1). Transliminal’s interview with Peterson: https://youtu.be/07Ys4tQPRis
2). Sam Harris’ debate with Peterson (titled ‘What is True?’): https://samharris.org/podcasts/what-i…
3). Peterson and Weinstein debating the nature of truth: https://youtu.be/0cLLFSdKZLI
4). Timothy Lott asks Peterson ‘Are you a Christian?’: https://youtu.be/RIB05YeMiW8

1). Matt Johnson’s ‘The Peculiar Opacity of Jordan Peterson’s Religious Views’: https://quillette.com/2018/07/23/the-…
2). Jordan claiming that “Sam is a Christian”: https://youtu.be/jjYQ48t4C8U
3). Jordan also claiming that “Sam is a Christian”: https://youtu.be/enduikARwRw
4). Jordan Peterson’s “Atheists Are Murderers”: https://youtu.be/zmrpiCsuv6w
5). Jordan Peterson’s “Western Civilisation is Based on Judeo-Christian Values”: https://youtu.be/Wd6FgYbMffk
6). Jordan Peterson’s “Address The Hard Hitters”: https://youtu.be/upGxmPd_fhI
7). Jordan Peterson’s Truth – Debunked: https://youtu.be/AwXAB6cICG0
8). Jordan Peterson’s Archetypes – Debunked: https://youtu.be/VW2bxDOAx3Q
9). Jordan Peterson is NOT a Christian: https://youtu.be/UWuYSo-nL08
10). Everyone is Religious – Debunked: https://youtu.be/ZMhP59FnXgw

1). Jordan Peterson’s Truth – Debunked: https://youtu.be/AwXAB6cICG0

2). Carl Jung speaking about archetypes: https://youtu.be/SIuJUt90BMo

3). Baby turtles intentionally travelling to water: https://youtu.be/T8eGw1oyYoQ

4). Jordan Peterson on The Future Thinkers Podcast: https://youtu.be/OXZJRT4kBSA

5). Jordan Peterson on Sam Harris’ Podcast: https://youtu.be/OXZJRT4kBSA

1). Jordan Peterson’s lecture and Q&A session at Lafayette: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT_YS…

2). Jordan Peterson discussing the nature of truth on the Joe Rogan Podcast: https://youtu.be/knvqdxoqYSI

3). Jordan Peterson’s Truth – Debunked: https://youtu.be/AwXAB6cICG0

4). Jordan Peterson’s Archetypes – Debunked: https://youtu.be/VW2bxDOAx3Q

5s). Jordan Peterson is NOT a Christian: https://youtu.be/UWuYSo-nL08

1). Jordan Peterson and Matt Dillahunty debate (Pansburn Philosophy): https://youtu.be/FmH7JUeVQb8

2). Jordan Peterson’s lecture and Q&A session at Lafayette: https://youtu.be/qT_YSPxxFJk

3). Jordan Peterson’s “Western Civilisation is Based on Judeo-Christian Values”: https://youtu.be/Wd6FgYbMffk

4). Jordan Peterson’s “Address The Hard Hitters”: https://youtu.be/upGxmPd_fhI

5). Jordan Peterson’s Truth – Debunked: https://youtu.be/AwXAB6cICG0

6). Jordan Peterson’s Archetypes – Debunked: https://youtu.be/VW2bxDOAx3Q

7). Jordan Peterson is NOT a Christian: https://youtu.be/UWuYSo-nL08

8). Everyone is Religious – Debunked: https://youtu.be/ZMhP59FnXgw

 

 

1
00:00:01,500 –> 00:00:06,080
So let me begin by saying that I entirely
appreciate why so many venerate and idolize

2
00:00:06,080 –> 00:00:10,710
Jordan Peterson, as he’s obviously an intelligent
and insightful man, whose defence of free

3
00:00:10,710 –> 00:00:14,360
speech and biological facts has been truly
admirable.

4
00:00:14,360 –> 00:00:17,880
In fact, it’s precisely for these reasons
that he has my respect.

5
00:00:17,880 –> 00:00:22,730
However, unlike many of his critics, who caveat
their criticisms by first making clear that

6
00:00:22,730 –> 00:00:26,710
they’re very fond of the man, I won’t…
because I’m not.

