Dr. Peterson on Joe Rogan Podcast

Live on the Joe Rogan Podcast. Talking about Political Correctness, Psychology, Ideology, the human condition and many other complicated ideas.

  • raj
  • Dan

    This is the podcast that blew my universe apart and I’ve been putting back together again since. I found another GREAT one on Youtube Just search:
    Lateral Conversations Episode 31 with Jordan B Peterson

  • AJ Whitehead

    I did not know who Dr. Peterson was until i watched podcast. I went into it thinking “cool another podcast” and merely 3 hours later i came out of it with a racidcally altered, im talking fundamentally to my core, world view. I have a hard time talking about how important those 3 hours of dialog were to me without coming to tears.

    I was an atheist at age 15. I was agnostic at age 15 1/2 and i never understood why. I think i intuitively knew why, but not logically. 17 years later Prof. Peterson has eloquently identified and explained exactly why i felt, not thought, those things.

    Ive been posting random clips of Peterson everywhere in hopes his message of individualism spreads. By the way, i really want a poster copy of Peterson’s painting to hang in my recording studio next to my Alex Grey work. Anyone know where i can get a copy?

    • David

      Hi AJ, no idea about where you could get that painting, but thought I’d chime in with agreement to what you’ve written. I wasn’t ever an atheist, but I have had a Christian upbringing and never really cared for most of it and what the Church would teach. So I got into things like Gnosticism, Hermeticism and Buddhism to see if I could find the answers I was looking for. I’ve always tried to keep a skeptical and logical point of view when it comes to these sort of things, and like you, I was thrilled when Peterson articulated certain truths that I only had a vague awareness of.

      Definitely life changing stuff. You’ve inspired me to listen to the podcast for a third time 😀 Thanks!

  • Halt Alt Blog

    Dr Peterson,
    This podcast was absolutely fantastic, and really got me thinking about the ways of the world and ideologically motivated people. In fact, your thoughts on the issue inspired me to create a blog where I post small thoughts on different international phenomenons. Thank you!

  • Alec

    Hi Dr Peterson –

    I listened to this podcast recently and have both a question and comment.

    First, the question. Could you please provide the name and author of the book you reference in your discussion on Marxism?

    Now, the comment. You stated (perhaps my memory is incorrect) that there aren’t good examples of Marxism in the world to reference for student today as there were when Communist Russia existed. You made a reference to North Korea, but made it sound like it is considered an odd ball/rogue nation.

    I would like to understand why you don’t push back on this assertion and why this isn’t considered the greatest example of why Marxism is a disaster. Here, in the modern world, we have a place like Korea where the people are for the most part homogeneous. In many cases, even directly related to one another by blood. The only differing aspects of these people are a border separating them and form of government. By all other accounts they are the same. Yet, their outcomes are vastly different in terms of quality of life, freedom, etc. It is the clearest example of the failures of Marxism in my mind. I am interested in your take.

    Also, what about the little sister to Marxism? Socialism? And, it’s disastrous outcomes on display in Venezuela?

    Thanks for the Great Interview!

    • Scott

      I believe he was referring to the Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, sometimes spelled as Alexander or Alexandr.

      • Alec

        Thanks Scott. I appreciate the help.

  • John

    Dr Peterson sees religion as an essential part of a moral structure. Would his thoughts on this subject be consistent with the idea of NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria)?

    • Brent Fewster

      I think you could argue that to be the case. However, if you have time, I highly recommend listing to this interview with Dr Peterson – in it, he draws out his thinking on religion and morality. I actually think that the ideas he outlines in this interview are far more developed than NOMA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Ys4tQPRis

  • Andy Leal

    Dr. Peterson, your insight and learned wisdom was so refreshing. I have listened to this particular podcast episode and digested it little by little. Your conclusions have been substantiated by your quest for knowledge and your knowledge of history. Thank you for sharing and helping others along in their own quests. I truly did get quite a lot out of it as I am sure many other listeners did as well.

  • Vii

    More info and general references concerning false views of Social justice ideologies…
    Thomas Sowell,
    Friedrich Hayek,
    Henry Olsen

  • Vii

    Dear Jordan B Peterson, I though you would partake in adding your name to this collective of proffessor that are commited to spliting up or at least compiling a list of Colleges/Universities that are commited to the TRUTH (their Tailos). This was initiated by Jonnathan Haidt.


  • Spherical Monk

    Jordan your podcast with Joe is very revelatory. Could you provide some examples of personality psychologists and social psychologists who are working together to unpack the the collective vs. the individual self especially as it relates to social justice issues?

  • Hugh_Oxford

    It is interesting that Peterson identifies a pathological element to the new politics, because the term I have used for a long time to describe this new regime is “pathocracy”, because I think that fits: government by the sick.

    I think it is no accident that the pathocracy is fixated with issues around sex, sexuality and identity, and that is because these people ARE the fallout of the sexual revolution that started with the advent of the contraceptive pill and the consequent anthropological disorder that followed, the separation of love, sex, marriage and procreation.

    I would be very surprised if these political activists had had any positive experience of normal, happy, ordered, stable, loving, family life. I would be surprised if any had had strong and loving maternal and paternal influences. I would go further: I think many of these people are now second or third generation socio-sexual dysfunctional, they have no memory, let alone experience, of normal family life. So they don’t know what male and female are for, they don’t know why they are sexual beings, nothing makes sense, biology doesn’t make sense, they are living in a kind of hell and as Peterson so beautifully observes, hell is a lived experience on earth. Unable to understand and negotiate normal life, many will be damaged by abortion and broken relationships. And there are millions of these people now, millions. The sexual revolution was as large as any other political revolution in history.

    And this ties in to what Peterson correctly identifies as a politics motivated by resentment. These fanatics are really tortured souls, projecting outwards upon the world their inner confusion and torment, hoping in vain that re-ordering the world around them – especially the language – will resolve their inner turmoil.

    But of course it won’t work. Punishing normal human beings like Peterson won’t work. Forcing people to call them men when they are women won’t work. And so they are insatiable, and the sexual revolution has always posited more of the problem to solve the problem, it is a kind of headbanging to cure the headache.

  • Principal_Spittle

    Rogan is correct. One of the best podcast he has done.

    I would really love to hear Jordan Peterson in discussion with Sam Harris on any subject but particularly consciousness or religion. Sam really needs a run for his money on the latter and I think Sam harbors beliefs (materialism?consequentialism?) on the former with frightening implications.

    On the question of the long term effects of educational lectures and materials online. The vast majority of those consuming these can/will only take personal (familial, societal) gain and not impact the value of those who seek credentials for productive purposes. I am in the first category and to the degree l am able to understand the subject I get genuine pleasure learning about philosophy, physics, psychology and technology. The novelty and nural growth l could get in the building trades wore out many years ago but like many others l will continue in the familiar patterns I have created, for everyone’s sake.

  • Brian McMorrow

    You mentioned in your conversation with Had Saad that you would be posting your wife’s dream regarding your current work. I didn’t see it on your site. I am very interested in dreams and what they have to say about our current environment. Could you post it, if you haven’t already done so. All the best, Brian

  • David

    @Gerald You know, I agree with your intentions, but you are impressed with Professor Peterson for a reason. You respect his intelligent and lucid way of presenting his beliefs, but at the same time, you’re trying to solve the contradiction as to how such an intelligent person could also describe themselves as “deeply” religious. I can only imagine how puzzled you must have been feeling when he revealed that 🙂

    Hmm. Thing is, we don’t know FOR SURE if Jesus existed or not. Just like we don’t know for sure if the big bang occurred exactly how science describes it. Think of how ludicrous the idea of everything in the universe being contained in something smaller than a marble, before spontaneously exploding. They’re both wild ideas. Now some theoretical physicists are suggesting we’re dealing with the possibility of living in an artificial simulation. But if that is so, then it means that this has all been constructed by an intelligence much greater than our own. We may as well call that intelligence “God”, shouldn’t we? So, my point being is that nobody really knows what our purpose on this planet is. “God” is a fitting placeholder until we can better defined exactly what God is, and what evidence there is for a “God” to exist. Just like we’ve given placeholders to the ideas of dark energy and dark matter without really knowing what either of them are. God should be treated more like a hypothesis, than a certainty. Just like Jesus must be viewed as.

