamine [30:36] when you're talking about morality you're talking about something that's more serotonin and more [30:40] ultimately satisfying so you and i agree on a lot i mean when it comes to talking about how men [30:46] should be masculine and things of that nature you and i are 100 in agreement we just don't agree [30:52] on the justification that god is the only thing that provides morality it's not a justification it's [30:58] a definition what's the difference then between a definition and a justification i mean it's [31:03] ultimately psychologically the same thing well we have to define what we're talking about before [31:08] we can just okay well so here's so i said that god among others i'm actually a non-theist i'm not [31:14] an atheist i believe the human condition is one of uncertainty and what that means is that i don't [31:18] believe that you can conclude there is a god with certainty and i don't believe that you can conclude [31:22] that there is a god without uns um in the same position now with that i don't care i still wake [31:28] up every day and i have motivation to be a moral person to find moral moral what i ought to do okay [31:36] what i ought to do ultimately it comes down to what not just benefits me but what benefits the entire [31:42] planet what benefits the entire system i think that your entire moral perspective comes from [31:48] linear thinking and when you look at the reality of the universe it's actually more so holistic [31:54] so when you look at how aristotle defined god when he said that there had to be an unmoved move [31:59] or an uncaused cause he was defining god from a linear perspective and you do the same with morality [32:06] and you do the same with purpose how does my definition of morality how does my definition of [32:12] morality hypothetically because because because you're saying that there's something that exists in [32:16] a vacuum that it exists in and of itself and nothing in the universe exists in a vacuum nothing exists [32:23] in and of itself it's a whole systems-based morality it's a systems-based reality is there a [32:29] hierarchical structure is there a hierarchical structure are some things more important than others [32:35] are some things i think some things lead to more benefits than others by your own definition [32:40] some things are more important than others yes okay okay what is there you've been voted out by the [32:45] majority how are you doing nice to meet you nice to meet you i guess since you said morality and purpose [32:59] cannot be found in science um it would just depend on like what you're referencing if you're saying [33:03] a description of your psychological preferences would be considered within science sure but i don't think [33:07] that you have to say that it comes from science in order to be like an atheist as an agnostic atheist i [33:12] don't know if god exists and i don't believe that a god exists and the only ones that i would really [33:16] reject would be like the all-knowing all-powerful all-good perfect notion of god that plenty of [33:20] christians like prescribe themselves so i guess how is that relevant to this claim you're basing a [33:26] position of morality and purpose in some like notion of god that isn't the same type of notion of god [33:32] that typical christians would prescribe your notion of god is what typical christians yeah typically when [33:37] i talk to christians they they say that they believe in all-knowing about cardinal newman who [33:41] defined god as conscience he's a major influence on all of catholic social theory how about that [33:47] christian sure i'm so do you believe in the all-knowing all-powerful all-good notion of god [33:52] what do you mean by believe do you think it to be true that's the circular definition what do you [33:59] mean how is that circular believe how is that circular because you added no content to the answer by [34:04] substituting the word true and believe i said you think it to be true all right so if you believe [34:12] something you stake your life on it what do you mean by that you live for it and you die for it [34:20] that's what i mean by that it isn't something that you say it isn't something that's associated [34:26] with logical consistency it's not declarative it's not propositional it's not a figment of your [34:32] imagination it's the presupposition of your attention and your action and you're either fragmented in [34:39] which case you worship multiple gods or there's some unity at the bottom of it that makes you an [34:44] unstoppable force okay so you're saying that you don't believe something if you wouldn't die for it [34:51] not really no okay so how would you define belief something you say okay so i explained like i could [34:57] believe it is the case that this pen exists but if someone like threatened my life right i would lie [35:02] in order to be able to save my life right like i think you would do that too you wouldn't lie to [35:06] save your life don't be so sure you you wouldn't lie to save your life how much do you know about me [35:12] i didn't lie to save my career i didn't lie to save my clinical practice would you lie to like save your [35:19] children your mom your dad i don't think lying would save them can there ever be a circumstance [35:24] logically that lying could save someone yeah and if you're steeped in sin you're likely to live in [35:28] circumstances like that i'll give you an example if you're like in like nazi germany and it is the case [35:33] that there's like jewish people in your attic and you're trying to protect them would you lie to [35:37] like the nazis i would have done everything i bloody well could so i wouldn't be in that situation [35:41] to begin with it's a hypothetical and it's not hypotheticals no i can't answer a hypothetical [35:47] like that because it's far look don't play games yes if you present me with an intractable moral choice [35:56] that's stripped of context and you back me into a corner you're playing game i just told you i would do [36:02] everything that i could to make sure that i'm never in that situation by the time you've got there [36:10] you've made so many mistakes that there's nothing you can do that isn't a sin being born in nazi [36:15] germany and in trying to protect people that you care about like there could be a jewish friend that [36:19] you have and you want to protect them i think you should have that line of questioning give up on [36:24] just like trying to clarify your position because it you don't like are you like uncomfortable with me [36:28] asking this question it's just a basic hypothetical like i could ask you it's just a basic hypothetical [36:33] where you're like you put jews lives at stake in nazi germany that's just a basic obviously you would [36:38] lie in that scenario to save their life but you're like not trying to answer this question what's for [36:42] some reason i just told you why are you anti-fascist like so you're anti-fascist why are you asking that [36:47] i was just asking just clarifying but like okay again you're not answering this hypothetical because [36:51] you know it shows that you clearly would lie to say i'm answering it in a manner you don't find [36:56] acceptable obviously because i care about truth i wouldn't be in that scenario obviously right [37:01] logically because that's already happened like that's in the past you don't have a timed travel [37:05] device we're bringing this logical hypothetical up to show you that in some circumstances that [37:09] do happen within the real world you would lie to save people's lives so your definition of truth [37:13] isn't actually how we're typically using it so what you're trying to do is you're trying to muddy the [37:16] waters when i ask you like do you believe this do you think this to be true so you don't actually [37:19] have to answer the questions and plenty of christians don't like that because they clearly see that you [37:23] don't really like want to be associated with christianity imagine that i was in a situation [37:27] where the best i could do as a consequence of my previous mistakes was to tell the least amount of [37:33] lie i could manage but that would likely indicate that i had made all sorts of catastrophic catastrophic [37:39] errors on my way there so you would lie