7
00:00:26,710 –> 00:00:30,990
To be blunt, while I recognize Peterson’s
intellect and charisma, I’m convinced that

8
00:00:30,990 –> 00:00:35,680
he’s one of the most overrated public intellectuals
of our time, and that this is especially the

9
00:00:35,680 –> 00:00:38,390
case when it comes to his views on religion.

10
00:00:38,390 –> 00:00:43,730
In fact, I will go so far as to say that Jordan
Peterson is the Deepak Chopra of Christianity,

11
00:00:43,730 –> 00:00:47,899
and within the following few videos I intend
to explain precisely why.

12
00:00:47,899 –> 00:00:52,520
Of course, I’d prefer to address all of
his religious views in just one session, but

13
00:00:52,520 –> 00:00:57,760
given my current situation I unfortunately
can’t justify doing this, but, as just indicted,

14
00:00:57,760 –> 00:01:01,649
what I can justify is creating a series of
videos which each address a pillar of his

15
00:01:01,649 –> 00:01:05,069
beliefs, and then later compile them all together.

16
00:01:05,069 –> 00:01:10,210
And so, with that said, where better to begin
than with epistemology 101?

17
00:01:10,210 –> 00:01:15,900
This, is Jordan Peterson’s Truth – Debunked.

18
00:01:21,930 –> 00:01:27,560
On the 9th of November, 2015, in an interview
with Transliminal, Peterson had the following

19
00:01:27,560 –> 00:01:32,180
to say on the topic of truth: “So, now, then
you have to ask yourself, well, how do you

20
00:01:32,180 –> 00:01:35,170
determine whether or not a theory is true?

21
00:01:35,170 –> 00:01:38,619
Then you ask yourself, well, what do you mean
by true?

22
00:01:38,619 –> 00:01:40,060
Well then you’re in trouble!

23
00:01:40,060 –> 00:01:46,350
Okay, because, I think you can take a Newtonian
perspective on that, or a Darwinian perspective,

24
00:01:46,350 –> 00:01:48,079
but you can’t do both at the same time…”

25
00:01:48,079 –> 00:01:52,081
Okay, so I’m going to interject quite a
lot within this video, but it’s only to

26
00:01:52,081 –> 00:01:55,320
simplify and adequately address what’s being
said.

27
00:01:55,320 –> 00:01:59,680
So far, Peterson has claimed that there’s
two perspectives on truth, the first is what

28
00:01:59,680 –> 00:02:04,700
he calls Newtonian, which he later defines
as strictly materialistic “Truth as defined

29
00:02:04,700 –> 00:02:09,299
by the axioms of materi… of the materialist
philosophy”, and the second is what he calls

30
00:02:09,299 –> 00:02:13,569
Darwinian, which he later defines as that
which permits survival “sufficient truth

31
00:02:13,569 –> 00:02:17,920
is the truth that allows you to survive and
reproduce, and from a Darwinian perspective,

32
00:02:17,920 –> 00:02:20,300
there isn’t any truth past that”.

33
00:02:20,300 –> 00:02:23,630
But there’s immediately several problems
here… and not the least of which is that

34
00:02:23,630 –> 00:02:25,620
he’s committing a Black and White fallacy.

35
00:02:25,620 –> 00:02:29,700
He’s falsely asserting that there’s only
two perspectives of truth, when in fact there’s

36
00:02:29,700 –> 00:02:33,650
many more, including the most-subscribed to,
which is realism.

37
00:02:33,650 –> 00:02:39,100
Realists, like me, and probably you, hold
that reality exists with or without our viewing

38
00:02:39,100 –> 00:02:43,340
it – that is, that a falling tree makes
a sound with or without our being there to

39
00:02:43,340 –> 00:02:48,580
hear it, but we don’t assert that reality
is strictly materialist.

40
00:02:48,580 –> 00:02:52,750
And a second problem that’s worth emphasizing
at this point is that while Peterson’s definition

41
00:02:52,750 –> 00:02:57,940
of truth can be seen as Darwinian, it does
not represent Darwin’s view, and so when

42
00:02:57,940 –> 00:03:02,050
Peterson says or implies that it does “And
that’s basically Darwin’s claim”, know

43
00:03:02,050 –> 00:03:05,379
that he’s putting words never spoken into
Darwin’s mouth.

