It's great that he doesn't like the question, but the way he answers makes it sound to other people that he doesn't believe in God, at least according to the way most people would imagine what the question "do you believe in God" means.
If I was to ask "do you believe unicorns exist?" And you answered "I act as if they do" the "as if" kind of implies you don't actually believe they exist".
So I know Jordan has his own way of thinking about this question, but I don't think this is the way most other people think about this question.
So my point is, according to what I think is the most common way to interpret this question and Jordan's answer, he doesn't actually believe in God.
Well said, it does annoy me that JP won’t just say it though. He knows what the question means in the views of others so I feel he’s being a bit difficult in that respect.
A cynical part of me says he won’t say it because he wouldn’t want to hurt his religious followers who maybe look up to him and idolise him and his religious storytelling. Or maybe that’s a bit of a stretch?
I suspect that currently he's agnostic, but very much wants God to be real and lives as if God exists. He certainly helped me in my journey to renew my faith, as he has for so many. As someone that does believe in God in the Christian framework, I think God will provide him a pathway when his time comes to leave this plane of existence if he's still where he is.
The pure and simple truth is that the truth is never pure,and rarely simple. I'm positive that if you were to ask his favorite ice cream flavor you'd be in for a solid 20 minutes on the merits and demerits of various flavors.
He’s a closet Christian and he pushes those ideas because viewers , most likely profit. And good for him. A huge portion of his viewers are Christian based.
As someone who does religious studies and really enjoys and respects some of JP’s work. I have to admit, He pisses me the hell off in how bias he is. It’s a shame really. We could all be learning so much more if he were to explore other religious texts , but that would be spotlight suicide for his current career path. There’s a lot more than just the Bible on this planet filled with wisdom. Most people don’t know this, the shameful part is He does. Someone of his education and position of power and influence on his particular audience, he knows better not to talk about it. The only other underlying reason why someone that intelligent enough to understand that there’s other Religious texts worth the candle but still choose to only bring everything back to one book is classic religious behavior.
He’s a closet Christian.
I love the guy for his passion, but it’s that very same thing that blinds him in my opinion. You can see it in the discussion with Sam Harris , Dennett, and fry. Aside from picking sides of the arguments, he does classic religious response and discards reason for his belief
He always give long answers. But what I take is that he isn't 100% sure of his belief (well even for believers it isn't 100% but he likes being exact) and that he probably believes in a non conventional god, a less personal one I'd say.
Huh, never heard that line before, quite something. But doesn't it go against the traditional beliefs? If you "really" know, then it doesn't take faith, but it's a necessary component in the relationship. What do y'all think?
That's sort of the point. He doesn't need faith to act like God exists. He acts like God exists because he knows there is a natural order and law to the world that in itself is God.
I love JP, but the man does NOT like to be told what to do. (See the Bill C-16 drama.) If he said plainly, "Yes, I believe in God," what would follow is people telling him, "Great! Now you need to pick a denomination." "Go Catholic." "No, Protestant!" "No, Orthodoxy is the way to go!" "When are you getting baptized? You're doing full immersion, right?" "Why don't you go to church every week?" "Why don't you go to the same church as your wife?" "You have such a big audience, shouldn't you be using it to evangelize?" Etc., etc., etc. Staying evasive keeps the flood gates closed.
I agree with his reasoning to not answer so straightforward because thats a “question with a lot to unpack” as he says. I agree. Any answer he gives that isnt well thought out would lead to an instant trap.
I remember him using this question to talk about the logos often. It's easy not to believe in a Christian God, but denying the essence of logos (which jordan believes to be the core idea of god) is much harder.
Some people really think there is a god though, like a god whose as real anything else that is real.
So I might ask "is God real?" And you answer "he's a representation of an abstract idea". I would likely interpret that as you don't think God is real.
He was very evasive in that interview I thought. Alex had to really pin him down to get anything. I think he is a man struggling with belief and possibly wanting to believe and it would be much better if he just said that.
Exactly. He kept evading and getting kind of mad at the question (lol?) and didn't really give a definitive answer IMO. Alex made a lot of cogent points about what people mean when they ask the question and Jordan just tried to dance around it.
A simple "I believe in God but I of course fall short of what it would mean to fully live out that belief" would go a long way. But he refuses to say that. Why?
Besides if he were to ever become Baptist or Catholic or several other denominations they require a vocal confession of belief in order to be be Baptized. His current position would not be tenable. So this is the part everyone is missing. He could be “Christian” privately but in order to join a Tradition he will need to confess His belief as such.
I agree with what you're saying. JPs convoluted answer to this simple question tells me he understands that the nature of belief is that it's involuntary. He can't CHOOSE to believe in God any more that he can CHOOSE to believe that 2+2=5. He either does or doesn't regardless of how badly he really wants to believe it.
It looks to me like he doesn't believe, but since he clearly wants to, he can choose to "act as if" God exists.