to save someone's life so again you do believe it to be true [37:44] in that circumstance even though you like lied in that scenario so without the context that i put it in [37:50] you were not willing to say you're not willing to willing to let other people die for it so [37:53] that's not what you see to be true then seemingly you're doing exactly what i said you were doing [38:00] at the beginning of the conversation you're generating an impossible restricted hypothetical [38:06] with no precursors to back me into a house impossible is there something contradictory about it [38:10] nice to meet you yeah nice to meet you my next claim is that everybody worships something [38:19] including atheists even though they might not know it good work thank you hi there i'm xena so i want [38:31] to start off with like defining terms um yeah how do you define worship prioritize prioritize so almost [38:36] like having a preference over something rather than the other it's a hierarchy of preferences yeah and you [38:40] use it to direct your attention right so whatever you're attending to you're worshiping right so i've [38:46] kind of become a little bit familiar with your idea of like this value-laden hierarchy yeah [38:50] right and you kind of posit that at the bottom of this hierarchy or you call it top or bottom i suppose [38:56] at the bottom of this hierarchy this this foundational priority in your life is going to be considered [39:01] god that's correct yes right i'm trying to imagine a situation in which could there be that someone has [39:07] a priority at their foundation that is different from someone else's oh definitely right so we can have [39:12] different conceptions of god that's why we fight right so essentially there is no there's not one god [39:18] but there are multiple gods and these gods exist in some realm of truth like like it's true that [39:23] this person has one god and it exists yeah probably better to think about it as multiple values but [39:29] that there's a hierarchy of values with something at the bottom right but the bottom is god and [39:33] there's a definition yeah yeah so at the bottom is god and every there can be multiple people with [39:38] different conceptions of god and they're each valid and being called god so there are multiple gods that [39:43] exist it depends on what you mean by valid so far so good but it depends on what you mean by valid [39:48] because i would say that some foundational conceptions don't play out when they're [39:54] implemented so if you put the wrong thing at the foundation you end up in hell for example that's [40:00] what happens in totalitarian states okay so you're so they're not all equal like all foundational [40:06] principles are not equal even though they might be equally foundation right so what makes one [40:12] kind of foundational tenet like better than another one that's an excellent question um iterability [40:19] imagine that you play a game with someone and you're a kid and it's fun so then you play again [40:24] and again and again so repetition it's yeah it's playability across multiple iterations so then you [40:31] have a friend and a friend is better than having a game so right so that's one breadth of application [40:37] is another so if it's just for me now it's not as good as something that would be benefit to both of us [40:45] across time right so we're explaining like characteristics that can be applied to like [40:49] these types of like foundational values but why is it that that this iterability makes it better and [40:55] what does better mean well one hallmark of better is likely to be selected voluntarily so it's [41:04] invitational descriptive kind of quality so we're talking about characteristics that in some type of [41:10] system with a goal an output being like we could maybe say happiness right or or some some type of [41:16] harmony harmony yeah that's better not happiness precisely because it's too short term exactly so [41:23] as someone who is an atheist right i can explain that within a system there are things that we can see [41:27] as better or worse to meet this goal or meet this output but what i what we're interested in though is [41:34] what could make these things regardless of any system right well imagine that you set up a system [41:39] and you implement it and it produces the opposite results to which you intend oh yeah that's not a [41:44] good system exactly right so the foundational principles are lacking because when you implement [41:48] them the game degenerates instead of moving towards the aim right so we're talking about okay [41:52] within a system when we talk about something being moral right just absolutely moral it means that [41:57] without a system right this thing is just is simply more with no reason like stance independent this thing [42:03] is good so i'm trying to figure out if such thing can exist and if so do you believe that these things [42:09] are moral in of themselves like self-evidently moral or are they moral in in accordance with the system [42:16] i can't define them any more accurately than i already did really okay in regards to morality when [42:21] we talk about the divine when we talk about god and religion these moral tenets and religion [42:26] right and god exists as good because it is god right so it's self-evident right without any [42:33] kind of goal or output this thing is good so i so i want to figure out how there's an element [42:40] of that that's true and so for example in the story of job job is unfairly tortured in consequence [42:48] of a bet between god and satan so job is emblematic of someone who's being hurt for no apparent reason [42:54] okay so job's response to that is that he refuses to lose faith in himself and he refuses to lose faith [43:01] in the ultimate goodness of being okay and those are like those are axiomatic decisions they're not [43:07] exactly evidence dependent because he is suffering there's an arbitrariness in that that's reminiscent [43:13] of what you claim so i'm essentially trying to figure out do you believe that something can be good [43:17] like stance independently something that can be good i don't know what you mean by stance independent [43:21] so i mean independent of people independent of people we can use that or more so i want to be more [43:26] specific something that can be good right regardless of any end goal it's just good no i think good is [43:34] tied up with goal goal okay i completely agree so in a sense this is why that's why the religious goal [43:41] in christianity is the establishment of the heaven of the kingdom of heaven on earth it's goal dependent [43:46] okay right so it's in real it's in reference to a goal so or the goal would be the invitation of christ [43:51] someone's goal right can be something that doesn't encompass being in congruence with god or being [43:57] with god you know the thing that they want to be in oh right right okay that's right that's right [44:02] that's right that's good that's great the the thing they want to be in congruence with is fundamentally [44:08] equivalent to their god so what makes someone a christian and what makes someone not a christian [44:12] what makes like that's what i'm trying to figure out because that's a good question yes yeah well probably [44:17] the deepest answer to that is willingness to shoulder your cross voluntarily and trudge uphill [44:22] regardless of circumstances okay so someone can believe in someone can have a god because in your [44:27] definition your first preference that is god right so someone can believe in god right and not be a [44:33] christian right yeah well there's a statement that christ makes in the gospels he says not everyone [44:39] who says lord lord will enter the kingdom of heaven so not that they're even saying that they believe in [44:43] god but they just i don't know but that's why i'm saying this to you is that christ himself points [44:47] out that there's a difference between people who say they believe and people who act it out [44:52] and the fundamental issue is the action rather than the stated belief but he also says that you know [44:58] to be saved right you must believe god has has died for your sins or that god has resurrected in [45:04] some way so it's like i don't necessarily think that we can take from the