44
00:03:05,379 –> 00:03:11,129
Anyhow, here’s Peterson fleshing out his
perspective of truth (which, courtesy of Bret

45
00:03:11,129 –> 00:03:13,790
Weinstein, is now known as ‘metaphorical
truth’).

46
00:03:13,790 –> 00:03:19,010
“So Nietzsche said ‘truth serves life’,
okay, in some sense that’s a Darwinian idea

47
00:03:19,010 –> 00:03:20,010
– okay?

48
00:03:20,010 –> 00:03:26,330
If it’s true enough so that you act it out
or hold it, that increases your chances of

49
00:03:26,330 –> 00:03:29,670
survival and reproduction over long spans
of time.

50
00:03:29,670 –> 00:03:31,360
That’s true.”

51
00:03:31,360 –> 00:03:36,150
And here’s him putting it more clearly to
Sam Harris while on Harris’ podcast: “The

52
00:03:36,150 –> 00:03:40,670
fundamental axiom that I’m playing with
is something that was basically explained

53
00:03:40,670 –> 00:03:47,380
by Nietzsche, and it’s a definition of truth
– and so I would say, if it doesn’t serve

54
00:03:47,380 –> 00:03:50,129
life it’s not true.”

55
00:03:50,129 –> 00:03:54,810
Now while this definition is needlessly confusing,
it’s not inherently flawed – if Peterson

56
00:03:54,810 –> 00:03:59,439
and his ilk want to call that which serves
life (or that which increases human flourishing)

57
00:03:59,439 –> 00:04:04,549
‘true’ then that’s fine… again, it’s
confusing, because it means, for example,

58
00:04:04,549 –> 00:04:09,319
that if the fact that atoms store potential
energy should one day prove fatal to us, then

59
00:04:09,319 –> 00:04:13,670
while this fact will remain true in the colloquial
/ realist sense of the word, it will all of

60
00:04:13,670 –> 00:04:16,470
a sudden become false in the Peterson sense
of the word…

61
00:04:16,470 –> 00:04:21,829
But what’s not fine, is to insist, as Peterson
does, that should a fact become false according

62
00:04:21,829 –> 00:04:26,120
to the Peterson definition of truth then it
will also become false according to the realist

63
00:04:26,120 –> 00:04:27,120
definition of truth.

64
00:04:27,120 –> 00:04:28,440
Or in other words, that metaphorical truth
supersedes literal truth; “It sounds like

65
00:04:28,440 –> 00:04:40,270
what you’re saying is that truth is as much
about action as it is about some sort of material,

66
00:04:40,270 –> 00:04:41,270
measurable, objective reality.

67
00:04:41,270 –> 00:04:42,720
No I’m saying it’s more about action!

68
00:04:42,720 –> 00:04:50,090
Oh yes, yes, the fundamentals of truth are
those that guide action, and then the objective

69
00:04:50,090 –> 00:04:52,860
science is nested inside that, it has to be!

70
00:04:52,860 –> 00:04:54,520
There’s no way around that!”

71
00:04:54,520 –> 00:05:00,460
There’s only one way you can define truth
in relationship to finite beings – it’s true

72
00:05:00,460 –> 00:05:01,870
enough.

73
00:05:01,870 –> 00:05:03,620
True enough for what?

74
00:05:03,620 –> 00:05:05,970
True enough so that you survive and reproduce.

75
00:05:05,970 –> 00:05:07,590
That’s it.

76
00:05:07,590 –> 00:05:09,250
You don’t get to go any further than that.

77
00:05:09,250 –> 00:05:10,919
What’s more true than that?

78
00:05:10,919 –> 00:05:12,270
Sorry, can’t ask that question.

79
00:05:12,270 –> 00:05:13,270
That’s it.

80
00:05:13,270 –> 00:05:16,340
You’ve hit the limit – and that’s basically
Darwin’s claim.”

81
00:05:16,340 –> 00:05:20,110
And to provide just one more example, here’s
him putting it another way, but this time

82
00:05:20,110 –> 00:05:25,509
as a response to an excellent criticism from
Weinstein: “So my point was, essentially,

83
00:05:25,509 –> 00:05:29,750
that there is something called metaphorical
truth and that it’s a real thing, so I was…

84
00:05:29,750 –> 00:05:34,510
I’m in agreement with you on that, where
we might be in disagreement is that there’s

85
00:05:34,510 –> 00:05:38,620
simultaneously a thing that I would call literal
truth, or scientific truth (and by the way

86
00:05:38,620 –> 00:05:42,530
I’m not saying that what scientists say
is in this category inherently – scientists

87
00:05:42,530 –> 00:05:43,530
can be wrong).