    Einstein once said that science without religion is blind, and that religion without science is lame. He’s right. We shouldn’t polarize on either side. The possibility of there actually being a creator should not be so lightly dismissed. Science produces facts, but religion provides meaning. Each are equally important, and to have one without the other is to invite trouble. Therefore, I can’t agree with you that religion should be abolished. Although I agree that you can be spiritual without being religious. For me, religion is more like a packaged system of belief, like a fast food combo from McDonalds. It’s quick, easy and convenient and provides a quick fix; but it is not good for you in the long term. You have to branch out and consider other religions as well in order to patch together the Frankenstein’s monster of your system of belief. Long as you engage critical thinking in the process.

    I also disagree that once we strip out the mythological/supernatural elements from these stories, that there will be “not much” left as far as anything of substance goes. I think you’re fixating largely on trying to find out who the Tortoise and the Hare actually is, and whether or not they existed, instead of appreciating the story of how they raced, and thoughtfully applying such lessons to your life. That’s the point of religion in my opinion. To give guidance and meaning to what it is to be human. Or what a human being should be. There is no such “code” that atheists abide by. And there has been many instances in history where war and atrocities have been committed without using religion as a basis. The Rape of Nanking is a good example. The Nazis, would be another. Eradicating religion would not go very far in securing world peace, as you seem to be suggesting/hoping it will. If you had the choice to abolish religion entirely from the world, I suggest you spend a good deal of time thinking about what that actually involves. Architecture, art, music, poetry, books.. paintings. So much of these are the result of what religion has inspired in the hearts of men. There would be no Sistine Chapel today, for example. There would be no foundation for humanity to stand upon, would there?

    I don’t know if you’ve ever read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, but that book is very secular and doesn’t discuss religion. What it does discuss, is the obvious split of the human race into two categories. Those that feel more connected to humanity, and those that feel more connected to technology. Or selfishness vs selflessness.This schism between us will always exist in my opinion, and in order to “solve” the issues we’re experiencing nowadays with the far right and the far left; we have to acknowledge that there will always be a difference of opinion. The best thing to do, is to try and achieve mutual respect. Respect between atheists and deists. Respect for science as well as religion.

    One of the things that bothers me about religion, is indoctrination. I am not a fan of baptizing children, or forcing them to adhere to anything before they can engage rational thought. I grew up resenting having to go to church, and yet, I’m more spiritual and knowledgeable about the subject than my own mother who is ostensibly a more devout Christian than I am. I believe rational thought has to be engaged when it comes to this subject, but I also believe that faith has to enter the picture as well. Again, that’s harmony. Right and left brain. Intuition and reason, hand in hand. Humanity seems to think it is an either/or proposition to believe in God, when the answer is that we can have our cake and eat it too.

    Regarding how you feel about morality existing independently outside of religion; I kind of disagree. I both agree and disagree, only because I read C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity” in which he rationally explains how we have this inherent sense of morality from the moment of our birth. That it is not a culturally conditioned quality, or anything we’d have to learn. It is a deeply rooted feeling. This “feeling” that most of us have, that mankind is something “more” than just the product of evolution and a series of beneficial mutations; this is a sentiment that needs to be respected and not derided. As you said, spirituality can exist without religion, but religion is the textbook we spiritual beings work off of. It would be like removing all books on mathematics, for a secular example. Neither approach is the correct one to be taking.

    Also regarding your thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls (I personally dislike them), you’re forgetting to remember that much of those documents weren’t written with a political agenda in mind. They were found in the 1940s I believe. Hundreds and hundreds of years later, and it was the Essenes who likely wrote those gospels. Not politicians or priests. This is why I recommend reading the Gnostic gospels, because of how free from bias it appears to be. It can be largely confusing to read and understand, but boy, it sure is interesting. If anything, these gospels point to a yearning in man that can never be eradicated. Had God not existed, it would be necessary to invent him. Regardless of how far modern society has progressed. There will always be a “God” on this planet, no matter how rational your arguments to the contrary may be. There is still so much for us to learn, and science is a tool to uncover knowledge. It should not become a religion onto itself.

    I’m also a bit offended that you think religion is damaging to one’s mental state. Although you did say, “can be” so that would obviously mean the extremists and fundamentalists are the ones you’re most worried about. To that, I agree. But I find that religion has done more good than harm, and without it, our civilization would be in free-fall. Or at the very least, a drab boring world where we have the emotional capacity of Spock which is the path that people like Richard Dawson seems hell bent on placing us on.

    Anyways, great discussion 🙂

    • Gerald

      @David: I am intrigued with Professor Peterson’s views in the same way as it aligns with Joseph Campbell’s philosophy of the ‘mythic dimension’ to our existence. However Campbell rejected the idea of personal god. It’s a very fascinating subject to me. I like to expose my self to different opinions including opposing ones. It expands my mind. It’s part of my journey. I remain curious and open-minded and am attracted to certain philosophies of the mind.

      By the way, I was raised as a conservative Christian, attending 13 years of Christian school as well as church services and extra church classes every week. I have experience on both sides. It wasn’t until I started to explore my religion to gain a better understanding, that I could no longer believe. It wasn’t what I was looking for, but it was what I had found. It wasn’t a choice.

      They way I see it is Christianity (or religion in general) is worshipping the myth…and missing the point. That is why it important to show what is myth. Perhaps you, Professor Peterson and I define religion differently.

      I think I can provide I fairly decent argument as why I don’t think Jesus existed. I am of course referring to the Jesus of Nazareth that is described in the gospels, who is worshipped in Christian churches. I believe prototypes exist, both physically/historically and meta/mythologicaly. Meaning: this myth motif goes farther back than the first century.

      I didn’t say that religion should be abolished. I think it should be shown for what it really is and people can decide for themselves. The information needs to be presented. It will hopefully eventually transform and evolve into something better. If we don’t peel away the husk, we can’t get at the fruit. Put it this way, religion as we know must change or it will die. Maybe religion was the textbook for spirituality, but it doesn’t need to be.

      Atheism is a default position for not seeing evidence of a god. I don’t consider myself one, because it is a loaded word, that many misunderstand. God is a loaded word too.

      Hitler was not atheist. He wasn’t necessarily Christian, but was baptised and confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church as a boy. He later rejected it but was aligned in part with the Catholic Church, and did believe in ‘a god’. The Nazi’s wore ‘God with us’ on their belts. Anti-Semitism was an effect of Nazism and Social Christianity, not atheism. Sure there are many atrocities committed by non-religious people or groups…but they are not committed in the name of Atheism. They are committed on the basis of an ideology (which in a way is very much ‘religion’).

      ‘We have an inherent sense of morality from the moment of our birth’? Hmm, perhaps, but how would C.S. Lewis know this? Does he remember how he felt at birth? Speculation for sure. And if this sense does exist at birth, why must it come from his god? Could it not as easily be viewed as being embedded into our DNA through evolution? It seems many things through time have been attributed to god, but once science discovers and explains it, god becomes smaller and smaller.

      Why do different cultures have different morals? Those morals are taught within the community, and are not in them already at birth. Different eras of time have different morals too. No offence, but I find C.S. Lewis’ rationality somewhat juvenile. His statement that Jesus is either Liar, Lunatic or God is ridiculous. One would think that an author of allegorical fantasy books would come up the concept of ‘myth’ as well. But that’s his Christianity clouding his rationality.

      Most everything is written with a kind of political agenda in mind…the Bible of course, is especially full of this.

      There even seems to be ‘duelling gospels’ between and among the Gnostics and other communities.

      I do however understand the appeal of the Gnostic Gospels. I will take another look at them. It’s been a while.

      I have several books on the Gnostics. Perhaps it’s time to dust them off.

      You are right, the Dead Sea Scrolls aren’t as beautiful, but there are important finds, and tell us much about the world at that time.

      I believe one can be scientifically spiritual, with out any ancient text books and doctrines. Science moves us forward. Religion holds us back. One can view the universe as the prime mover of life and energy. It does not have to be a personal, anthropomorphic god such as the miserable, jealous, vengeful tyrant of the O.T.