bible and say that like [45:08] acting in accordance with god necessarily means or acting in accordance with [45:12] you know the principles of god that for example sacrifice like you talk about means that you are [45:16] christian i don't see how you can get that from the that interpretation and then you know kind of [45:20] justified us i don't think that the fact that you sacrifice is sufficient to make you christian so [45:25] can we repeat once again what you believe makes someone christian there's many things but one of the [45:31] most fundamental is that you believe that the cosmos itself is founded on the principle of voluntary [45:37] self-sacrifice best found let me offer you a contrary example so i can assume that power rules [45:45] and so that my assumption would be if i can make you do it i win right and i can found a whole society [45:51] on that that happens a lot by the way and that's also how societies tend to degenerate and so that would [45:56] be a society that was founded on the principle that you get to sacrifice and i don't have to right now the [46:03] the contrary to that would be something like you give up voluntarily and with courage all the things [46:11] you need to situate yourself properly in relationship to the future and other people right right so then [46:17] there's a there's a harmony that's why i talked about harmony earlier so you navigate your life [46:21] right in accordance kind of to this principle of self-sacrifice can i say it in that way yes you can [46:27] definitely say it that way that's exactly right and navigate is the right term someone does not have [46:32] to have any awareness of christ of the story of of jesus and they but let's say 60 of their actions [46:38] right or more whatever kind of metric you want to use um are in line with this self-sacrifice yeah yeah [46:43] yeah the christian thinkers of the middle ages dealt exactly with that problem when they were talking [46:48] about the pre-christian philosophers for example and they noted the similarity let's say between [46:54] pre-christian greek thought and later christian thought and presumed that there were moral [47:00] actors outside the christian domain right they're addressing christian though is that person well [47:06] to some degree again that's a matter of definition because they wouldn't be proclaiming christian [47:11] propositions but they're acting out the pattern right so yeah so you imagine that full christianity [47:17] would involve a dozen things and you can imagine someone who knows nothing of christianity say acting [47:23] out eight of them right right so so then they'd be eight twelfths christian or something like that [47:28] christian well but to be like a full christian how can someone say i am christian like i am [47:34] christian not eight twelfths but christian well i i hesitate to do that personally because i think [47:40] it's the kind of goal that you be very careful about proclaiming the technical belief is not [47:45] necessarily to be mostly christian belief is not necessary eight twelfths or you know right well it [47:50] depends on what you mean by belief see because i would say that acting out the pattern is the deepest [47:55] form of belief now you could add to that what you say so you know maybe in the optimal situation how [48:02] you act and what you imagine and what you say they're the same right but you can imagine a hypocrite [48:09] who says all sorts of wonderful things and does nothing and you could imagine another person who [48:13] acts in a very positive manner but proclaims nothing so what i'm kind of seeing is like a descriptive [48:19] a really a really comprehensive but descriptive analysis of human action human thought and by [48:27] by which we can characterize people and put people in boxes but i don't see why in boxes when i say in [48:33] boxes i mean like i can categorize you based on your actions not on necessarily what you say but based [48:38] on your actions that you are more so or less so christian right things like that right so we can [48:42] categorize people as christian well i would say more or less voluntarily self-sacrificing yeah but that's [48:48] also what we came to though is that someone can be like 60 or 70 christian based on simply just [48:54] acting in that way richard dawkins is like that i watched that today there we've been voted out by [49:01] the majority very good thank you so much really very thoughtful hey dr peterson how are you doing [49:12] danny nice to meet you what's your name danning yeah you're saying atheist worship things or people or [49:18] places whatever um can you just be very clear about your definition of worship again attend to [49:25] prioritize and sacrifice for okay that's it that's your understanding of worship well i could flesh [49:32] it out but that'll do for the time we have okay do catholics attend to mary oh yes okay so do they [49:41] fit that description of worship yes so you would say catholics and other people that revere mary like [49:47] the eastern orthodox tradition worship mary well they might not put her in the highest but you would put [49:52] it that way no you just said it now you're taking it back there's still a hierarchy okay there's a [49:57] hierarchy but in within there's something at the top all right you can worship mary is quite a ways [50:02] up the hierarchy but not at the top let's go for your definition of worship again what's your definition [50:07] of worship attend to attend to do prioritize do catholic sacrifice for what do catholics attend to um do they [50:16] prioritize mary over all other human beings no i didn't say over all did i i didn't add that to [50:22] you understand you understand i said there was a hierarchy as well you you attend so you can attend [50:27] to something trivially or you can attend to it deeply and now you're adding stuff to the definition [50:32] but your original definition i added the hierarchy part at the beginning are you just didn't understand [50:37] are you familiar with the immaculate conception why is that relevant because you go to a catholic [50:41] church don't you or you've attended recently you're interested in catholicism aren't you sure all [50:45] right are you familiar with their doctrines somewhat okay you're you're familiar how do they regard how [50:50] do they regard mary why are you asking me because you're a christian you say that i haven't claimed that [50:56] oh what is this is this christians versus atheist i don't know you don't know where you are right now [51:01] don't be a smart ass well and i mean either you're a christian or you're not if you're a smart [51:05] ass oh either you're a christian or you're not which one is it i could be either of them but i don't [51:10] have to tell you you don't have to tell me i was under the impression i was invited to talk to a [51:16] christian am i not talking to a christian no you were invited to i think everyone should look at [51:21] the title of the youtube channel you're probably in the wrong youtube video you're really quite [51:25] something you are aren't i but you're really quite nothing right you're not okay i'm done with him [51:30] hi there hi what's your name gerard hello gerard nice to meet you sir so you've said that worship is [51:46] when you prioritize and sacrifice for something right yeah okay there's a hierarchy in there sure [51:51] so i prioritize and sacrifice for my wife more than i would prioritize and sacrifice for a random [51:56] person on the street right probably presumably do i work i don't know i've seen some pretty bad [52:01] pretty bad marriages assuming a good marriage are you saying i worship my wife i'm trying to define [52:07] worship that's what i'm asking so prioritize and sacrifice the higher it is in the hierarchy the more [52:11] what you're doing is akin to worship but even in your trivial acts of attention you're prioritizing [52:16] and partaking in worship even if you don't know it so i am partly well with regard to your wife [52:21] say so why do you value your wife you do i value your wife i love her so i prioritize and i sacrifice [52:28] for right right so that's within a the confines of love let's say sure what else does it serve [52:33] what else does what serve your love in your marriage i mean i am married to my wife because [52:37] i