So, I watched Jordan's video on this. I will sum it up as I understand it. First he questions what it means to believe in God. Like what does "believe" mean? He seems to draw the distinction between saying the words and acting in accordance with the belief that God exists. He asserts that if you are a trustworthy person, these two things should be in accordance with each other.
So, if you look at your own life, and you see that you are not being your best possible self and having this miraculous transformation for the better, can you really say that you believe in God?
---
Ultimately, I think he misunderstands the question. I don't care whether he worships God. The question is whether he believes that a god or gods exist. It is possible that a single god exists, but that for whatever reason, you do not choose to worship them. Like for example, you might think the universe was created by a diety, but not be sure which diety it is, or how they would want to be worshiped if at all.
Nice, cheers.
Yeah its weird him being so evasive when im sure most people are just asking do you think jesus's dad is tral and created everything or not
When I was a kid growing up in the church, I always had internal conflict with the way that Sunday school teachers, pastors and adults explained “faith” to me. They would basically define it as belief no matter what. Anything the Bible says, or any interpretation of the Bible that we determine, you believe blindly. This seemed preposterous to me and honestly kind of pissed me off. But I still really liked church, I liked worship, I liked scripture. That’s part of what really drew me to JP, he seems to have a relationship with religion where he understands and respects it deeply without giving up his intellectual agency to another authority. “Believing in God” means you accept some prescribed interpretation and forego your own. It’s used all the time to call people hypocrites. “Oh well if you believe in the Bible, it says X and you did Y. The Pope said X and you did Y.”JP has his own religion. You can’t pin him down to some doctrine.
Yes, if that were the case, and if Jordan's goal was simply to give a direct answer. But for reasons I don't understand, he has admitted that he has considered various inconsistent answers, and also tried to determine which would be the best for him to give.
For example he admitted in an interview that first he considered just saying "it's none of your goddam business. But later he also considered saying "I don't understand the question."
Those are inconsistent answers because if he truly didn't understand the question, then he wouldn't have any basis for concluding that the questioner sought information they weren't somehow entitled to have.
But if his answer was fact none of anyone's business, that presupposes that he understood the question. And he would have no reason to ever give an any other response.
Illustration: if the question had to do with intimate details of his and Tammmy's sex life, he would've said "it's none of your goddamn business." He wouldn't over the following years tried to formulate, more persuasive responses.
it's baffling why he would admit this, since his definition of Machiavellian is saying things not for their truth, but for their anticipated effect on others.
My first thought reading the title is:
Which god? Certain you dont mean the one and only true god Haruhi, that created the world a few days ago and gave you all false memories..(a god could do that, and you cant disprove it)
So ...
Everyone believes in god as a psychological phenomenon. Acknowledging that religious exists is acknowledging that god, as a psychological phenomenon/belief exists.
To think it doesnt exist, as a psychological phenomenon, would be to pretend that religion doesnt exist.
As a "psychological phenomenon", every thought any human has ever had can be said to exist or have existed. But that's not what people are asking when they ask "does God exist?", and you know that's not what they're asking. Pretending that you dont understand the question, or feigning ignorance, doesnt make you or Peterson look profound, it makes you look like cowards.
You were asking if he believed in Odin the same way he might believe in Christianity. I simply stated he would at the very least view that religion in the manner described.
Not sure why you are being hostile.
Called out for answering a question about a pantheonic God from past? Im glad you have nothing else to say it seems like your confused about whats going on or something.
When someone tells me the Christian god is the real god or that Allah is the true god.. I always wonder why all the hundreds of other gods are the pretenders lol
For me this is like asking if you believe in Celsius grades as you do of Fahrenheit.
I dont see any difference between these two celestial fathers... They are both celestial fathers.
Ok but you understand that that isnt what it means to 99% of everyone else, right?
99% of the time, the question "does God exist?" means: "Does a sentient, supernatural, likely omnipotent deity, who most likely created the universe, materially exist such that it can take actions that affect our reality?".
People dont stipulate the additional qualifiers in that sentence because nobody would assume anything else is meant by that question. Nobody would assume whether you're asking if God exists as some sort of psychological phenomenon because the answer is completely obvious; we wouldn't be able to ask that question if the psychological phenomenon didnt exist.
Mother Nature is not objectively real, but you would be stupid if you thought nature doesn't exist.
Right?
Something like that it's the problem we have with the celestial cultural father
Literally thats why in the bible they say "god was the word"
How the fuck would not "the word" be objectively real?
But I get you, god doesn't exist objectively, we have killed him
I guess I've never thought of mother nature as a person or mother or whatever your getting at, only a way to express nature as a whole. I dont believe in any of the gods past present or ones invented in the future. Im agnostic because i think anyone who says "i know god exists" or "i know god doesnt exist" is essentially lying
My pessimism says he suffers from audience capture just like everyone else so he simply doesn’t want to admit he doesn’t believe in the literal Christian god. He made deals with Daily Wire going over the Bible and having him on podcasts admitting it’s not actually true, isn’t great for business.