      I do believe that this universal energy is with in us as we are all part of it. Perhaps that’s a form of scientific pantheism. Maybe it is this similar the “Christ within us’ of Paul, or the Greek Logos Divine Spark with in us, or the Elan Vital of Bergson…or Campbell’s hero. I don’t know…it’s all labels and semantics anyway, perhaps pointing to the same thing…

      A big difference between science and religion is that science is willing to admit it’s incorrect when new or better evidence comes to light. Religion says it has the answers and stands pat. Science is constantly improving itself, and evaluating itself, and striving for better ways find what we are looking for.

      The big bang is exactly that, a theory. It’s a fairly plausible theory based on observation and evidence that’s available now. Scientist are not claiming to know everything about it or everything prior to it. They will admit there is so much more to discover, but does ‘God did it’ explain it better?

      This is the part I always find amazing: creationists always claim that something can’t come from nothing, so the universe had be created by a deity.

      Well, what created this deity? Something can’t come from nothing, right? They then go on to explain that ‘god’ always existed and those rules don’t apply to him. (based on absolutely no evidence)

      Well, just remove what we don’t know exists, and replace it with what we do know, and accept that perhaps the universe was always there. If you want to call that ‘god’, …Fine. An infinite universe is more plausible that an anthropomorphic god creator.

      Sorry for the ramble…that’s how I see it.

      With out the church, there may have been no Sistine Chapel in particular, but Michelangelo will still have produced beautiful works of art for other patrons. Trust me, artists do not cease to create with out the Church. Art has existed long before the Church and will exist long after the Church has died. In fact, there would have been much more beautiful art as well as philosophical writings had not the church suppressed and destroyed much of it. There was an abundance of excellent art during the Renaissance because of the enlightened movement broke away from the shackles of the Church.

      Without the church we may still have the beautiful art and temples from the various mystery religions of Greece and the Roman Empire. All the other writings based on the concepts we are talking about that was deemed heresy by the Church would still be available to us today. Not only would art have better flourished, it would have been better art. The Church always had it’s thumb on the artists. I’ll take a blank Sistine Chapel ceiling in exchange for freedom of scientific advancement, freedom of artistic expression, no Inquisition, no burning of heretics, and no corruption, or abuse, and oppression of the poor any day.

      I meant no offence about religion being damaging to one’s mental state. You are correct, I did say ‘can be’.

      I remember myself as a young boy struggling with the thought of hell. Preachers telling me I was worthless and damaged, that I needed fixing. This had a traumatic and negative impact on me in my formative years. This can affect us deeply on a subconscious level.

      I know of others who have struggled in similar ways. Kids that are tormented because they think they will be forever damned for various reasons. I see that as child abuse. Relatives of the deceased in anguish with the thought of their beloved mother/father/child burning in eternal hell-fire. Families become ripped apart over a the belief in a myth. It’s ludicrous.

      I think you meant Richard Dawkins…I hope you did anyway. : )

      I know Dawkins and the like can sometimes come across as stiff and lifeless, but they do find profound beauty in the universe. They have a sense of awe.

      I tend to see it this way as well, but I also allow myself to be open to the science of the mind and consciousness with a sense of wonder. I think this is an exciting frontier, and Professor Peterson’s views are thought provoking.

      • David

        Hi Gerald, nice post!

        I’m fascinated by Campbell myself. I didn’t know he rejected the idea of an actual “God”, but you could make the argument that God exists even in archetypal form. Although you’d start to invoke the whole subjective vs objective/reality argument, so I won’t bother going there 🙂 Have you looked into Alan Watts? He’s a believer in the idea of a universal consciousness, and is just as rational and lucid as both Campbell and Peterson are.

        Huh. You’ve had quite an upbringing. Its good you described it, because I’m seeing a parallel between children who are forced to live “Christian” lives; eventually breaking down and falling into becoming atheists. I have a friend who’s an atheist, and she also was like yourself. Raised in a strict religious household, and going to church, Bible study, no sex before marriage, etc. It might be important to develop self-awareness in considering the fact that your skepticism could have a strong bias against organized religion precisely because of your upbringing. The tendency to rebel might be ingrained deeper than you would be consciously aware of. Just a thought. Not to put a slight against you, because we are defined by our upbringing, and I know how hard it is to shake off the past and not be influenced by any of it.

        You say that religion (to you) is like worshiping a “myth” and that it is missing the point. Mm, not entirely. Religion isn’t always about worship. I don’t think that if a God exists, that people should be expected to worship it. Revere it, maybe. Appreciate it, yes. But not surrender rationality to. But, that is my skewed perspective and I know what you’re saying regardless. Still, though. You admit there is value in mythology, and unfortunately in the case of Christianity; the myth will always be there, alongside the teachings and aphorisms and what have you. It’s the whole package. Sure, its very “mythy” when viewed from afar; but it does contain value in both the stories, and the teachings. I suppose you’re more concerned about the idea of having to pretend Santa Claus exists, than to appreciate merely that children enjoy having an explanation for how they get presents. It’s a story. An entertaining one, a myth, sure.. if you want it to be. But the fact that there is a *possibility* for the myth to be real, is still worth considering it as more than just a made-up story told around a campfire and passed around until it became this grotesque fantasy/tale complete with miracles and all manner of heroic deeds, etc. Despite how much of a myth it is or is not, it does not negate the value of the myth itself. Know what I mean? If believing in Santa makes children happy, then wouldn’t that suffice? I would think so. Sure, it may not be “true”, but its a stepping stone until something else comes along (or kids grow up). Which is how I view religion and myths. Stepping stones to something better. So yes, I believe in the importance of religion and I think arguing about the character/existence of Jesus is truly missing the point. As far as wanting to develop and understand spirituality goes. Again.. its a complex issue. And you and I both have good intentions at heart, and we seem to be on similar paths (as far as broadening our knowledge/understanding goes); but I feel that religion should be given more respect and credit. No, it should not be taken 100% seriously (ie. Scientology); but it should be looked at as an orchard, where you go in, pick up the good fruits, and leave the bruised ones behind. I think you and I can agree that religion should continue to exist, for exactly this reason. Not as a tool of indoctrination and control over others (which we both resent), but generally as a resource. A stepping stone. Until we have better “textbooks” to reference from, we’re always going to be going back to the Bible, or the Koran, or the Upanishads, etc.

        I’m sure you can provide a decent argument as to why you don’t think Jesus existed. You’ll bring up Horus and Minas (I think? Mithras?) the Sacred Mushroom Cult, Dionysus, Pagan influences, etc. It wouldn’t surprise me if you had a great argument lined up. But see, it doesn’t matter to me whether or not he existed. Although I think he did. The archetype is just as powerful, whether or not he did exist. The Christ myth still serves its greater purpose. Regardless of whether or not he existed. So, that’s why I consider it fruitless to really try and justify his existence. Too bad they didn’t have YouTube back then so we could know for sure 🙂 But riddle me this. If Jesus existed nowadays and performed all those miracles, would you believe him? You probably wouldn’t. And I might not either. We’d try and engage the irrational on a rational level, and it wouldn’t be possible. So then, why bother subjecting yourself to that kind of torment? What would it take to fully convince you that Jesus has walked the Earth? Probably nothing that your imagination can come up with, can it? Even if we found where Jesus’s spirit is living in the 5th dimension and we have a telephone number that we can call him with; it still is going to be met with a skeptical eye, you know 🙂 It’ll only raise even more questions.

        Mm. So you wouldn’t want to abolish religion (glad we covered that), but how would you propose to “change” religion into what you want it to be? To strip it free and down to the essentials? You can do it on a personal level, but I get the sense you have an interest in propagating a more world-wide change in how religion is viewed in general. So that therefore, would require good arguments and public discourse (in my opinion), before you can alter overall sentiment. Don’t worry. I think we’re going down that direction anyways, although it may be a while before we are able to reach the point of looking back at religion with a bit of a shake of our heads and saying, “wow, I can’t believe how dumb people were back then” but that is only assuming we can keep people interested in being spiritual as civilization/technology evolves along. That is why I think atheists like Richard Dawsons (heh, I know, I know, I’m just going with the typo, humor me) are taking the wrong approach in doing what they do. He’s interested in ridicule and replacement, rather than modifying the value of these myths so that they can be “updated” to fit with our modern times. Which as you said, religion does NOT do (and I agree that its a serious problem, but we largely embrace the idea of birth control now, so that is an encouraging step). Your evolve or die sentiment is shared by myself, also. Religion needs to change, but science has to change also. At least the way science/atheists/academia largely views it. In the past decade, I’m seeing a worrying trend towards disrespecting and marginalizing the importance of religion (by my definition, as written above and described in earlier posts) and that is only contributing to the polarization and defensiveness of both believers and disbelievers. Which is a big, big problem. That is why I’m on this blog. I see men like Dr. Peterson standing up for themselves and speaking their truths as being a big step forward in bridging the chasm. I believe science and religion can co-exist. And not only that, but society would be better if we could come to a “compromise”. Which is probably the exact same goal you and I have in mind. I just don’t agree with the hostility that comes in denouncing certain aspects of religion, and trying to marginalize its value.