love her that's also why i prioritize and sacrifice for her i certainly wouldn't think [52:41] i worship her and i don't think anyone else would make that definition okay yeah that that [52:47] there's a hierarchy of attentional priority and as you move up it or down it depending on whether [52:52] you think about it as a pinnacle or a foundation you move more towards worship right so even the [52:57] small things i'll give you an example imagine you go on a date well and imagine that your aim is a [53:04] long-term relationship like a marriage okay now imagine that your aim is short-term sexual [53:10] gratification your pattern of attention is going to vary during the date depend on your ultimate [53:16] end of course that's the hierarchy the way that you attend to your wife is dependent on your ultimate [53:21] aims even if you don't know it so at what point is it worship because it sounds like you're saying [53:26] worship is almost a spectrum right it's it's not a binary it's not a it's kind of like that that's a [53:31] good question when is when is it worship as opposed to just i love my wife the closer you get to the [53:36] top or the bottom the more it's like it's more like how close to the top because i don't think [53:41] i worship anything and if you're saying i have to hit a certain threshold for it to be worship [53:45] it is possible i don't worship anything then right it's not possible that you don't worship anything [53:49] what do i worship because you wouldn't attend well love so you think i worship love do you attend in [53:55] consequence of love i see i'm trying to define something what do you mean worship i told you what i [54:01] meant what do you mean so i mean it's a word something you worship is something that you have a [54:05] reverential view for in a manner in which you believe it to be above and beyond normal things [54:11] you like like like you have that attitude towards your wife i have that privilege her to compare to [54:16] other women i of course i privilege her compared to other women but i don't worship her nor does she [54:21] worship me by the definition you just offered yes you do because we taught you just offered a [54:26] definition that involved prioritization and elevation well and thinking that she is divine above and beyond [54:32] what a normal natural women can be not other women no beyond any human being could ever be [54:37] i will prioritize her over you're making the assumption that she is you're making the assumption [54:41] that the only the thing at the top or the bottom has anything to do with worship and i'm saying that's [54:48] not true it's a hierarchy of prioritization and there's something there's either something at the [54:53] top or the bottom depending on the metaphor or you're fragmented and confused those are the only [54:59] options so let's say you're either going in many directions okay or you're going in one direction [55:04] so let's suppose i'm fragmented and confused then you agree i don't worship anything no then you'd [55:09] worship multiple things how but so what's the threshold when it's worship right i prioritize a lot [55:14] of stuff i said that the closer you get to the pinnacle or the closer can you can you give me some [55:19] sort of metric how close do i got to get to this pinnacle do you know the difference between cheap [55:24] literature and deep literature yes okay that's the same issue and how do you how do you distinguish [55:29] between them what's the difference between cheap and deep i mean it's really an opinion-based thing [55:35] right is it so it's just an opinion that dostoevsky is better than a porno magazine well i've spoken [55:40] to people who think to kill a mockingbird's cheap it's one of my favorite books so i mean people will [55:43] differ on well just because people are stupid about things doesn't mean that their opinion is valid [55:48] that's certainly do you well let me ask you i agree with that okay well do you think there is a [55:52] hierarchy in literary quality i think that there is a hierarchy to an extent in literary quality but i think [55:57] once you get to a certain threshold it is just opinion like i agree dostoevsky is better than a [56:01] porno mag but is f scott fitzgerald i don't know yeah fair enough what why do you think that because [56:08] of what a book is what literature is dostoevsky he follows what literature is the purpose of more than [56:14] the porno magazine okay good good well so it's about purpose so let me yeah sure sure let me give you an [56:20] an analog then the depth of worship is analogous to depth of literary significance and the closer you [56:27] get to what's deep the more religious and worshipful your practice so maybe you don't know what's at [56:32] the bottom but something needs to be or you're confused so to use your analogy then how deep do [56:36] i have to go for it to be worship do i have to be catcher in the rye do i have to be war and peace [56:40] or depends on what it depends on what you're seeking for i'm seeking to know whether i worship [56:46] something you've claimed i worship something and i want to have a deep and meaningful life then you [56:50] have to go all the way to the bottom or the top and in so far as you're capable of doing that [56:55] because otherwise you'll be fragmented and miserable and anxiety-ridden and hopeless so i [57:00] have to worship something to have a meaningful life and there's no difference between those two [57:04] things okay they're the same thing so if i don't worship anything my life will not be meaningful [57:08] correct well that's the definition of nihilism okay so if i'm a nihilist i don't worship anything [57:13] that's true and then you oh okay you just said everybody worship something i think you just [57:17] agreed there is a class of people that doesn't well they're incoherent in their worship and hand [57:23] gestures like that aren't going to help all right yeah okay look if you're incoherent and fragmented [57:28] and aimless which is what happens if your objects of worship are unstructured and chaotic then you're [57:35] going to be anxiety ridden and without hope that happens that's a technical argument but there's [57:40] happy nihilists oh there are how do you explain that there are happy nihilists then the mere fact [57:46] that you state that there are happy nihilists doesn't make it true like what's your evidence that how [57:51] do you measure nihilism and how have you associated with happiness and what's your definition of [57:55] happiness and have you compared them to religious people because if you do by the way it's clearly [58:00] the case that religious people over the long run have better mental health it's a well-documented fact [58:05] in psychological literature sure so your your claim is just a claim it doesn't stand on anything so you [58:10] disagree with the claim that there exists even one happy nihilist i didn't say that okay would you [58:14] agree there exists at least one happy nihilist in the universe i have it's not a question that has any meaning [58:20] as far as i'm concerned because it depends on what you mean by happy and it depends on the duration [58:24] that you're trying to calculate over now and then there's probably some deluded soul who thinks he's [58:29] a nihilist who's momentarily pleased with himself but as a long-term strategy to deal with the future [58:35] to get along with yourself and with others it's sadly lacking that's why nietzsche warned that when god died [58:43] as he announced in 1850 that people would be flooded with pointless anxiety ridden hopeless nihilism [58:50] and that was what would attract them to example for example to the false gods of totalitarianism [58:55] which is exactly what happened because everybody worships something even atheists who think they [59:00] don't aren't there unhappy christians or devoted believers so worshipping something is neither [59:06] sufficient nor necessary for happiness then well terrible things can come your way regardless and [59:11] that does happen but it's the case that even when circumstances become deeply troublesome that how [59:19] you're oriented makes a big difference so i'll give you an example so the book of job deals with the [59:26] issue of unfair suffering so job is a good man who has everything