88
00:05:43,530 –> 00:05:48,620
But the point is truth that is scientifically
verifiable, that makes predictions, has a

89
00:05:48,620 –> 00:05:54,580
special priority in this hierarchy because
it is the one objective version.

90
00:05:54,580 –> 00:06:01,020
It is not contingent on being nested in another…
series, of, of beliefs, so—” “What if

91
00:06:01,020 –> 00:06:04,669
it’s a scientific truth that’s metaphorically
wrong?”

92
00:06:04,669 –> 00:06:08,210
“Oh, and there are—” “Like, I can
give you an example.

93
00:06:08,210 –> 00:06:14,300
Okay, so, I read this… the memoirs of a
KGB scientist, KGB agent, who worked with

94
00:06:14,300 –> 00:06:24,750
the Russians in this erh… biochemical lab
and their job was to meld, erh, Ebola was

95
00:06:24,750 –> 00:06:28,620
smallpox, cause smallpox is…

96
00:06:28,620 –> 00:06:32,139
Ebola’s not that contagious, so that’s
kind of annoying if you’re trying to kill

97
00:06:32,139 –> 00:06:35,630
people, whereas smallpox – but it’s really
fatal!

98
00:06:35,630 –> 00:06:39,260
Whereas smallpox is really contagious, so
if you can get the two together and then develop

99
00:06:39,260 –> 00:06:44,660
an aerosol spray you could kill a lot of people,
and in fact they did kill about 500 Russians

100
00:06:44,660 –> 00:06:47,960
by mistake when some of what they were doing
escaped.

101
00:06:47,960 –> 00:06:53,169
But it isn’t obvious to me that that’s
an invalid scientific pursuit… but I do

102
00:06:53,169 –> 00:06:58,160
think that it’s an invalid ethical pursuit,
and so that seems to indicate that the ethical

103
00:06:58,160 –> 00:07:03,740
pursuit supersedes the scientific pursuit
with regards to truth claim.”

104
00:07:03,740 –> 00:07:07,900
Now just before I crackdown on Peterson’s
assertion, and in the anticipation of being

105
00:07:07,900 –> 00:07:12,759
accused of not understanding his position,
I want to make something extremely clear.

106
00:07:12,759 –> 00:07:18,280
I entirely understand and accept that our
perception of facts and reality (that is,

107
00:07:18,280 –> 00:07:23,960
our perception of realist truth) is subject
to natural selection (or metaphorical truth),

108
00:07:23,960 –> 00:07:28,120
and so if Peterson’s assertion was merely
that this fact prevents us from having access

109
00:07:28,120 –> 00:07:33,990
to raw realist truth, then I’d have no objection,
but he’s not merely asserting this – he’s

110
00:07:33,990 –> 00:07:40,610
asserting that scientific, objective, realist,
literal truth is outright the product of metaphorical,

111
00:07:40,610 –> 00:07:46,750
Peterson truth: “The fundamentals of truth
are those that guide action, and then the

112
00:07:46,750 –> 00:07:52,620
objective science is nested inside that […] The
ethical pursuit supersedes the scientific

113
00:07:52,620 –> 00:07:55,470
pursuit with regards to truth claim.”

114
00:07:55,470 –> 00:07:58,410
So, what exactly is wrong with Peterson’s
assertion?

115
00:07:58,410 –> 00:08:02,000
Why doesn’t metaphorical truth supersede
literal truth?

116
00:08:02,000 –> 00:08:07,300
Well, first and foremost: “It doesn’t
supersede with respect to the truth claim,

117
00:08:07,300 –> 00:08:12,270
it supersedes with respect to considerations
of behaviour and policy.”

118
00:08:12,270 –> 00:08:17,570
Secondly, though more importantly, it violates
the law of non-contradiction…

119
00:08:17,570 –> 00:08:22,750
To borrow an example from Weinstein, the concepts
of heaven and reincarnation can both be considered

120
00:08:22,750 –> 00:08:27,620
metaphorically true, because they both increase
our chances of survival due them encouraging

121
00:08:27,620 –> 00:08:32,799
us to cooperate and behave… but the problem
is that they can’t both be true – they’re

122
00:08:32,799 –> 00:08:34,869
mutually exclusive.