        (wow, sorry for this being so long, but your post had a lot of meat on it)

        Yep, religion shouldn’t be the textbook to spirituality, but it is. Luckily, you have the New Age movement which promotes the likes of Eckhart Tolle for example, who manages to synthesize and disseminate a palpable form of secular Buddhism to the masses. So, that helps. Still, though. Religion isn’t past its expiration date yet. And I don’t think trying to convince everybody it is, is going to be met with much success.

        Mm. I would argue that Agnosticism is the default position for not seeing evidence of a God. Not Atheism. Atheism is the “certainty” of there not being a divine being or supernatural intelligence/creator/etc. Agnosticism is the default position. Yup. As you said, God is a loaded word. Means different things to different people. Some people think he’s an invisible old man with a beard smiling down from the sky and others like myself (and you, possibly) see God as more of a universal consciousness along the lines of pantheism. The only difference is that you don’t see a singular entity as fitting within this belief of yours, whereas I do. I think we all come from the same stuff, but I also think there is a “leader” behind it all as well.

        Mm, yeah. Lots of atheists have committed atrocities. But it doesn’t matter, I’m not interested in the blame game. Its human nature to justify inhuman behavior, right? Religion is just as convenient a scapegoat as anything else out there. That’s a big problem as well, because you have to now make the distinction between someone truthfully applying a religion, or them basically, bullshitting themselves (and others) 🙂 I would hazard to say that those of us who are intensely spiritual and identify ourselves as a true Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, whatever.. All know better than to use ideology as a way of justifying violence towards another human being. So always look at a fundamentalist who supports the death penalty; with a sidelong glance of suspicion is what I’d suggest 🙂 These kind of people aren’t the ones you would want to lump in together with those of us who know better. Although its easy to paint in broad strokes, I wouldn’t call anyone who commits a serious atrocity a “true” believer in spirituality. And true believers can often tell one from the other.

        Hmm, yeah. I don’t *really* know if morality is inherent and/or if it is a product of evolution, but I did enjoy the way C.S. Lewis laid out his convictions. But he’s naturally biased (deeply religious), so I’m unsure if you would find his argument worth considering/exploring. I wouldn’t blame you for it either, since you seem quite wary of anything that might have an ulterior agenda attached.

        Another thing in our argument, is that you think morality is something which is culturally conditioned. It is, to a degree. But I believe there exists a kind of “moral” filter that precedes the “instinct” of the typical human being (aside from psychopaths). That moral filter is a curious thing, because I can’t quite argue for its existence as strongly as I’d like to. Assuming that there is such a filter and that it is not the product of evolution and tribal integrity/conditioning/etc; than I would expect to say we were “coded” with this innate sense of morality. Otherwise we would be indistinguishable from most animals, wouldn’t we? So, I have the viewpoint of us do having a morality that is universal, and is kind of a line in the sand that goes between what is “good” and what is “evil” without it ever becoming subjective. I have the view that this “understanding” has been given to us by something external, and is not the product of evolution. Although evolution/tribal dynamics all do play a role in how morality is defined, enforced, etc. Mm.. I’m not making much sense now.. uhm.. exit stage left. Haha

        Yep. There are dueling gospels out there 🙂 I’d love to be able to probe the vaults of the Vatican and see what they’ve got hiding down there. I bet the Gnostic gospels and Dead Sea Scrolls is a fraction of what they have.

        I love your idea of being scientifically “spiritual”. I’m definitely in support of making that into a label people can wear without feeling ridiculed or embarrassed by. Which again, is why I’m here. Because Dr. Peterson wears that label proudly. And his intelligence/rationality/religious point of views are worthy of both respect and admiration.

        Yep. I’m not a fan of the vengeful, angry, jealous God of the OT either. It just doesn’t make sense. If you get deep into Gnosticism, they try and explain the OT God as being the Demiurge. Which is this blind/dumb creator of our planet. A lesser God. Its just another mythology built on mythology, I suppose. Fun to think about, but on an intuitive level, I just kind of tune it out. It’s not what I want the truth to be. Its not what the truth “feels” like either. I suppose thats why I push the idea of reason and intuition as being important. There are some things you know are true, that you can’t quite find scientific evidence for.

        Well, Creationists take things literally. And ruling in favor of a God outside limits (who has existed when there was ‘nothing’) is entirely a reasonable point of view to have. Remember, “God” is supposed to be vastly more intelligent than we are. So how then are we to understand or relate to such a highly evolved form of intelligence? That is where anthropomorphic depictions of God come in to help ease our understanding of him. We give “him” a male quality, when in actuality God could be female or neither. We don’t know. So we work with a small, easily-understood frame of reference. Eventually as we learn and grow and experience; we alter and expand upon those basic structures that religion has provided, and turn it into something more palpable and inoffensive to our intelligence. Still, though. Saying that God is without limits, is an entirely reasonable argument to make. How would anyone know otherwise? Also, I’m not entirely convinced the creationists are wrong, either. If simulation theory is correct, than you could easily throw in dinosaur fossils as being part of the simulation. Although I admit, its a stretch. Haha.

        I like your quote here,

        “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.”

        And so on as Epicurus states. The thing about that line of thought, is that you are applying human intelligence and human limitations of knowledge to solving the question. But you really need a deeper understanding of what evil may actually be. If there is such a thing as an afterlife, and if there is such a thing as reincarnation and that we are constantly evolving (spiritually) towards knowing and understanding God; then perhaps “evil” is a necessary lesson to learn. Sucks, but thats the way it is. Imagine a utopia that you get placed inside of. Where all your desires are fulfilled. You’d be ecstatic at first, as you have your third threesome of the week (with hot supermodels), but after a while, this lack of evil or “challenge” enters the picture, and you will find yourself growing bored and not “growing”. Or at least demanding greater and greater amounts of “pleasure” until you become evil (the sin of gluttony). So perhaps, evil is merely a way of contrasting what is good. And allowing for free will to exist, so that you can make the choice between the two. This goes into the Satan is a “tester” thing, which is not a bad philosophical argument to make as far as the purpose and necessity of evil goes.

        If you can never fail, you will never really succeed. The achievement wouldn’t be earned. And if this is really a test and a means for spiritual beings to perfect themselves, then evil would be a necessary component of our evolution to have. At least that is what I would be telling Epicurus 🙂

        Mm.. Well who knows what “art” would look like, without religion. I just know that religion is responsible for/and has inspired a lot of fantastic art out there. Art inspiring enough to inspire others. I would credit religion for at least the Renaissance, in my opinion, which I consider to be the peak of artistic expression/talent. How art would’ve turned out without religious influences is anybody’s guess. Kind of like how Superman influenced comic books. Would we still have comic book superheros? Sure. Maybe. But they might not have evolved into Spiderman, Wolverine, Iron Man, etc. Had Superman was not the inspiration for all of those. Maybe today we would have a lot of Dick Tracy-type comics, who knows? 🙂

        Sounds like you got the fire & brimestone preachings in your youth. I can see why you’d feel resentment. I would share that feeling with you, and I’d openly ridicule those type of people who believe in such things too. That’s not my truth. A loving God wouldn’t go so far as to punish anyone by eternally damning them to “hell”. I find it helps if you look at “God” as a parent. And if you were the parent and caught your child misbehaving. Do you eternally damn them and shove spiky things up their butts? Nope. Haha. My sympathies to you on that, though.