taken away from him in the most painful [59:32] possible way to settle a bet right with satan yes and so he makes the axiomatic presumption that he [59:40] won't lose faith in himself or in the spirit of being itself and that helps him remain calm and forward [59:48] looking through his time of trial doesn't he absolutely curse god no his wife tells him to do [59:53] that thank you my final claim is that atheists accept christian morality but deny the religion's [1:00:05] foundational stories hi there it's very nice to meet you what's your name i'm ian hi yes uh so god says [1:00:17] that you can own people as property he says that you can beat them with a rod too uh he commands genocide [1:00:22] and deuteronomy and uh in numbers and in samuel i mean they have a goddamn baby barbecue in numbers [1:00:30] like is is all of this in line with christian ethics no so then god doesn't fit within christian [1:00:39] ethics well the biblical library is a continuing story and everything written in it has to be [1:00:46] contextualized by the entire text there's 65 000 hyperlinks in the biblical text and you can take pieces of it [1:00:53] out out of context and criticize them and that's what you're doing but that's a mistake i think [1:00:59] it's an analytic mistake because you're putting the cart before the horse i really don't think so [1:01:04] i think that if we if we say that something is christian ethics then i think that all of the books [1:01:09] essential to christianity would fit with it especially if it's like the main character when [1:01:13] we're talking how do you deal with the morality of war so how do you think you should deal with the [1:01:18] sure sure sure sure because i feel like the the morality like i feel like christian ethics like [1:01:23] this is kind of i i guess i just think it's like kind of an absurdity to say that god doesn't fit [1:01:27] within christian ethics but sure well we can go on my ethics that's totally fine i don't know what you [1:01:30] mean by an absurdity what game are you playing with well i just think that it's an absurdity to say that [1:01:34] the christian god doesn't fit within christian ethics that like the christian god isn't like christian [1:01:38] i said that the specific statements that you made don't take the context of the stories into account [1:01:45] and so that your analytical approach is faulty sure don't put words in my mouth sure then let's [1:01:50] go through the example yeah so oh and i apologize so let's go through the example so in first samuel [1:01:55] 15 3 god says go and and slaughter the amalekites slaughter the men the women the children the infants [1:02:02] what's the justification for that is that within is that in line that's a good question that's a good [1:02:07] question i don't really know what to do with the terrible blood-soaked saturated history of the human [1:02:13] past i don't know and i don't think anybody knows i mean what you try to do in your own life as far [1:02:19] as i can tell is to conduct yourself in a manner that makes such things much more unlikely i totally [1:02:25] agree we're all saddled with the problem of the catastrophes that got us here aren't we yeah but [1:02:30] this one was commanded by god that's the problem that's what differentiates it from anything else is [1:02:35] that this one it's god saying go and do this atrocity do you think that there's ever such a thing as a [1:02:41] righteous war i'm skeptical i'm not sure it would probably be situational well right right fair [1:02:48] enough but this one certainly wasn't a just war the context for the amalekite slaughter is that 400 [1:02:52] years earlier they fought one battle which they lost and god says that's it i'm gonna wipe them [1:02:58] off the face of the goddamn earth and then 400 years later he commands the israelites to genocide [1:03:04] their great great great great great great grandchildren that's not a just war at all and [1:03:09] also a genocide is not a war well a genocide can be a war but absolutely not the genociding of the [1:03:16] amalekites the men the women and the infants that's not a war the infants aren't combatants [1:03:21] look i already said that it's very difficult to look at the blood so past and to know exactly what [1:03:27] to do about it the answer i gave to the gentleman who was sitting here before you is that it's necessary [1:03:33] to read a text like the bible at all of its levels of analysis simultaneously and there's a [1:03:38] directional morality that emerges across time that has its roots in the old testament for example [1:03:45] with its restrictions against murder specifically that makes itself manifest in the christian texts [1:03:52] as the insistence on voluntary self-sacrifice as the foundational belief that's a profoundly [1:03:58] anti-violence ethos do you have the belief in your theology well what do you think of that wait a [1:04:03] sec now redress so yeah yeah so i'm about to address it but i'm addressing it with a question [1:04:07] do you think that god is by his very essence perfect uh you'll have to provide more sure just [1:04:13] like maximally great and all i think great quality sure yeah like like flawless yeah so okay so so [1:04:18] there's a flawless thing change does a flawless thing reveal like more and better information over [1:04:23] time or would a flawless thing say here's what's good here is the the absolute good thing to do at all [1:04:29] circumstances in time well we know some of that we tell the truth that's one that's totally fine but [1:04:36] no no no no you don't get to say it over that because that's totally totally that's a strong [1:04:40] man of my position it's a strong man of the argument so the argument is that wait wait a sec [1:04:44] you said find one maxim that's transcendent across situations i didn't say any of those words i'm not [1:04:52] sure what conversation you're a part of don't be a smart ass i'm sorry seriously i mean it if we're [1:04:59] gonna have a serious conversation conduct yourself properly okay okay rephrase your question so that [1:05:05] because i must have missed it i tried to answer it so in my mind i guess by my lights a perfect [1:05:10] being doesn't change a perfect being if they're maximally good maximally moral does our understanding [1:05:15] of the perfect being change our understanding might but how do we just think how do we just think well [1:05:21] i agree how do we distinguish between that though at the human level how do we distinguish between [1:05:26] between our transforming understanding of perfection and perfection itself between our [1:05:31] we can only yeah well we can only see through our own lenses presumably a perfect being would be [1:05:35] revealing all of these aspects all the time especially if god's outside of time i don't [1:05:39] know how a god who's outside of time how does something feeling different things at different [1:05:43] times that just seems like incoherent to me imagine something that's perfect sure and complete sure [1:05:48] okay and it's trying to communicate with creatures who are anything but that sure well they're going to get [1:05:53] it wrong sure okay wait a sec do you blame that on the interpreters or the phenomena itself uh so [1:05:59] like for example are you perfect in attending to your conscience hold on at the point in time when [1:06:03] god is literally the one who created us he could have created us in a way where we would always be [1:06:07] receptive to these principles where we don't have to go across like a learning curve where you know [1:06:11] maybe we'll understand thousands of years thousands of years in the future maybe we'll do it also if you [1:06:17] believe in an all-knowing god then free will is impossible uh because wait a sec let's not go [1:06:21] wait because you threw you threw free will into the mix well that was the answer to your question [1:06:25] yeah and you said why wouldn't god well you know it's a thousand years of deep thinking philosophers [1:06:32] would disagree with you yeah and a thousand years of or at least like last 50 years of philosophers would [1:06:37] disagree with you these analytic philosophers people like graham oppe make arguments about the the [1:06:42] incompatibility of omniscience uh and free will that if god created this world if he chose