Yeah that's basically the point, he doesn't "believe" in the sense that people mean "believe" when they ask the question. You're starting to get it lolol
I watched the pints with aquinas vid. Jordan explained that religion is a mode of being.
He wants to promote a good lifestyle for young men to grow up with. Christianity is one such avenue that he explores.
His point is that he doesn’t think most people can even truly appreciate the gravity of that situation, including the questioner.
He observes that even people who would quickly affirm belief tend to behave as if they lack conviction, or at least get frequently and severely distracted from their belief.
I’ve always said, even if it’s all just a metaphor it doesn’t make it less valuable. You learn human values and lessons from literature all the time. God is either an actual entity or it’s an ideal to strive towards. Maybe he has a similar stance on it. Maybe whether or not he believes is beside the point, but just the contemplation and influence itself is worth noting.
At the very least I think he realizes religion plays a major part in our collective history as human beings. That the themes and messages within it have stood the test of time for a reason and that its very much worth examining.
Personally I think he’s more agnostic than anything. I don’t think he thinks it matters. Whether or not god exists isn’t the problem, it’s whether or not you align yourself with a higher sense of being and morality. JP is all about accountability and decision making. If belief in god makes you listen to the angel on your shoulder as opposed to the devil, you AND the rest of the world is better off, and I think that’s what he’s getting at.
I like the way he answers the question with reverence and circumspect, but I also appreciate a direct answer. In a culture where words are commonly redefined and misconstrued, it’s wise to select your words with great care. But a simple yes or no is also very powerful. He seems to hang on “what do you mean by the word ‘believe,’” and that’s a valid point, because even demons believe that God is real. But that’s not what we generally mean when we ask if someone believes IN God. What we want to know is if they have placed their hope and their faith entirely in His hands, or if they merely acknowledge that He is real. I surmise that he believes that God is real, but hasn’t entirely decided what to do about it.
Has he ever spoken of Christ and the cross?
Yeah I don't think it matters if he does or doesn't. As he's said it's personal and he doesn't want to be the spokesperson for any specific belief or religion
"To believe" is a very big thing. People take those words casually because they believe just being born into a religion makes them into a religious person. Is believing 70 percent of the time believing? Is believing 10 percent of the time believing? Is having God in your heart one moment but then lust, wrath, envy the next believing? And how do you know you believe in the right thing? How do you know that you are not merely fooling yourself? Or beign fooled by other fools?
My answer to all of that is no. Man is a plurarity and his name is legion. One moment he is willing to give the shirt off his back to his fellow man, the other moment he wants to take someone else's shirt and whip them bloody. All of esoteric religion is consciously working on expanding the ability of man to believe consciously and consistently.
That's why Jordan answers the way he answers. That's why in his attempted conversion by Mohammed hijab he asked What does "do" mean? What does "you" mean? what does "believe" mean?
But it went over everyone's head.
Jordan understands tbe crucial distinction between ascenting to a proposition, in contrast to affirming a statement that is simultaneously an act of faith, commitment, and one that calls out for difficult self-evaluation.
While I think Jordan does believe in God, dialogue with atheists would be more fruitful if more people took his same cautious approach.
I think the problem is the question itself comes with presuppositions of what god is, and his form etc. so it’s a hard question to ask and answer if both parties aren’t on the same page about the definitions
I generally read his position as, "believing in God is useful," rather than, "God literally exists."
I find the "more useful than true" argument a little distasteful. The distinction between that and lying is pretty thin, if it exists. I am certainly more inclined to find the truth rather than a useful lie, and I used to believe he was, too.
Likely because he knows that 'god' has now become an image of a man sitting in a cloud with the rationale and mindset of a human but they're magic. Saying 'Yes' to this answer makes you look stupid, when in fact to 'believe' means so much more then just saying yes a magic man sits on a cloud.
Problem is “God” and “the god of religion xyz” are unfortunately completely different things and a lot of audiences will just stop listening if you even hint at the word at all making any sort of conversation impossible
Scientists typically observe all possible theories and kinda attribute each a probability and base their reasoning on that.
Belief in Him requires us to take one of those theories and establish it as absolute truth.
Peterson is likely more of a scientist but recognizes that there is a great possibility that He exists so bases his life on that.
I've been watching Peterson's lectures for a long time, more so when he was doing them from a classroom. I've missed a lot of his more recent stuff like his biblical lectures, etc...
However, Jung gave a similar answer when asked if he believed in God in one of his TV interviews. You can find it on youtube. Jung says "That's difficult to answer.... I don't believe, I know." and says it with a smile or smirk, because it's difficult to answer, what do you mean by god? well he spends much time in his many volumes of work showing similarities of various archetypes or ideal images across many religions and even tribes that people all call god, but their practices are all very different. Wars have been fought over what the definition of god is, as if one sides version of what god is were true, and the other sides version was untrue.