        One thing I don’t like about Dawkins (Dawson) is that he’s not really the kind of guy I’d want to invite to a party. Imagine if you had to choose between Dawkins or say… Mel Gibson as far as your guest list goes. Who would you choose? If you honestly pick Gibson, then you would know he’s deeply religious and flawed, but he’s also personable and interesting. Haha.. Dawkins isn’t the kind of guy that I would want to hang with. Not entirely because of his views, but because of his character. I find that all too often those who spend an inordinate amount of time justifying their “love” for the universe (without a God), are only kind of pretending to the quality of being a human being. I know I’m not making much sense with this, but he strikes me as militant and soulless. I see a lot of atheists with personalities much like his own. He’s not the kind of guy who should be heading the atheist “down with religion!” movement, in my opinion. Nor is he worthy of being known as any kind of inspirational figure, either. For a scientist, you think he’d have better things to do than essentially spread hate speech. But yeah.. he’s on a crusade, and I wouldn’t take his claims about finding the universe so “beautiful” as sincere as he pretends to be, since his character doesn’t reflect what a beautiful/loving/appreciative human being would actually turn out and behave as.

        I like your last paragraph. You’re already ahead of the average atheist (ie. Dawkins/Dawson) by keeping your sense of wonder intact, and still studying religion, etc. I find that admirable, and I appreciate having this discussion with you. We’re not really all that different in terms of what our overall objective/wish is. I guess its just a matter of synthesizing both of our arguments into a cohesive and acceptable position for someone to stand upon without fear of unjust criticism. I think that’s the whole underlying aim of our discussion. Although I tend to monopolize the limelight more than you do with my ramblings, but its all constructive. Haha.

        Btw, if you aren’t watching WestWorld, I highly recommend that you do. I found it highly thought provoking, and I’m sure you would as well 🙂

        Thanks again for letting me stand on my soapbox!

        • Gerald

          I don’t have time for a long reply at the moment, but I don’t want to seem like I’m ignoring your post. Yes, I am familiar with Alan Watts and listen to his talks on YouTube often.
          I understand the lack of appeal with Dawkins. Neil deGrasse Tyson and Laurence Krauss are much more personable. What made me laugh is the fact that Richard Dawson was the host of the TV show Family Feud in the 70s and 80s, and also played a character on Hogans Heroes. He would be much more fun to hang with than Dawkins, for sure.

  • Scott

    Thanks for the fantastic podcast. Probably one of the very best I’ve ever listened to. So glad Joe brought you to my attention. Cheers sir!

  • Gerald

    @David: No need to apologize for any rambling. I enjoy and find value in these exchanges.
    This subject is fascinating and I’ve have been submerged in it for a while. I am somewhat familiar with the texts found at Nag Hammadi. It’s not only my opinion that the Gnostic gospels show that the Jesus story is not and never was meant to be taken literal.

    (Paul was also highly regarded by the Gnostics because his writings aligned with the mystical Gnostic view. Please see my response to Char about Paul. It fits into this conversation).

    I’ll admit there was likely a prototype messiah type character (or an accumulation of characters) that was the human basis for the myth. That’s only natural. It could have even be the “Teacher of Righteousness’ we find in the Dead Sea Scrolls. But, once we strip away all the mythical and supernatural elements from the narrative, what’s left? Not much.

    The Gnostic texts do show a schism in early Christianity but in the 4th century, the literalists won the day, and the Gnostics were deemed heretics, and our modern Bible was formatted. This is where the non-separation of church & state got us into trouble to begin with.

    I believe there was a deliberate, political agenda to make the story seem literal. However they didn’t have the same scholarly investigation ability as we have today.
    The masses can read now, and anyone can pick up a Bible to study it. Most religious people don’t, however. There are holes all over the story if it’s to be taken literal. I agree, there is more to the story than we know. But thanks to “the Church’, there are things we will never know.

    I think the amount of ‘extra biblical’ material shows how much development was actually going on and suggests a lack of interest in showing historicity. It wasn’t considered until later in the development. This was a Greco-Roman world assimilating, amalgamating, fusing and recreating myths and spiritual philosophies. That’s what Romans did to the nations they conquered.

    I’ll have to differ with you on the opinion that we need religion. One can be good without religion. One can belong to a positive social structure without it being religious.
    Non-religious people aren’t killing their parents or neighbours because they don’t have a book to guide them. In fact, I would venture a guess and say most killings are done by religious people and in the name of ‘god’. Many non-religious people are good for the sake of being good, not for fear of a vengeful god. I also think religion can be damaging to one’s mental state.
    It’s a fallacy to suggest that mankind would be in a state of evil disarray hadn’t Moses come down from the mountain with 2 tablets.
    Our morals are a result of the evolutionary need to survive within a tribe, and a tribe within a greater community.
    I also think one can be ’spiritual’ without being religious. This is why I think we need to show that it is myth and strip away the literal view. We can then focus on what’s important. We can’t create a new, better version without removing the nonsense.

    • Char Peters

      I don’t think we who are “religious” do so out of fear of a vengeful god.  If that is your perception of who He is, then I suppose that could carry through as legitimate, much like a toddler obeys her mother or father’s command, cause there is a consequence to disobedience.  As a person becomes more and more acquainted with the all encompassing character of God, however, we come to realize He is equally as just as He is loving.  We come to rely on His Holy Spirit for guidance, wisdom, discernment, peace, patience, self control, etc (see Galatians 5:22) and we desire to live holy lives, to bring glory to His name, and to maintain intimacy with our God.  God, to those of us who know Him, is not simply a religious drive through experience, but rather an intimate, daily, intentional relationship that we as finite flawed individuals invest in. “We love because He first loved us”. God’s Ten Commandments, delivered via Moses, as you alluded to, were guidelines for a people group then, and can be used as reference points for good living in today’s contemporary society.  But Jesus, when He came and walked among us, superceded those laws with an injection of grace. When you filter the 10 Commandments through the lense of grace, it becomes more about the heart first and foremost. Matthew 5:27 “you have heard that it was said, ‘you shall not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her, in his heart”. He has transcended the law of Moses and established it on a higher plane.  If you hate someone in your heart, you have already committed murder. This goes above and beyond your reference to the 10 Commandments. We cannot live a sinless, perfect life by our own human strength.  Do we have good people who are not religious people?  I am not a judge of hearts, but I do know that God says “not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father, who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21)  How do we know His will?  Through the book, which you view as myth, and not literal; through prayer; through teaching; through the sharpening of other believers, and so on.  I respectfully differ with you on the concept that the Bible is not a document inspired by an eternal God, but have really enjoyed the discussion!

      • Gerald

        @ Char: I understand your perspective. I once shared your point of view and faith. Please don’t take offence at what I’m about to say. It may seem harsh or mean. My intent is for you to see my (and others) perspective. When one steps outside of the box of religious faith and looks back in, the ridiculousness is revealed.

        The words that you write, and Bible verses that you quote may seem to make logical sense to you, but they are nonsensical. Sorry. They are cherry-picked and massaged into something the church wants to advertise.

        There many other verses that come from the “inspired word of god’ that are conveniently missed on Sunday morning.

        I think Epicurus sums up my view very eloquently:

        “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

        Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

        Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

        Take a look at some of the atrocities committed by the god of the Bible:

        In Exodus 12:29, God the baby-killer slaughters all Egyptian firstborn children and cattle because their king was stubborn. (let’s not forget that it was God that hardened the heart of Pharaoh so that he would be stubborn and disobey). No one had a choice in the matter, expect your loving God.

        In Genesis 7:21-23, God drowns the entire population of the earth: men, women, children, fetuses, and animals.

        In Numbers 16:41-49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.

        In 1 Samuel 6:19, God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant.

        In Numbers 31:7-18, the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the virgins, whom they are allowed to rape as spoils of war.

        In 2 Kings 2:23-24, some kids tease the prophet Elisha, and God sends bears to dismember them.

        This is just the tip of the iceberg, but according to these, evil comes from God.

        I know you will say that things were different then, and we shouldn’t question God’s judgement, and we can’t fully understand God, or we have Jesus and the New Testament covenant now. But the Bible clearly states in several books and verses that God never changes and Jesus is, was and always will be the same. Why then do we need a new version of God and Law? Don’t pretend there isn’t.

        Jesus ‘transcended the law of Moses and established it on a higher plane’ and ‘superceded those laws with an injection of grace’ is a delicate verbal dance around the fact that Matthew 5:17 states that Jesus claims to have come not to change the law of the O.T. and the many other Biblical claims that ‘God never changes’

        …yet there seem to be changes. God comes in one accord…or is it triune?