123
00:08:34,870 –> 00:08:39,090
One claims that when we die we’ll rise up
to cloudsville to be reunited with our loved

124
00:08:39,090 –> 00:08:44,450
ones, while the other claims we’ll manifest
a new body and start anew… or as Weinstein

125
00:08:44,450 –> 00:08:49,440
puts it: What I’m arguing is that what makes
the scientific truth hierarchically superior

126
00:08:49,440 –> 00:08:54,701
is that it explains all the subordinate truths
in a way that is logically consistent, whereas

127
00:08:54,701 –> 00:08:59,720
if you were to prioritize heaven as a truth
then would have to say that well reincarnation

128
00:08:59,720 –> 00:09:04,740
is false, or you would have to have them all
simultaneously be true in some irreconcilable

129
00:09:04,740 –> 00:09:09,800
way, and so the only one that has the special
characteristic of accounting for all the others

130
00:09:09,800 –> 00:09:11,180
is the scientific truth.

131
00:09:11,180 –> 00:09:16,740
And thirdly, though perhaps even more importantly,
Peterson is conflating our perception of reality

132
00:09:16,740 –> 00:09:20,820
with reality itself – the map with the place,
as it were.

133
00:09:20,820 –> 00:09:25,260
Peterson is asserting that because our ability
to perceive facts and reality is nested in

134
00:09:25,260 –> 00:09:30,420
Peterson truth, therefore facts and reality
is nested in Peterson truth… which is akin

135
00:09:30,420 –> 00:09:34,760
to me asserting that because you’re currently
perceiving me in two dimensions, I am two

136
00:09:34,760 –> 00:09:35,760
dimensions…

137
00:09:35,760 –> 00:09:40,450
Or to put it another way, Peterson is asserting
that because we can only perceive objective

138
00:09:40,450 –> 00:09:45,000
facts subjectively, therefore there are no
objective facts… but that’s not how it

139
00:09:45,000 –> 00:09:48,580
works, and it’s not what all of the evidence
indicates.

140
00:09:48,580 –> 00:09:55,490
To quote Harris, “You clearly have to have
a conception of facts and truth that is possible

141
00:09:55,490 –> 00:10:01,940
to know, that exceeds what anyone currently
knows, and exceeds any concern about whether

142
00:10:01,940 –> 00:10:06,810
it is useful or compatible with your own survival
even, to know these truths.”

143
00:10:06,810 –> 00:10:13,000
Anyhow, after explaining this to Peterson
over seven times, Harris, in fair frustration,

144
00:10:13,000 –> 00:10:18,709
delivered the following elegant bombshell:
“Now, the claim, about whether or not she’s

145
00:10:18,709 –> 00:10:24,490
cheating on you, is an intelligible claim
[…].That’s a claim that has absolutely nothing

146
00:10:24,490 –> 00:10:32,460
to do with whether or not you wind up killing
yourself based on your reaction to this unhappy

147
00:10:32,460 –> 00:10:33,460
truth.

148
00:10:33,460 –> 00:10:36,709
If you then end up killing yourself we could
say at the end of the day it would’ve been

149
00:10:36,709 –> 00:10:39,970
better if he hadn’t known that; it certainly
would’ve been better if she hadn’t done

150
00:10:39,970 –> 00:10:42,900
that; it would’ve been better if he had
married a different woman – surely we would

151
00:10:42,900 –> 00:10:46,100
want to say that–” “It might have been
better if he would’ve paid attention to

152
00:10:46,100 –> 00:10:49,040
his damn marriage, and to attribute the—”
“Sure!”

153
00:10:49,040 –> 00:10:53,640
“To attribute the cause of his demise to
the existence of the photographs… this is

154
00:10:53,640 –> 00:11:00,030
why I brought up Josh Greene, is that investigations
into this kind of morality always frame it

155
00:11:00,030 –> 00:11:02,910
in such a way–” “Jordan… Jordan, you
have to grant one thing here – there’s one

156
00:11:02,910 –> 00:11:05,100
piece that doesn’t get moved here.

157
00:11:05,100 –> 00:11:11,620
You cannot move the piece that because you
killed yourself it’s not true that she was

158
00:11:11,620 –> 00:11:16,890
having an affair – that move is not open
to you, and yet you’re acting like it is!”