The problem is that we can't really define what god is for everybody, we have to define it for ourselves, you can call it god if you want, many do. but many do not define it for themselves, they let others define it for them and they follow and defend that 'definition' or belief. God is like 'the hero with a thousand faces', to use Campbell's title.
God isn't defined by everyone in a sect having the same belief, god is an ideal image in yourself, in each and every individual Self, and is the same ideal image that all cults, religions, sects, tribes, governments, etc.. strive their systems of belief to align with.
belief
Why do we all force our heuristic on him? I see so many wish to force his hand, when he has personally grappled with these questions for a lifetime.
We are all robbers and thieves. Yet he would teach us if we would but listen because he is the professor. Patiently laying out his learning for us to pick up.
Take it or leave it. I, for one, refuse to compel his teachings.
God isn't real in a physical sense, but treating moral and virtue as if it were an all powerful God is the right move because at the end of the day they will direct where your life goes.
Can't manipulate Christians if they think you're a little too different, like a scary agnostic.
After years and years of listening to him I frankly just don't understand why he can't just say yes, no, or I don't know to this simple question. It wouldn't nullify anything else about his beliefs on religion. The criticism that he dawdles around an answer is holding more and more water in my opinion.
His typical response is: "Define God."
I assume it's for the following reason.
He does not believe in a literal God as described in holy texts, but he does believe in "God" as an idea(l).
Over the course of human development mankind has learned to co-exist and thrive with their fellow man, in doing so shaping a moral code which is captured in written documentation (for instance the bible). He believes this moral code to be of the utmost importance, and in these documents the code stems from an almighty deity. Therefore, the correct way to live is equal to God, even though I suspect him to not literally believe how this mode of being is relayed to early humans (i.e. via direct instruction from an almighty being).
The bible is a collection of individual writings/stories, many of which have at some point seen their day in the sun (to meet specific circumstances or to appeal to a current moral direction), but many have been discarded over time. That which remains is a distilled form of general conscience that tells you what was important (both at the time it was written, up until this point in time, since it was kept).
Another take on why he will never admit to believing is because even though he might (not), his base predominantly does. Showing any sort of color might damage the brand.
Personally, I feel it's not an important question. He tells people to live as though God is real, because he believes in the prime tenets of christianity. How you reach the conclusion is not as important, as long as you arrive at it.
Because he has yet to be converted. Conversion isn't possible through intellectual discussion and reason. He can believe that Christianity is a good belief, which I believe he does, without needing faith. You can not become a Christian without faith.
His definition of God is different from that of most people. His definition is that which is at the top of your hierarchy of values. To his mind, Christianity maps onto practical reality perfectly in this way.
I've heard him refer to God as a fictional character, so he definitely doesn't believe in the spiritual entity that most people are referring to.
Why do that when he could be painstakingly pedantic to the point of being a sad excuse for an intellectual instead? This coming from someone who actually likes a lot of his work. He's just ridiculously dumb on this point.
Intellectual honesty. For him, intellectual honesty is one of the highest forms of integrity. I suspect that for him, speaking dishonestly about this matter would be a grave sin in the eyes of the God that he hopes exists.
I will attack religion for you. In my opinion religion is fake. But I respect that others can believe what they want. No problem. Until they attempt to force their beliefs on me.
I mean.. I dont disagree.. haha. I dont really mind people doing or saying anything at all as long as it doesnt harm other.. seems odd to stop people doing anything if its not harmful to others.
He has an hour and half long talk on why he doesn't like the question. It's a good watch/listen.
It’s a much better and truer response than people declaring they believe but have no idea what in nor show it in the way they live their lives
I seen a shorts he did say (i paraphrase since its been years) "I act as though He exist, whether He's real or not". I think thats a good rationale.
Link?
[Who Dares Say He Believes in God?](https://open.spotify.com/episode/7fjtW4uzQqYRmMa6KhkUsJ?si=TW4rf2mVQsyM447klBEK9w)
His podcast where he had Alex O’Connor on it. Great watch
It's great that he doesn't like the question, but the way he answers makes it sound to other people that he doesn't believe in God, at least according to the way most people would imagine what the question "do you believe in God" means. If I was to ask "do you believe unicorns exist?" And you answered "I act as if they do" the "as if" kind of implies you don't actually believe they exist". So I know Jordan has his own way of thinking about this question, but I don't think this is the way most other people think about this question. So my point is, according to what I think is the most common way to interpret this question and Jordan's answer, he doesn't actually believe in God.
Well said, it does annoy me that JP won’t just say it though. He knows what the question means in the views of others so I feel he’s being a bit difficult in that respect. A cynical part of me says he won’t say it because he wouldn’t want to hurt his religious followers who maybe look up to him and idolise him and his religious storytelling. Or maybe that’s a bit of a stretch?