        Consider the ridiculousness of the redemption sacrifice: God is all-powerful and all-knowing and all-loving. He creates the world with the full knowledge of what is going to happen…and he lets it happen. He blames the people he created for the mistake he let happen. He had the power to forsee and stop it. He then is unhappy with the outcome of his creation so for some reason he needs to create a loophole to rectify the mistake he made. Based on what?…some kind of rule he made for himself? Why so complicated? For some reason he needs to send himself to earth (as his son) so he can physically participate in a blood sacrifice of himself (or of his son…which is more ridiculous? I’m unsure), in which he needs his arch enemy, the devil (which he created), to carry out for him. (ugh).

        What does a blood sacrifice actually do or accomplish? Nothing! It’s symbolic. What kind of sacrifice is it, if he knows that it’s just going to be a crappy few days with someone he has power over (or works in conjunction with), and he will be home again in heaven after the weekend? Yet, he will send someone to an eternal torment of everlasting infinite punishment for a sin that is finite. That’s seems fair for an all-loving god? And who is carrying out this eternal punishment for God? His enemy, the Devil. Is the Devil doing God’s dirty work? Are they in cahoots? Or is God really the Devil as well? I think he has to be, because this is beyond ridiculous.

        I am not all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving, yet, if I had the power, I would not let a child die of bone cancer, nor let a woman get raped if I had the power to stop it. I would not send any one I love, or any one else that I don’t even know to eternal torment. I would suggest that makes me more loving that God.

        You can wax poetic about transcendent grace and the all encompassing character of God, but it changes nothing. If God kills someone but is equally as loving after, does that make him good? No, that makes him a psychopath.

        The god with whom you are having an intimate, personal relationship with is a tyrant not worthy of praise or worship.

        Sorry, somethings just have to be said.

        • Char Peters

          Hi Gerald and thanks for writing!

          I shall strive, in my reply, not to wax too poetically! Just kidding!

          Please don’t feel the need to apologize for telling it like you feel it is. That is the purpose of this discussion, I think, and your comments haven’t surprised or offended me in the least. It is through your eyes that I gain a sense of stepping out of the religious faith, to gain the perspective of which you write about, cause I have no intention of departing from the faith that I derive my identity from, and my purpose in living.

          So … just a couple of questions and/or comments for clarification …
          1. Epicurus “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
          Can God not be omnipotent but still offer free will or the will to choose between right and wrong? Isn’t that an oversimplification of it all, to say that if God doesn’t prevent evil, then he cannot be omnipotent? Same with the malevolence; is it not an oversimplification to say that God could have and could still, in contemporary society, prevent evil but He just can’t (for whatever reason) so that makes Him automatically malevolent.

          And I don’t find that Epicurus offers anything of tangibility when he says, “Then whence cometh evil?” Great question, but does Epicurus offer the answer, cause I would like to know …
          I guess I look at life, and our choices, as a chain of consequential outcomes, resulting from our choices. I don’t subscribe to the philosophy of determinism, that all events of human action are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. The implication, as you are probably well aware, is that we have no free will and therefore cannot be held morally responsible for our actions. If that were the case, we would be robotic mechanisms dressed up in flesh 

          And that seque’s rather succinctly to your appropriate scriptural references to all of the evils of the OT, commissioned by the hand of God, whom you don’t believe in. Those atrocities, however, came as a result of or as a consequence of disobedience to the laws and will of God. Even today, in terms of the laws of the government, if you disobey and you happen to get caught, you pay the price, do you not? You want to assign blame to the stubborn nature of the King, but I think we both know that if we are being fair, there was more to the story than just the King. I also agree with you that God hardening Pharoah’s heart is a tricky one! Not sure what to say there, cause I ponder that one oft … But for that, may I ask you to look up Corrie Ten Boom’s poem, The Weaver, especially stanza 3 &4! In other words, in our finite state, are we truly capable and wired to understand ALL of what transpires?

          However, I do accept your point that the Bible is littered with atrocities but the problem is we come at the same text with different perspectives. You are trying to establish a case for God’s identity as being evil; I am just saying that the flood came cause the people were evil in the eyes of God. The Israelites wandered for as long as they did, cause there were consequences then too, just as there are in today’s world.
          Also, there are plenty of exemplars throughout Old Testament liturgy where God saves; Daniel and the lions den, Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego, Lot, Esther, Rahab, who is a harlot who eventually becomes grafted in to the Messianic lineage, just to name a precious few for the sake of length!

          If we look at the global landscape of contemporary society, what do we do with ‘modern’ atrocities like genocide, for example. If there is no God, and therefore evil is not the antithesis, why are these things occurring? Surely the God of the Bible isn’t ordering them to occur, if He doesn’t exist, so what prompts these things, not recorded in the mythology of the Biblical account, to take place?

          2. “I know you will say things were different then, and we shouldn’t question God’s judgement ….” I am not sure I would say that things were different then, and I agree with you wholeheartedly that God never changes. I would not want to pattern my life after something that changes with circumstance. That, to me, is the very deepest comfort of all, to know that I walk with a God who never changes!

          What do you mean when you write, “Why then do we need a new version of God and Law? Don’t pretend there isn’t.

          3. What are your referring to when you write, “He blames people for the mistake he let happen. He had the power to forsee and stop it ….”

          I presume you are referring to Adam and Eve but wanted to clarify … again … I don’t subscribe to determinism. Free will accounts for every human thought, action, and resulting consequence. I believe the words of Romans 8:29, and I don’t have all the answers to the mysteries of what happened in the garden, except to reinforce yet again, that if He had prevented Eve from choosing other than what His will for her and her spouse was, then what kind of God is that, a deterministic God, right?

          4. As for the parallels between Old and New and the redemptive story, they are plentiful, if one chooses to see them that way:

          In the story of the First Passover, for example, there was a reason for God’s judgement: Egypt’s Wickedness. His method of judgement was, as you say, the death of each firstborn son. Deliverance came through Moses’ intercession, and the TANGIBLE means for intercession came through the blood on the door frames. What was the result for those who chose obedience? It was liberation and belonging to the covenant community. Fast forward to the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Again, the reason for judgement: Humanity’s wickedness. The method of judgement is eternal separation from God, except that there was once again a chosen method of deliverance; Jesus’ intercession on our behalf through His death upon the cross. Blood was very much a part of this; not just a symbolic token as is our communion ritual. The results of obedience in this case? Once again, liberation, adoption as sons and daughters of God’s family.

          5. I’m not sure how you perceive God and Satan working in tandem with each other, as Revelation 20: 7 – 10 paints a picture for us of Satan himself being cast into the lake of fire; so he will be eradicated.

          6. Lastly, your references to childhood bone cancer, rape, starvation, _________________ fill in the blank with whatever atrocity you will … if we deny the existence of God, then we too must deny the existence of evil, do we not? So how do you account for these things?

          With all due respect, as nonsensical as the Bible might seem to the outsider looking in, the study I have done, albeit minimal, with respect to the many religions that convey our inhabitence of trees, dogs, stones, etc over multiple lives, reincarnating again and again, but no one really knows who their deceased loved ones are inhabiting, and so we just be nice to everything and everyone cause you might be petting your dead gramma when the family dog comes to live with you sorta theology, leaves me to wonder. Or the rigidity of the caste sytems, whereby the “Dalit” people are not even recognized as being worthy to obtain an education, and can never earn or work their way out of being a Dalit.

          In closing, I am just a grade one teacher! I spend my days with 6 year olds, and so maybe that is exactly the reason why the words of Matthew 18:3 mean something to me. I know one thing with certainty, we are all going to die … and IF the Bible IS true, one day Phillipianns 2:10 will occur. I would prefer to bow my knee, and confess with my tongue, His Lordship over my life now, as opposed to then! We spoke in church this morning of life and how it can be described by the old adage, the means to the end. In my belief system, the end is already solidly accounted for (See Corrie’s poem) … so what we have before us in all of our moments are the means, to ask His Holy Spirit to give us the fruits of the spirit, to enable us to love, to practise justice and mercy, and to serve Him. Our actions are an outpouring of our gratitude for all He has done for us. I do hope that whatever belief system or ideology you subscribe to, that it gives you peace; that you do not lie awake at night wondering where might your soul end up after your physical body and those of whom you love, passes away. I know from reading your writing that you seem very intelligent and well spoken! I know that it is not my job to convict anyone to believe a certain way, but only to share my faith as I am given the opportunity. It is His job to convict, and to open eyes and hearts to spiritual contemplation.