159
00:11:16,890 –> 00:11:22,310
Now, in my opinion, this application of the
Reductio Ad Absurdum technique annihilates

160
00:11:22,310 –> 00:11:23,529
Peterson’s assertion.

161
00:11:23,529 –> 00:11:24,750
It’s simple.

162
00:11:24,750 –> 00:11:29,360
If one was to commit suicide because their
partner was cheating on them, the act of suicide

163
00:11:29,360 –> 00:11:32,950
wouldn’t make their partner’s cheating
on them untrue in the realist sense.

164
00:11:32,950 –> 00:11:38,790
Sure, it would make it untrue in a Peterson
sense, but it wouldn’t in the realist – period.

165
00:11:38,790 –> 00:11:45,420
If a tree falls and nobody hears it, it still
makes a sound… it still omits vibrations…

166
00:11:45,420 –> 00:11:49,890
Now with Peterson’s definition of truth
thoroughly addressed, I want to ask a potent

167
00:11:49,890 –> 00:11:50,890
question…

168
00:11:50,890 –> 00:11:54,880
why does Peterson want to nest not only our
perception of realist truth, but realist truth

169
00:11:54,880 –> 00:11:57,190
itself within Peterson truth?

170
00:11:57,190 –> 00:11:59,530
Is it perhaps possible that he has a motive?

171
00:11:59,530 –> 00:12:02,190
Well, I’m convinced that he does…

172
00:12:02,190 –> 00:12:07,160
You see, this slight of hand comes in extremely
useful to apologists such as Peterson, because

173
00:12:07,160 –> 00:12:11,980
when he’s asked a question to which he has
a justifiable answer, such as ‘Is it true

174
00:12:11,980 –> 00:12:16,459
that there are only two sexes?’, he can,
and does, answer according to the realist

175
00:12:16,459 –> 00:12:20,990
definition of truth, but when he’s asked
a question to which he doesn’t have a justifiable

176
00:12:20,990 –> 00:12:26,040
answer, such as ‘Is it true that a literal
historical man called Jesus resurrected?’,

177
00:12:26,040 –> 00:12:30,850
he answers according to the Peterson definition
of truth (which, considering his animosity

178
00:12:30,850 –> 00:12:33,850
for postmodernism, is ironically postmodern).

179
00:12:33,850 –> 00:12:37,910
To borrow a phrase from Harris, this is how
you play tennis without the net, and it’s

180
00:12:37,910 –> 00:12:42,460
so disingenuous that I can’t help but conclude
that Peterson is doing it on purpose.

181
00:12:42,460 –> 00:12:46,700
That he’s being deliberately obtuse in order
to preserve beliefs that he knows damn well

182
00:12:46,700 –> 00:12:48,430
are false.

183
00:12:48,430 –> 00:12:52,320
Now if you’re not already convinced of this
then perhaps the follow clip will change your

184
00:12:52,320 –> 00:12:57,910
mind: “Quick question – are you a Christian?”

185
00:12:57,910 –> 00:13:02,080
“I suppose the most straight-forward answer
to that is yes, although…

186
00:13:02,080 –> 00:13:07,420
I think it’s, it’s… let’s leave it
at yes.”

187
00:13:07,420 –> 00:13:08,420
“Well…

188
00:13:08,420 –> 00:13:14,060
I’m a bit dissatisfied by that because there
are so many kinds of Christians and I– I

189
00:13:14,060 –> 00:13:18,089
would never imagine that you were a very literal
minded Christian.”

190
00:13:18,089 –> 00:13:24,670
“Well, there are truths other than the literal,
that are perhaps more truthful than the literal

191
00:13:24,670 –> 00:13:25,670
truths.

192
00:13:25,670 –> 00:13:29,070
There are many kinds of truth, and I don’t
mean that in a…

193
00:13:29,070 –> 00:13:32,170
I don’t mean that in a post-modern way, actually.

194
00:13:32,170 –> 00:13:36,551
But the truths that govern behavior and the
truths that emerge from facts are not the

195
00:13:36,551 –> 00:13:38,240
same truths.”

196
00:13:38,240 –> 00:13:45,600
“Do you believe Jesus rose again from the
dead…

197
00:13:45,600 –> 00:13:47,019
literally?”