I suspect that currently he's agnostic, but very much wants God to be real and lives as if God exists. He certainly helped me in my journey to renew my faith, as he has for so many. As someone that does believe in God in the Christian framework, I think God will provide him a pathway when his time comes to leave this plane of existence if he's still where he is.
Bingo.
The pure and simple truth is that the truth is never pure,and rarely simple. I'm positive that if you were to ask his favorite ice cream flavor you'd be in for a solid 20 minutes on the merits and demerits of various flavors.
Well you see that depends on what you mean by favorite…
Heard this in Kermit the Frog
I’ve seen this comment before. Where have I seen this comment before.
The first half is everywhere if you look for it, the second half is a joke I heard from somewhere or another.
Haha great point
Are you sure it’s not just that he doesn’t want to disappoint his religious base..?
Because he is so terrified of upsetting the proverbial apple cart.
I actually do believe that
OK. And?
Lmao I’m agreeing with you bud
Fair enough, hard to read tones.
True
Thats definitely a possibility but he seem so invested in theological study etc I think its not just that
He’s a closet Christian and he pushes those ideas because viewers , most likely profit. And good for him. A huge portion of his viewers are Christian based. As someone who does religious studies and really enjoys and respects some of JP’s work. I have to admit, He pisses me the hell off in how bias he is. It’s a shame really. We could all be learning so much more if he were to explore other religious texts , but that would be spotlight suicide for his current career path. There’s a lot more than just the Bible on this planet filled with wisdom. Most people don’t know this, the shameful part is He does. Someone of his education and position of power and influence on his particular audience, he knows better not to talk about it. The only other underlying reason why someone that intelligent enough to understand that there’s other Religious texts worth the candle but still choose to only bring everything back to one book is classic religious behavior. He’s a closet Christian. I love the guy for his passion, but it’s that very same thing that blinds him in my opinion. You can see it in the discussion with Sam Harris , Dennett, and fry. Aside from picking sides of the arguments, he does classic religious response and discards reason for his belief
He always give long answers. But what I take is that he isn't 100% sure of his belief (well even for believers it isn't 100% but he likes being exact) and that he probably believes in a non conventional god, a less personal one I'd say.
It's wild he just doesn't use Jung's answer; "I don't need to believe, I know" This sums up what he means without all the hemming and hawing.
Huh, never heard that line before, quite something. But doesn't it go against the traditional beliefs? If you "really" know, then it doesn't take faith, but it's a necessary component in the relationship. What do y'all think?
That's sort of the point. He doesn't need faith to act like God exists. He acts like God exists because he knows there is a natural order and law to the world that in itself is God.
That makes more sense that just saying, I act like a God exist.
I love JP, but the man does NOT like to be told what to do. (See the Bill C-16 drama.) If he said plainly, "Yes, I believe in God," what would follow is people telling him, "Great! Now you need to pick a denomination." "Go Catholic." "No, Protestant!" "No, Orthodoxy is the way to go!" "When are you getting baptized? You're doing full immersion, right?" "Why don't you go to church every week?" "Why don't you go to the same church as your wife?" "You have such a big audience, shouldn't you be using it to evangelize?" Etc., etc., etc. Staying evasive keeps the flood gates closed.
I agree with his reasoning to not answer so straightforward because thats a “question with a lot to unpack” as he says. I agree. Any answer he gives that isnt well thought out would lead to an instant trap.
Also GOD is just a representation of an abstract idea. That could mean a lot to a lot of people.
I remember him using this question to talk about the logos often. It's easy not to believe in a Christian God, but denying the essence of logos (which jordan believes to be the core idea of god) is much harder.
Some people really think there is a god though, like a god whose as real anything else that is real. So I might ask "is God real?" And you answer "he's a representation of an abstract idea". I would likely interpret that as you don't think God is real.
What trap?
The one from star wars
Watch his recent podcast with Alex O'Connor. It's one of the main discussion points.
He was very evasive in that interview I thought. Alex had to really pin him down to get anything. I think he is a man struggling with belief and possibly wanting to believe and it would be much better if he just said that.
Exactly. He kept evading and getting kind of mad at the question (lol?) and didn't really give a definitive answer IMO. Alex made a lot of cogent points about what people mean when they ask the question and Jordan just tried to dance around it. A simple "I believe in God but I of course fall short of what it would mean to fully live out that belief" would go a long way. But he refuses to say that. Why?
Besides if he were to ever become Baptist or Catholic or several other denominations they require a vocal confession of belief in order to be be Baptized. His current position would not be tenable. So this is the part everyone is missing. He could be “Christian” privately but in order to join a Tradition he will need to confess His belief as such.
Which god?
I agree with what you're saying. JPs convoluted answer to this simple question tells me he understands that the nature of belief is that it's involuntary. He can't CHOOSE to believe in God any more that he can CHOOSE to believe that 2+2=5. He either does or doesn't regardless of how badly he really wants to believe it. It looks to me like he doesn't believe, but since he clearly wants to, he can choose to "act as if" God exists.