          Merry Christmas to you and yours, Gerald!

          • Matt Wilson

            A couple of points:
            1. To completely understand something you must be on a higher level than that you understand. That level is not merely physical.
            2. In the spiritual world there is no dimension nor is there time. These are mortal constraints.
            We as humans are earthbound and shackled by our physical beings. A partial glimpse of this other dimension is offered to those who have faith and trust. Anyone is able to take up this offer. Man’s ultimate conceit is to think that he is master of his own destiny.

          • Char Peters

            Great thoughts and pertinent reminders.

            Thank you

          • Gerald

            @Char: I admire your resilience. I thought I was perhaps being a bit too harsh in my last reply. Not because I wanted to be harsh, but I feel sometimes things need to be put in a certain context in order to hit home.

            I suppose being a Grade 1 teacher, you can handle anything that I can thrown your way. I’ll admit, you are very eloquent, thorough, and yes, somewhat poetic in your replies and reasoning….however I’m still not buying it. : )

            (I’ve been there before)

            In my criticism of the Bible, I am not condoning or promoting any other religion…I consider them all to be mainly myth as well and equally ridiculous. My argument is that these are stories, not literal history, and not ‘god’s word’. They are written for a variety of reasons, including political.

            As far as god punishing people for being evil, how is it justified that the first born of every Egyptian including cattle required punishment by death? That is not a just god…especially when we consider that God hardened Pharoaoh’s heart in the first place. This means Pharaoh did not have free will in the matter, and therefore God is directly responsible for the murder of innocent children.

            Please note: I don’t believe this to be true or something that actually happened. It’s a story.

            I am not really trying to show that god is evil (because I don’t believe this god exists). I’m trying to show the absurdities of the Bible. We are taught that God is Love, yet there are plenty of examples that show god is not love, and often quite the opposite.

            Epicurus’ statement is simple, yes because it is a logical and rational consideration, not an oversimplification. Yes, it does make god malevolent, because he supposedly has the power to stop evil, but does not. I would suggest that you, and I and most other humans would stop evil if we had the power to do so. Would you not?

            Epicurus is prompting his audience to think when he asks the question: “Then whence cometh evil?”.

            If a god exists, then evil must come from him. He is not asking where does evil actually come from, but is suggesting that since evil does exist, a benevolent god cannot possibly exist.

            Put it this way. If this god does exist, I wouldn’t want to worship it.

            Why do you worship, praise and have a personal, intimate relationship with this thing we call god as described in the Bible? Can I ask why the reasoning for god is so complicated?

            The existence of evil is not proof for the existence of god. The antithesis of god would be the devil. I am trying to illustrate that they are fictional characters (and there is often ambiguity over the role these characters play)

            We know there is good & evil (these can be subjective). Bad things happen, and good things happen, as well as everything in-between. Everything has a cause and effect, but it’s not personally directed by an entity, good or evil.

            It was once thought that earthquakes, hurricanes and floods etc. came from god (as punishment). We now know that is untrue. Lightning isn’t god showing anger. Mentally handicapped children aren’t possessed by the devil. As we advance in science, god becomes smaller. So does the validity of the Bible.

            Free will is an illusion. We do not have free will even though we may think we do. Everything we do is based on preconditioning. Consider the following quote:

            “Take a moment to think about the context in which your next decision will occur: You did not pick your parents or the time and place of your birth. You didn’t choose your gender or most of your life experiences. You had no control whatsoever over your genome or the development of your brain. And now your brain is making choices on the basis of preferences and beliefs that have been hammered into it over a lifetime – by your genes, your physical development since the moment you were conceived, and the interactions you have had with other people, events, and ideas. Where is the freedom in this? Yes, you are free to do what you want even now. But where did your desires come from?”

            I once shared your faith. It wasn’t until I began to seek a better understanding of my beliefs that I learned so much more that was being taught in church and Christian school.

            I prayed for guidance and wisdom in my search. I wasn’t looking for what I found. Quite the opposite! My de-conversion was not a choice. It was a result seeking knowledge and truth. Once Pandora’s box was opened, the lid could not go back on.

            Did god harden my heart?

            Merry Christmas! (and Happy Saturnalia)

            P.S. Do I need to mention that the Church hi-jacked the pagan Roman winter solstice celebration of Saturnalia and made it the birthday of Jesus? I wonder what else they borrowed from the pagan’s.

            ; )

          • Char Peters

            So … I love to learn new things and therefore looked up this Saturnalia that you make reference to, above!

            What a providential moment …. Saturnalia is a festival of light leading to the winter solstice, with the abundant presence of candles symbolizing the quest for knowledge and truth.[5] The renewal of light and the coming of the new year was celebrated in the later Roman Empire at the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, the “Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun”, on 23 December.[6] …. cause I had already formulated what my short response to you would be; as follows:
            as the world with all its post modern rhetoric, in its unwavering quest for knowledge and truth, continues to nudge society further and further from the core of Ultimate Truth; there is a certainty, a comfort, and an all surpassing reality yet to come. And that is this:

            light serves no purpose other than to illuminate darkness.

            Therefore, as the truth, the church, political correctness, you name it, gets pressed and positioned further and further to the periphery, I am trusting that the beacon of truth will shine all the more illumimous. Perhaps then, surrounded by darkness, that pinprick of light, the church, the remnant, and the universal family of God will grow ever more steady, strong and sure, like a lighthouse to a lost at sea, sailor.

            “Let the lower lights keep burning …
            Send a gleam across the way. ..
            Some poor sinking suffering seaman … You may rescue, you may save”

            That’s an old but beautiful hymn! Do you know it?


            Mrs. Peters ☺

          • Gerald

            Nicely said, Mrs Peters. Cheers!

        • Char Peters


          I hope you are well. Above is some food for thought as to the discrepancies you draw attention to in that of a loving yet murderous God.

          • Gerald

            @Char (Happy New Year)

            He didn’t even really address the question. I heard a lot of spin, doublespeak and amphigory to try to support an absurd argument that since the ‘Covenant People’ had an abundance of miracles from God and yet disobeyed in some way, it justifies the murder of innocent people. Sorry, but I found it to absolute rubbish.

  • ogunsiron

    In a more sane society, famous intellectuals, popularizers, journalists and all people who value education and knowledge would be as intellectually agile and broad based as Jordan Peterson. I’d heard about the controversy but had never heard Dr. Peterson speaking his thoughts. Very smart and engaging man. If classical liberalism can put forward more people like him, maybe I can be brought back from where I stand right now. Right now I’m pretty much in “burn it all down” mode and I harbor a lot of hate for the intellectual class as it’s found in the universities all over the Western world.

  • David

    @Gerald Thank you for sharing an enlightened and informed point of view, I think I understand where you’re coming from.

    First of all what you said, “My suspicion is that Professor Peterson may not want to alienate or upset a particular group of people for whatever reason. I think this is why he did not give a direct/simple answer.”

    Is likely incorrect. Professor Peterson is in hot enough water as it is for refusing to use pronouns and risking his career to do so. I don’t think he’s worried about alienating, offending or upsetting anyone. As I said, there are no simple answers when it comes to spirituality. It is somewhat offensive to a spiritual seeker to have to distill all that they’ve studied and thought about, into neat little cliches and soundbites. Peterson admitted to having spent 40 years of his life thinking about this subject. To reduce it all to, “be the change you wish to see in the world” or “treat others as you wish to be treated” is not going to cause much of a ripple, nor does it honor one’s personal search for meaning. But this is the equivalent of what you are hoping to get from him. A short, simple direct “answer”. I’m spiritual myself and have devoted a lot of time to studying, and if someone asked me if I think “God” exists; I would have to go into detail to explain my position before I can give a yes or no. So no, I don’t think you have cause for suspicion in how he answered it. I likely would’ve gone off on a tangent myself.