198
00:13:47,019 –> 00:13:51,279
“I find it…

199
00:13:51,279 –> 00:13:58,170
I cannot answer that question… and the reason
is because… okay, let me think about it…

200
00:13:58,170 –> 00:14:01,639
and see if I can come up with a reasonable
answer to that.

201
00:14:01,639 –> 00:14:08,820
Well, the
first answer would be that it depends on what

202
00:14:08,820 –> 00:14:11,300
you mean by Jesus.”

203
00:14:11,300 –> 00:14:15,550
“A historical human being that existed–”
“In a body?

204
00:14:15,550 –> 00:14:16,550
In a body?”

205
00:14:16,550 –> 00:14:17,550
“Yes.”

206
00:14:17,550 –> 00:14:21,949
“And it was a physical body and it was on
earth?”

207
00:14:21,949 –> 00:14:22,949
“Yes.”

208
00:14:22,949 –> 00:14:34,910
“It was on earth and was literally, um,
was literally, um, er, came back to life…

209
00:14:34,910 –> 00:14:37,090
after death.”

210
00:14:37,090 –> 00:14:44,220
“I would say that at the moment I’m agnostic
about that issue – which is a lot different

211
00:14:44,220 –> 00:14:47,149
to saying I don’t believe that it happened.”

212
00:14:47,149 –> 00:14:51,370
You see, once someone corners Peterson by
forcing him to answer religious questions

213
00:14:51,370 –> 00:14:56,519
according to the realist definition of truth
(that is, the definition that he uses in every

214
00:14:56,519 –> 00:15:01,769
other domain of discourse), his religious
views are exposed for what they are… unjustified

215
00:15:01,769 –> 00:15:03,089
nonsense.

216
00:15:03,089 –> 00:15:07,600
It seems to me that the reason Peterson insists
on his definition of truth is because it renders

217
00:15:07,600 –> 00:15:12,831
everything we confidently know – all facts,
all knowledge, as ultimately unknown, because

218
00:15:12,831 –> 00:15:17,680
at any moment, however unlikely, they may
lead to our demise and thus become untrue

219
00:15:17,680 –> 00:15:24,010
in the Peterson sense, and therefore, as he
insists, also untrue in the realist sense…

220
00:15:24,010 –> 00:15:28,290
To put it bluntly, redefining ‘truth’
in order to avoid an inconvenient truth is

221
00:15:28,290 –> 00:15:30,690
as dishonest as it gets.

222
00:15:30,690 –> 00:15:35,670
Intelligent and sceptical people don’t accept
such utter nonsense from New Age Spirituality,

223
00:15:35,670 –> 00:15:39,080
and so neither should they accept it from
New Age Christianity.

224
00:15:39,080 –> 00:15:44,130
Peterson is no doubt a very smart, knowledgeable
and insightful person, but when it comes to

225
00:15:44,130 –> 00:15:47,270
religion he’s no better than any other apologist.

226
00:15:47,270 –> 00:15:53,170
He manipulates language, misrepresents philosophy
and science, and is fallacious in his reasoning.

227
00:15:53,170 –> 00:15:58,100
This video alone doesn’t prove this outright,
of course, but it does make a good start,

228
00:15:58,100 –> 00:16:00,480
and I’ll be sure to follow it up.

229
00:16:00,480 –> 00:16:04,630
As always, thank you kindly for the view,
and an extra special thank you to my wonderful

230
00:16:04,630 –> 00:16:08,120
patrons and those who’ve donated via PayPal.

231
00:16:08,120 –> 00:16:11,990
Your support is what allows me to create videos
such as this.

232
00:16:11,990 –> 00:16:17,161
Anyhow, I’m going to leave you another lucid
bombshell from Mr. Rationality himself: It

233
00:16:17,161 –> 00:16:22,290
seems to me that a realistic conception of
what’s going on there, and really the only

234
00:16:22,290 –> 00:16:29,560
sane one, if you look long enough at it, is
that our language didn’t put the energy

235
00:16:29,560 –> 00:16:35,130
in the atom – it’s not because we spoke
a certain way about it, that that determined

236
00:16:35,130 –> 00:16:40,570
the character of physical reality, no, physical
reality has a character whether or not there

237
00:16:40,570 –> 00:00:00,000
are apes around to talk about it.

Advertisements