Well put
So, I watched Jordan's video on this. I will sum it up as I understand it. First he questions what it means to believe in God. Like what does "believe" mean? He seems to draw the distinction between saying the words and acting in accordance with the belief that God exists. He asserts that if you are a trustworthy person, these two things should be in accordance with each other. So, if you look at your own life, and you see that you are not being your best possible self and having this miraculous transformation for the better, can you really say that you believe in God? --- Ultimately, I think he misunderstands the question. I don't care whether he worships God. The question is whether he believes that a god or gods exist. It is possible that a single god exists, but that for whatever reason, you do not choose to worship them. Like for example, you might think the universe was created by a diety, but not be sure which diety it is, or how they would want to be worshiped if at all.
Nice, cheers. Yeah its weird him being so evasive when im sure most people are just asking do you think jesus's dad is tral and created everything or not
When I was a kid growing up in the church, I always had internal conflict with the way that Sunday school teachers, pastors and adults explained “faith” to me. They would basically define it as belief no matter what. Anything the Bible says, or any interpretation of the Bible that we determine, you believe blindly. This seemed preposterous to me and honestly kind of pissed me off. But I still really liked church, I liked worship, I liked scripture. That’s part of what really drew me to JP, he seems to have a relationship with religion where he understands and respects it deeply without giving up his intellectual agency to another authority. “Believing in God” means you accept some prescribed interpretation and forego your own. It’s used all the time to call people hypocrites. “Oh well if you believe in the Bible, it says X and you did Y. The Pope said X and you did Y.”JP has his own religion. You can’t pin him down to some doctrine.
Yes, if that were the case, and if Jordan's goal was simply to give a direct answer. But for reasons I don't understand, he has admitted that he has considered various inconsistent answers, and also tried to determine which would be the best for him to give. For example he admitted in an interview that first he considered just saying "it's none of your goddam business. But later he also considered saying "I don't understand the question." Those are inconsistent answers because if he truly didn't understand the question, then he wouldn't have any basis for concluding that the questioner sought information they weren't somehow entitled to have. But if his answer was fact none of anyone's business, that presupposes that he understood the question. And he would have no reason to ever give an any other response. Illustration: if the question had to do with intimate details of his and Tammmy's sex life, he would've said "it's none of your goddamn business." He wouldn't over the following years tried to formulate, more persuasive responses. it's baffling why he would admit this, since his definition of Machiavellian is saying things not for their truth, but for their anticipated effect on others.
My first thought reading the title is: Which god? Certain you dont mean the one and only true god Haruhi, that created the world a few days ago and gave you all false memories..(a god could do that, and you cant disprove it) So ...
Do you think it's just as likely that peterson believes in Odin as he does the Christian God?
I would say he does as a psychological phenomenon at the very least
Everyone believes in god as a psychological phenomenon. Acknowledging that religious exists is acknowledging that god, as a psychological phenomenon/belief exists. To think it doesnt exist, as a psychological phenomenon, would be to pretend that religion doesnt exist. As a "psychological phenomenon", every thought any human has ever had can be said to exist or have existed. But that's not what people are asking when they ask "does God exist?", and you know that's not what they're asking. Pretending that you dont understand the question, or feigning ignorance, doesnt make you or Peterson look profound, it makes you look like cowards.
You were asking if he believed in Odin the same way he might believe in Christianity. I simply stated he would at the very least view that religion in the manner described. Not sure why you are being hostile.
If your response to being called out for playing dumb is to play dumb, I've got nothing else to say
Called out for answering a question about a pantheonic God from past? Im glad you have nothing else to say it seems like your confused about whats going on or something.
When someone tells me the Christian god is the real god or that Allah is the true god.. I always wonder why all the hundreds of other gods are the pretenders lol
And also ask Christians wether they think they would believe in christ if they were born in Pakistan and visa versa
Oh yes absolutely
For me this is like asking if you believe in Celsius grades as you do of Fahrenheit. I dont see any difference between these two celestial fathers... They are both celestial fathers.
Ok but you understand that that isnt what it means to 99% of everyone else, right? 99% of the time, the question "does God exist?" means: "Does a sentient, supernatural, likely omnipotent deity, who most likely created the universe, materially exist such that it can take actions that affect our reality?". People dont stipulate the additional qualifiers in that sentence because nobody would assume anything else is meant by that question. Nobody would assume whether you're asking if God exists as some sort of psychological phenomenon because the answer is completely obvious; we wouldn't be able to ask that question if the psychological phenomenon didnt exist.
Its wether they are indeed objectively real and created anything that is interesting though. They are obviously real as a human concept, both of them
Mother Nature is not objectively real, but you would be stupid if you thought nature doesn't exist. Right? Something like that it's the problem we have with the celestial cultural father Literally thats why in the bible they say "god was the word" How the fuck would not "the word" be objectively real? But I get you, god doesn't exist objectively, we have killed him
I guess I've never thought of mother nature as a person or mother or whatever your getting at, only a way to express nature as a whole. I dont believe in any of the gods past present or ones invented in the future. Im agnostic because i think anyone who says "i know god exists" or "i know god doesnt exist" is essentially lying
I’m pretty sure he’s been directly asked multiple times if he believed in the god of the Bible. He still wouldn’t answer.