this [1:06:48] world instead of that world then he makes it causally inevitable every single action that you were [1:06:53] going to make if he made a world where we were just electrons in love then none of this would have [1:06:57] happened but by making us in this world knowing exactly what's going to happen in the future it makes [1:07:02] all of those events inevitable which means that they're all causally determined which means that we [1:07:06] have no free will if you believe in an all good god or an all-knowing god that made everything well [1:07:11] have it your way okay so then the the odyssey fails well it fails for you that doesn't mean [1:07:17] you've disproved it i mean yes you tried to make a case for a causally deterministic universe i don't [1:07:24] think there's any evidence for that at all do you think that god could have created a different [1:07:27] universe than the one that he created i have no idea okay so then there's going to be a double bind [1:07:32] right so either he couldn't have done it in which case he lacks a power or he could have done it in [1:07:37] which case we don't have free will because he chose this world instead of that world making the the [1:07:41] events of this world instead of that world inevitable with his infallible knowledge i don't [1:07:44] understand where you're headed which means that the free will defense fails like all this like [1:07:48] and under your view no problem i don't know why it's relevant to the issue do you acknowledge that [1:07:54] under your view free will doesn't exist no oh then do you want to respond to the argument you'll have [1:07:58] to phrase it more clearly so that someone like me can understand yeah yeah i gotcha so so god already [1:08:03] knows in advance everything that's going to happen which means that by making this world instead of that [1:08:08] world everything is inevitable which means that god's act of causing this world instead of that [1:08:14] world doesn't mean determined it's causally inevitable if god chooses this world instead of [1:08:18] that world doesn't make it determined causally inevitable means determined no it doesn't absolutely [1:08:23] yes it does well have it your way okay that's not the case you've been voted out by the majority [1:08:39] jordan nice to meet you very zippy what's your name i'm liam hi liam how are you doing i'm doing well [1:08:44] how are you not too bad i'm surrounded by atheists my my question to you let me scoot in would be [1:08:53] what does it mean to accept christian values precisely or christian morality it means to aim up [1:09:02] as hard as you can no matter what happens to you okay okay so i think that i think that that's [1:09:11] a very broad definition of what christian but it'll come in handy at some point in your life right but [1:09:16] i think that many different like disciplines and theologies well you asked for a truncated answer [1:09:21] i mean there's other ways of representing the situation but i wanted to give you something that [1:09:25] was kind of foundational briefly yeah that makes sense it doesn't mean it's you know exhaustive yeah [1:09:33] i could you know i could say that you you would have to believe that christ is god and he died for [1:09:38] your sins right but that's in a very difficult way to understand that's the same claim yeah yeah if there are [1:09:46] other theologies and disciplines yeah that have similar types of values yeah how how then is that [1:09:54] definition mean like wouldn't those also be christian values under your definition that's a good question [1:10:00] i spent a lot of time studying different religious systems from all over the world and found multiple [1:10:07] interesting layers of concordance so for example in ancient egypt their god horus who was the reviving god [1:10:15] of the totalitarian state the correct he was the god of attention right and the jews hypothetically [1:10:21] came out of egypt and there was cross talk between egyptian and jewish foundational morality and then [1:10:27] that bled into christianity i mean human beings all over the world have come up with moral systems that [1:10:33] fit roughly into a pattern and yeah and they're they're very usefully studied you know i learned a lot [1:10:39] about christianity by studying taoism for example like a lot so i think you can make a case that [1:10:45] christianity formalized the landscape of good and evil more comprehensively and in more detail than any [1:10:51] other religious system and i think that that's part of the reason that it defeated paganism and spread so [1:10:56] broadly across the west and is still dominant still under structures our culture for example the way you [1:11:02] feel about horus or taoism or something is how i feel about christian morals i think yeah but how do [1:11:08] i feel about them well that you you took inspiration from them you learned from them maybe that's a good [1:11:14] start right you know because i would say that actually constitutes belief uh like you said well look [1:11:19] not right right in noah in the story of noah right noah is inspired by the apprehension that all hell [1:11:27] is going to break loose okay he regards that inspiration as god okay right and when god comes [1:11:34] to abraham he comes to abraham as the spirit of adventure it's inspiration one of the definitions [1:11:40] of god in the old testament unsurprisingly given the derivation of the word is inspiration and so if [1:11:47] you take inspiration from christian ideas then in so far as you do that you are in fact a believer [1:11:53] which was my point with regards to atheists correct not understanding but have you taken inspiration [1:11:58] from taoism or from studying egyptian mythology definitely so then you believe them under that [1:12:07] definition yeah but i've incorporated them into something i think that's more comprehensive is it [1:12:12] possible to to take inspiration and to appreciate the teachings without being a believer in their truth [1:12:20] claims i i it depends no i don't think so but i think you see you're you're there are different [1:12:26] kinds of truth claims right there's propositional truth claims which are the truth claims of what you [1:12:30] say and then there's embodied truth claims which is the truth claims of what you do that should be [1:12:36] prioritized optimally what you say and what you do would be brought into harmony but i would say if you [1:12:43] had to prioritize it should be what you attend to and what you act first and that's what christ actually [1:12:48] says in the gospels because he points to the pharisees for example who say all the right things [1:12:54] but don't do any of the right things and points out very clearly that that's not acceptable i i just [1:12:59] i don't know i don't know that the christian morality those those principles originate in [1:13:05] christianity because you brought up other uh other things that predate christianity that you can [1:13:11] like very closely tie connections to well i don't think they do originate precisely i mean i don't think [1:13:16] the christian claim is exactly that they originate christianity so if i'm living those values how is [1:13:22] it that i'm living the christian values and maybe not the egyptian values or something else that was [1:13:31] good that was good yeah hello there how are you doing i'm good how are you what's your name i'm [1:13:45] kumari so i was curious about this like christian morality that you're talking about because a lot of my [1:13:52] issues of christianity have to do with the base morality of it specifically with like the idea [1:13:57] of like the rapture and how we see people that aren't going to come up with us with the rapture [1:14:02] and that concept of heaven and hell i don't really agree with that morality but if you could explain [1:14:08] that to me and how i do agree with that i would love to like hear well i can't explain the rapture to [1:14:13] you because that isn't something i concern myself with and that's more of a sectarian belief than [1:14:18] something that's central to christianity now there's all sorts of evangelical protestants who [1:14:22] might disagree with that but that doesn't have anything to do with me you asked a more deeper [1:14:28] question with regard to let's say heaven and hell and judgment yeah yeah well that's a tough one right [1:14:34] i mean sin you could put it this way sin is what puts you in hell right and so then you might ask well [1:14:40] how do you know you're in hell how how about you do anything to get out of it can i ask how about you [1:14:46] know that you put yourself there do you think is sin like a part of christian morality what do you [1:14:51] what do you mean exactly sin is like it's missing the sin kate it's derived from an archery term and [1:14:57] it means to miss the target right and so it presumes that there's such a thing as a central target and [1:15:03] that you can miss it in many ways and the consequence of that will be your life will be ridden with anxiety [1:15:10] your life will be pointless people will turn against you don't believe in sin at all well do you believe [1:15:15] in error have you made any mistakes what if i believe that the mistakes that you make that [1:15:21] they're fixable and so that no sin is finite and that that's a christian belief of the idea of hell [1:15:27] i don't believe that's also a christian belief by the way a christian belief is hell no that there's [1:15:32] no sin that well there's one the sin against the holy ghost is unforgivable but that's really the sin [1:15:38] against the process that would enable you to learn but is the there's a christian belief that hell does [1:15:43] exist and if i commit sin i'm going to go there correct yes so what if i don't i don't believe [1:15:48] in that like i think okay let me know when you can i explain a little bit sure sure okay thank you i [1:15:51] think that when you commit sin that it's because of a lot of environmental factors in your life like [1:15:57] where you were born and who you were raised by and so there are certain things that lead you down a [1:16:00] dangerous path and once you are dead i think you're kind of removed of that person there's no like [1:16:06] i can't say anything about what happens after death so i would ask you in these times that you [1:16:13] suffered terribly in ways that you thought would never end do you believe that you had any causal [1:16:19] role in that like did you play a part in that in my own suffering yeah maybe sometimes i would say [1:16:26] that there was a part that i played that okay that's the thing to find out i think that maybe [1:16:31] it's like a concept of free will that i don't really believe and somewhat of free will but i think that [1:16:35] there are certain things in your life that lead you to do certain behaviors and so when you commit [1:16:40] those sins you go to hell i'm not too sure why you would still be when you reaping the consequences of [1:16:45] that i like i said i can't address that do you believe that you can change i do do you believe [1:16:51] you can change for the better i do do you believe that when you change for the better you abandon the [1:16:55] things you've done in the past that weren't good i think that you can okay then that's very much in [1:17:02] keeping with christian doctrine can you explain to me how that's in keeping with christian doctrine [1:17:06] you believe you would go to hell for those things you can you believe you can improve yeah right and [1:17:11] you believe that if you improved you would let go of things that were impeding you that's a sacrifice [1:17:17] you believe that improvement would be upward and you believe that you have agency in that [1:17:22] yeah those are all christian presuppositions i guess i just maybe we have different opinions of what [1:17:28] christian morality is yes so i think that my opinion of christian morality is something that i don't really [1:17:33] agree with and maybe you would define that as like the foundations well let me give you an example [1:17:39] so if you want to atone which means to unify yourself and unify that with the world then the [1:17:46] first thing you have to do is figure out what you did wrong and admit it that's a confession that was [1:17:52] good thank you nice to meet you too i picked zina because i think she asked genuine questions and [1:18:06] wasn't trying to win okay well hello hi there my claim is jordan peterson's framework for understanding [1:18:13] christianity is probably not the one that the bible intended us to use in regards to the way that you [1:18:19] interpret the bible i don't see you have said in some circumstances that there's not a way to kind of [1:18:26] say whether or not ontologically the historical claims made by the bible are true like for example [1:18:31] the story of cain navel you've said that this story is like a meta-truth in the sense that it is [1:18:38] it exists all throughout time culturally and the way that you define meta-truth i don't see the [1:18:43] distinguish a distinction between that and like a metaphor right but if and you also said you cannot [1:18:50] say whether this story was true you can say that it exists eternally you know metaphorically but it is [1:18:56] you can't say that it's true and if you can't say that there are historical facts being said in the [1:19:01] bible as stories that haven't that weren't really said with much ambiguity ambiguity how can we say [1:19:08] that we can understand the bible in the way that it's meant to be interpreted like how if you cannot [1:19:11] make any claims about these stories right you don't know they're the true or false how do you know that [1:19:15] your interpretation is the correct way see that's why i picked you you ask intelligent questions thank you [1:19:21] yeah that was good what do they say by their fruits you'll know them okay right well so one of the [1:19:28] things i look at is the impact of what i'm doing right and so i know a lot of evangelical christians [1:19:35] a lot of catholics a lot of orthodox christians a lot of people from other faiths and they've told me [1:19:42] like many of them that they found my interpretations very helpful and that it deepened their faith [1:19:48] and so that's interesting because i wouldn't have necessarily expected that to be the case [1:19:53] and i've also talked to thousands of people who've told me that they came to understand the foundational [1:19:59] stories of their culture better as a consequence of listening to me and that they did everything [1:20:03] they could to sort out their lives and that it worked that's many different pieces of evidence [1:20:09] that all converge on something like the practical and conceptual utility of my approach now is it the [1:20:16] same there are a lot of there is a lot of approaches to biblical interpretation historically [1:20:22] and what i'm doing is possibly less new than you think yeah i want to make a claim on whether this [1:20:28] evidence is enough right to substantiate whether or not your interpretation is going to you know be [1:20:35] more plausible right be the most plausible because in regards an open question yeah right you bet [1:20:40] so in regards to how we interpret the bible and how we see the bible something can add value to [1:20:46] someone's life an interpretation can add value to someone's life interpretation can connect you to [1:20:50] your conception of what your faith is but if it's the quote-unquote interpretation that god does not [1:20:55] intend that can lead to a plethora that's certainly the case that's why the medieval christians were so [1:21:01] concerned about heresy exactly yeah because they felt and that's why the catholics objected so much to [1:21:06] the protestant reformation because they believed that the fractionation of christianity would result in [1:21:12] an indefinite fractionation right well and that's exactly what's happened right so yeah that's [1:21:16] definitely a problem i think one of the foundational principles for example there's a foundational [1:21:20] principle in the old testament of hospitality right so what you want to do if you set up your local [1:21:26] environment properly is to make it welcoming to people voluntarily and so one of the ways you could [1:21:32] judge the validity of the interpretation of a classic story is that whether is whether or not that [1:21:37] interpretation might be regarded by someone as welcoming does that represent something you'd [1:21:42] actually like to have if you were acting in your own interest in the long run right and we can talk [1:21:47] about that like like do protect you from fear might be another one exactly so we can talk about like [1:21:52] how these interpretations of the bible like if they kind of resonate with us and i think but i do [1:21:58] and i think that that can in some case be some kind of like evidence oh this might be true but i think [1:22:03] we need to ask is evidence damning right is this evidence certain right so but i do want to look [1:22:08] at again the consequences and our understanding of this interpretation once more so we look at again [1:22:13] the story of cain and abel and we say yeah so i believe this is a meta truth i believe that this [1:22:18] story is resonant throughout cultures that is all true and i'm sure that there are is some in some way [1:22:23] the story was put in here for the reason right to to tell us about you know fights between brothers but [1:22:28] also you can't say i do nor i don't know that this story is false or true in an ontological historical [1:22:34] sense as a historical fact were there two people like like that were specifically referenced okay [1:22:39] i don't think that's knowable but i'm not sure why it matters to you so the reason why it matters to [1:22:45] me is because we need to know how we should interpret the things that the bible says and the the the many [1:22:50] ways right right but like if we interpret sometimes poetry sometimes history sometimes fact [1:22:56] but for example the reason why it's important right very important is because for example you [1:23:00] can talk about something like god says i believe it's like first corinthians 15 17 something about [1:23:06] how belief in god specifically as someone who resurrected or as someone who died for our sins [1:23:13] is important right but we have to look at if we can interpret that as just like you have to believe [1:23:17] that god is a symbol of sacrifice that is different from believing that there is an actual [1:23:21] person named jesus christ who died on the cross that's true so if you believe one and not the other that [1:23:25] can be the difference between you going to hell and you going to heaven so if we cannot make [1:23:29] like we cannot say that we know whether or not certain historical facts in the bible happen like [1:23:35] even as just like events like because the events matter because again god dying for our sins on the [1:23:40] cross was an event if we can't say that we know these things happen these things did or didn't happen [1:23:44] this then leads us to kind of like the conundrum of how do we know what we are meant to believe what [1:23:49] the bible intended for us to believe and this can be very very important to like our fate [1:23:55] yeah i've got no disagreement with any of that what sort of response do you want from that you pushed [1:24:01] me beyond the limits of my knowledge really well i think that's there's so many things you can't know [1:24:07] i'm struggling i know that the biblical stories are the foundation of western culture [1:24:13] i know that the consequence of those stories has been the genesis of a society that is in the main [1:24:22] freer and more abundant than any societies have ever been i don't exactly understand the relationship [1:24:28] between those stories and that outcome but it's not nothing right but i don't know i don't know the [1:24:33] answer to the questions that you're asking you know it's it's the case that forever when people have [1:24:39] been interpreting religious stories they wrestled with exactly the question that you just described [1:24:44] when is it fact when is it poetry when is it music when is it metaphor when is it ritual [1:24:49] when is it time bound but what i'm saying is that your interpretation of the bible if you cannot [1:24:54] tell us again if these historical events happened or not that can be deciding factor if someone is [1:25:00] like damned to hell for eternity or if they go to heaven right so that's why i'm what i don't concern [1:25:06] myself so much with that particular question you know like that that would be something that would [1:25:10] stem more from an evangelical viewpoint and i'm not putting that down by the way i don't you're [1:25:16] asking me a question i really can't answer okay i'm not claiming even that my interpretations are [1:25:21] canonically correct i can only tell you the consequences of having released them into the [1:25:27] world let's say right so i guess we've kind of come to a conclusion about that which i've kind of [1:25:31] wrestled with your your framework and pushed it kind of to its kind of to its end at least in the way [1:25:36] that you can answer my question so i don't know that we can more wrestle with that see i don't i guess [1:25:41] the problem is you see i don't exactly understand i don't think anybody does the relationship between [1:25:47] fact and destiny you know well there are different realms in a way because knowing what the world is [1:25:53] made of doesn't help you navigate through it not really it doesn't provide you with a foundation for [1:25:58] navigation but knowing the facts of the world is obviously useful and the relationship between those [1:26:04] two things and part of that's the mystery of western civilization and the continued competition [1:26:10] between science and religion to bridge this kind of understanding between fact and destiny is like [1:26:16] an important question that it the burden is on christianity to answer and specifically [1:26:21] interpretations of christianity and if we can't do that why is the burden on christianity because it [1:26:26] posits right that this interpretation right is going to be a way to understand god but if it's faulty [1:26:31] right that what evidence would you see what what evidence would you accept that would be an interesting [1:26:37] question because i haven't met i've seen people try to answer the question and i've never really [1:26:41] been moved because i can always attack and then against kind of get to this point where the answer [1:26:44] is i don't know well here's an answer pause there i'm sorry that's time all right well thank you so [1:26:49] much well i definitely picked the right person that was very good thank you very good i don't like [1:26:56] talking to win but there were portions of all the conversations that were truly productive [1:27:02] and that it's instructive for people to see the distinction between a debate that's aimed at [1:27:07] local victory and dominance let's say even of ideas and a discussion that's predicated on mutual [1:27:13] exploration and establishment of like a harmonious understanding and peace jordan peterson out of all [1:27:19] of the kind of theists that are on the internet he is one of the better ones in regards just like [1:27:25] being genuine as a person but i do feel like he does a lot of i guess wordplay that can make it a [1:27:31] little bit difficult and kind of just muddies the waters in regard to what we define as christianity [1:27:36] and atheism jordan peterson i credit to turning me into an atheist i had a blast talking to him today [1:27:42] i think if the average person followed what jordan peterson said they'd realize that fundamentally [1:27:46] jordan peterson is not a christian in fact uses many atheistic principles and operated under bad [1:27:52] faith by seeming to forget what basic words meant when he didn't want to answer a question [1:27:56] his definitions can kind of shift a little bit depending on the moment and i think that he [1:28:01] wasn't afraid to flex that definitional muscle and i felt really good about our conversation [1:28:06] i thought that it highlighted some some key issues in jordan peterson's theology i hope he reflects on [1:28:12] these issues and maybe deepens his perspective on them in the future with xena she was able to [1:28:17] build up such a rapport that he chose her in the end and they were able to have an extended dialogue [1:28:22] which is something i had hoped for so maybe i learned a little something from xena about being [1:28:27] more cordial it's extraordinarily useful to be able to model productive debate and conversation for [1:28:33] people and see how my thoughts were landing with people who are particularly skeptical and to put that [1:28:39] in front of a large audience and to assess the consequences