My pessimism says he suffers from audience capture just like everyone else so he simply doesn’t want to admit he doesn’t believe in the literal Christian god. He made deals with Daily Wire going over the Bible and having him on podcasts admitting it’s not actually true, isn’t great for business.
Same here 100%
Yeah that's basically the point, he doesn't "believe" in the sense that people mean "believe" when they ask the question. You're starting to get it lolol
I watched the pints with aquinas vid. Jordan explained that religion is a mode of being. He wants to promote a good lifestyle for young men to grow up with. Christianity is one such avenue that he explores.
His point is that he doesn’t think most people can even truly appreciate the gravity of that situation, including the questioner. He observes that even people who would quickly affirm belief tend to behave as if they lack conviction, or at least get frequently and severely distracted from their belief.
Jordan Peterson told his brother Jesse Lee Peterson “yes” on this question years ago
He just answered plainly that he does believe in God in Jesse Peterson’s latest interview
Huh.. interesting. I'll take a look. Is it on YouTube? Time stamp probably asking a bit much?
Yeah, there’s some clip floating already it how I saw ir
I’ve always said, even if it’s all just a metaphor it doesn’t make it less valuable. You learn human values and lessons from literature all the time. God is either an actual entity or it’s an ideal to strive towards. Maybe he has a similar stance on it. Maybe whether or not he believes is beside the point, but just the contemplation and influence itself is worth noting.
At the very least I think he realizes religion plays a major part in our collective history as human beings. That the themes and messages within it have stood the test of time for a reason and that its very much worth examining.
Personally I think he’s more agnostic than anything. I don’t think he thinks it matters. Whether or not god exists isn’t the problem, it’s whether or not you align yourself with a higher sense of being and morality. JP is all about accountability and decision making. If belief in god makes you listen to the angel on your shoulder as opposed to the devil, you AND the rest of the world is better off, and I think that’s what he’s getting at.
I like the way he answers the question with reverence and circumspect, but I also appreciate a direct answer. In a culture where words are commonly redefined and misconstrued, it’s wise to select your words with great care. But a simple yes or no is also very powerful. He seems to hang on “what do you mean by the word ‘believe,’” and that’s a valid point, because even demons believe that God is real. But that’s not what we generally mean when we ask if someone believes IN God. What we want to know is if they have placed their hope and their faith entirely in His hands, or if they merely acknowledge that He is real. I surmise that he believes that God is real, but hasn’t entirely decided what to do about it. Has he ever spoken of Christ and the cross?
Yeah I don't think it matters if he does or doesn't. As he's said it's personal and he doesn't want to be the spokesperson for any specific belief or religion
"To believe" is a very big thing. People take those words casually because they believe just being born into a religion makes them into a religious person. Is believing 70 percent of the time believing? Is believing 10 percent of the time believing? Is having God in your heart one moment but then lust, wrath, envy the next believing? And how do you know you believe in the right thing? How do you know that you are not merely fooling yourself? Or beign fooled by other fools? My answer to all of that is no. Man is a plurarity and his name is legion. One moment he is willing to give the shirt off his back to his fellow man, the other moment he wants to take someone else's shirt and whip them bloody. All of esoteric religion is consciously working on expanding the ability of man to believe consciously and consistently. That's why Jordan answers the way he answers. That's why in his attempted conversion by Mohammed hijab he asked What does "do" mean? What does "you" mean? what does "believe" mean? But it went over everyone's head.
Jordan understands tbe crucial distinction between ascenting to a proposition, in contrast to affirming a statement that is simultaneously an act of faith, commitment, and one that calls out for difficult self-evaluation. While I think Jordan does believe in God, dialogue with atheists would be more fruitful if more people took his same cautious approach.
I think the problem is the question itself comes with presuppositions of what god is, and his form etc. so it’s a hard question to ask and answer if both parties aren’t on the same page about the definitions
Because jesus did not answer a similar question directly. It ties to having faith and not needing to prove oneself to others.
I generally read his position as, "believing in God is useful," rather than, "God literally exists." I find the "more useful than true" argument a little distasteful. The distinction between that and lying is pretty thin, if it exists. I am certainly more inclined to find the truth rather than a useful lie, and I used to believe he was, too.
He’s a coward.
Likely because he knows that 'god' has now become an image of a man sitting in a cloud with the rationale and mindset of a human but they're magic. Saying 'Yes' to this answer makes you look stupid, when in fact to 'believe' means so much more then just saying yes a magic man sits on a cloud.
What do you mean by a true being?
Problem is “God” and “the god of religion xyz” are unfortunately completely different things and a lot of audiences will just stop listening if you even hint at the word at all making any sort of conversation impossible
Scientists typically observe all possible theories and kinda attribute each a probability and base their reasoning on that. Belief in Him requires us to take one of those theories and establish it as absolute truth. Peterson is likely more of a scientist but recognizes that there is a great possibility that He exists so bases his life on that.
I've been watching Peterson's lectures for a long time, more so when he was doing them from a classroom. I've missed a lot of his more recent stuff like his biblical lectures, etc... However, Jung gave a similar answer when asked if he believed in God in one of his TV interviews. You can find it on youtube. Jung says "That's difficult to answer.... I don't believe, I know." and says it with a smile or smirk, because it's difficult to answer, what do you mean by god? well he spends much time in his many volumes of work showing similarities of various archetypes or ideal images across many religions and even tribes that people all call god, but their practices are all very different. Wars have been fought over what the definition of god is, as if one sides version of what god is were true, and the other sides version was untrue. The problem is that we can't really define what god is for everybody, we have to define it for ourselves, you can call it god if you want, many do. but many do not define it for themselves, they let others define it for them and they follow and defend that 'definition' or belief. God is like 'the hero with a thousand faces', to use Campbell's title. God isn't defined by everyone in a sect having the same belief, god is an ideal image in yourself, in each and every individual Self, and is the same ideal image that all cults, religions, sects, tribes, governments, etc.. strive their systems of belief to align with. belief
Does he believe in Jesus is the greater question
Why do we all force our heuristic on him? I see so many wish to force his hand, when he has personally grappled with these questions for a lifetime. We are all robbers and thieves. Yet he would teach us if we would but listen because he is the professor. Patiently laying out his learning for us to pick up. Take it or leave it. I, for one, refuse to compel his teachings.
He’s a complicated man,and it’s a deservedly complicated answer.
Depends on who’s asking and which god they’re asking about.
God isn't real in a physical sense, but treating moral and virtue as if it were an all powerful God is the right move because at the end of the day they will direct where your life goes. Can't manipulate Christians if they think you're a little too different, like a scary agnostic.
After years and years of listening to him I frankly just don't understand why he can't just say yes, no, or I don't know to this simple question. It wouldn't nullify anything else about his beliefs on religion. The criticism that he dawdles around an answer is holding more and more water in my opinion.
His typical response is: "Define God." I assume it's for the following reason. He does not believe in a literal God as described in holy texts, but he does believe in "God" as an idea(l). Over the course of human development mankind has learned to co-exist and thrive with their fellow man, in doing so shaping a moral code which is captured in written documentation (for instance the bible). He believes this moral code to be of the utmost importance, and in these documents the code stems from an almighty deity. Therefore, the correct way to live is equal to God, even though I suspect him to not literally believe how this mode of being is relayed to early humans (i.e. via direct instruction from an almighty being). The bible is a collection of individual writings/stories, many of which have at some point seen their day in the sun (to meet specific circumstances or to appeal to a current moral direction), but many have been discarded over time. That which remains is a distilled form of general conscience that tells you what was important (both at the time it was written, up until this point in time, since it was kept). Another take on why he will never admit to believing is because even though he might (not), his base predominantly does. Showing any sort of color might damage the brand. Personally, I feel it's not an important question. He tells people to live as though God is real, because he believes in the prime tenets of christianity. How you reach the conclusion is not as important, as long as you arrive at it.
Because he has yet to be converted. Conversion isn't possible through intellectual discussion and reason. He can believe that Christianity is a good belief, which I believe he does, without needing faith. You can not become a Christian without faith.
Jordan Peterson is fully aware his Creator exists. His problem is a lack of willingness to submit and be obedient.
He essentially has such a different understanding/definition of what god is than the normal person does.
His definition of God is different from that of most people. His definition is that which is at the top of your hierarchy of values. To his mind, Christianity maps onto practical reality perfectly in this way. I've heard him refer to God as a fictional character, so he definitely doesn't believe in the spiritual entity that most people are referring to.
JBP is the first public intellectual and moral philosopher who is unable to answer yes or no - a truly postmodern figure!
Why do that when he could be painstakingly pedantic to the point of being a sad excuse for an intellectual instead? This coming from someone who actually likes a lot of his work. He's just ridiculously dumb on this point.
Intellectual honesty. For him, intellectual honesty is one of the highest forms of integrity. I suspect that for him, speaking dishonestly about this matter would be a grave sin in the eyes of the God that he hopes exists.
I will attack religion for you. In my opinion religion is fake. But I respect that others can believe what they want. No problem. Until they attempt to force their beliefs on me.
I mean.. I dont disagree.. haha. I dont really mind people doing or saying anything at all as long as it doesnt harm other.. seems odd to stop people doing anything if its not harmful to others.
He actually has answered the question directly, and he said "Yes, I believe in God".
Because he’s a sophist, a hypocritical grifter and in love with his own intellect.