    You’re right about religion being influential as far as politics go, and you’re equally right about how harmful and divisive it can be. I’m on your side with this. But I don’t believe in separation of Church and state. I think maybe Peterson would agree with me that we need to transcend a base-level understanding/comprehension of what religion (particularly the Abrahamic ones) is and propagate a new version of it somehow. We need to both embrace and abandon the past, and that is where it gets tricky for most people. Society needs a collective vision to structure itself by, and what better vehicle is there for it than religion? Or one religion? Problem is, as you said the Bible has a lot of references to hate and anti-homosexual sentiments and just like the Quran and how it describes slavery; they’re all antiquated and in need of being refreshed/updated, but to think that, is to do battle against traditionalists that take it literally. I think the solution you and I can most agree upon, is to ensure that public education devotes a class to religious studies and for us (society, you, me, parents, etc) to take religion seriously, but not literally, and to develop critical thinking skills. That’s a big ask in today’s climate, I must admit. And it’s not an easy thing to hope for. Good thing people like Professor Peterson is around to remind us all of how critical thinking and common sense works. Hopefully it catches on.

    Another important thing to ask, is what if? What if Jesus really did exist? That is something that I keep in mind for myself, knowing that a lot of myths are somewhat rooted in truth. The question is, how much of what is written about him is true? I try not to think about that too much because I know I’ll never be able to find an answer that I’m certain of. This is where faith comes in. I just have to believe and trust in my intuitive processes. Peterson described this as harmony. A balance. And I think it actually means to balance logic and intuition. To be skeptical and a believer at once. Right and left brain working in tandem.

    Religion gives us all a flag to wave and state, “these are my values, and this is what I believe in”. It’s a label to apply onto ourselves just like atheists wave their own flag, and champion science and reason. As I said, I share your concerns about some of the negative influences religion has had, but its not entirely negative. It just needs to be looked at critically, and somehow elevated to a point where an atheist will find little fault in professing a belief towards a particular system of belief. But yeah, Christianity is flawed. No argument there. Still though, we *NEED* religion in our lives. We need it on a personal level, and on a societal level. We need the guidance. A set of standards to abide by. “Thou Shall Not Kill” or “Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother” are examples of such standards. However, hating homosexuals appears to be part of the package. Which is the evil that politicization has brought forth. A loving God surely would not condone any form of hatred, for any reason. You can likely thank Constantine and the council of Nicea for much of this. And the gullibility and ignorance of everyone who chooses to accept such ideas.

    I really recommend reading the Gnostic gospels that were found in Nag Hammadi. They contain raw, unfiltered spirituality that appears to be untouched by the hand of political appeasement. I don’t agree 100% with all of it, but it does paint a very interesting picture of just how hungry people back then were for spiritual fulfillment. I believe in the earnestness of those documents, and by proxy, believe in Jesus because of this. It’s too much material to think that it is all based on a “folk hero” that never existed and was entirely based on Pagan and Egyptian concepts/mythologies. There’s more to his story than we know about.

    Sorry if I was rambling. I have a passionate interest in the subject, as it seems you do as well 🙂

  • Rev. Heather Tyner

    Dr. Peterson, This podcast was one of the most eloquant phenominal explanations of human purpose and experience. It seemed almost transcendent for the last hour 😉 You are at the apex of meaning right now. Regardless of what challenges may come, at this point in history your own self actualization has brought you now to do this will. IMO you are fulfilling your own divine lifes purpose. It is inspiring and motivating. Your lectures have become a perminant addition to my home, streaming as I am allowing your words into my conscious and subconscious world. I am in awe and appreciation to be able to witness your lifes work and contributions to our world of thought in real time. Please dont forget self care, rest, slower breathing and to take breaks. This journey has just begun!! Please do the series youde mentioned on each of the great works! KEEP TALKING!!!! KEEP TEACHING!!!!! thank you!

  • Gerald

    @Char: Interestingly Ravi Zacharias suggests that Paul comes to Christ in reverse chronological order.
    That may seem apparent from the way the books of the Bible have been laid out, but this is not chronological order of when these books were formulated. We know Paul is writing circa 50 A.D., and he has no knowledge of the canonical gospels. We know those were written a half century or more after Paul. Paul gets his ‘good news’ from ‘scripture’ which are the books of the Old Testament. Elements are borrowed and lifted from the O.T. to formulate a new story. It’s not prophecy, it’s a form of midrash.
    Paul knows of no historical Jesus of Nazareth that recently lived, taught and performed miracles on earth. Paul’s Christ is the same concept of the perennial ‘meta hero’, of which professor Peterson refers. This is on another realm…not on earth. There is a fusion of the Greek Logos and Jewish suffering servant/messiah concepts going on. This makes sense as these books were written in Greek by Roman Jews. The Greek logos theory predates the gospels by over 500 years.
    Paul claims to have seen Christ in a vision and uses the Greek word ‘opthe’. He uses the same Greek word when describing how the others have seen Christ as well. He makes no distinction to how he and the others saw Christ. It’s all in a visionary realm.

    The gospels do not claim to be historical eyewitness accounts, nor are they written as such. There is clear story development and borrowing occurring. There many absurd contradictions between them if they were to be viewed as historical. It however did not matter because they are allegory…not history…not both. They are stories of the personification of the archetype put into a time and place on earth, just like any other myth that puts it’s hero on earth.

    These books later became politicised, literalized, assembled in a certain order and Christians have been reading them with chronologically skewed glasses ever since.

  • Gerald

    @Char. It might be nice to have it both ways, but why should one myth be considered historical and literal while the others still considered only myth?
    If a narrative uses pre-existing mythical themes and elements that contain the same underlying spiritual truths as others, why should it not be put in the same category?

    If the fall of Adam and Eve story in Genesis is allegory (which I think most rational people would agree), then the doctrine of a literal, historical flesh and blood redemption is nonsensical.

  • Amazing podcast. So glad I discovered you. Your clarity in explaining the links between Marxism and SJW’s and the erosion of absolutes is otherworldly. But I must plead and beg of you – START A PODCAST. Youtube is great but the podcasts don’t require watching and can be absorbed while driving, lawn mowing, redundant lovemaking and so on. Still do the Youtube stuff when you need visuals or have a debate to show but podcasts would really get your message out. When Navy Seal Jocko Willink was on Rogan and Tim Ferriss they told him to do a podcast so he did and it has been extremely successful. You could do what Rogan does where he does the podcast but films it for youtube release as well. What did he say last month was – 60 mil on the podcast and 5 mil on Youtube? That’s a big difference. Please! Thanks for taking a stand for truth. Seriously.

  • Gerald

    @David. My suspicion is that Professor Peterson may not want to alienate or upset a particular group of people for whatever reason. I think this is why he did not give a direct/simple answer.

    I can give my answer. I don’t think Jesus of Nazareth ever existed, but I believe the Gospels as well as other books of the Bible are myths and allegories that can contain some value.

    Spirituality may be a complex subject, but unfortunately there are some that view it only in black & white terms. There are many in this world who take the Bible stories literally and this has direct influence on politics, policy and the state of the world in which you and I live. To say it’s ‘personal’ is somewhat misleading because one’s personal faith can affect the lives of million of others.
    We can glean value from some stories within stories, yes, but we can also from the same pages harvest corruption, hate, incorrect information and the resistance to progress for the better. This is where it gets complex.

    By believing the Jesus story to be literal, the inner value is missed. It then becomes a belief about something rather than a source for wisdom. I hope Professor Peterson would agree.
    If we can show that these stories are in the same realm as the myths and allegories from other religions and cultures, we can then separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of what is considered intrinsic truth. Nonsense can be then put aside as the husk and we can focus on the inner core. For the betterment of all, it’s time we put away our childish ways and graduate from ’Sunday School’.

    That is then my question to Professor Peterson: Do you think that mankind would be better served if the mythical aspects and ancient mindset nonsense of the Bible were stripped away so whatever truths to be learned can be better realized?

    • Char Peters

      Why must it be an either or scenario?

      By believing the Jesus story to be literal, the inner value is missed. It then becomes a belief about something rather than a source for wisdom.

      The book of John tells us that the word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. For those of us who believe that the Bible is, in fact, the inspired word of God, we don’t see these as mutually exclusive. We believe in both the Jesus story, inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself, and e also believe in the real personhood of not only Jesus Christ; but also the Father God and the triune nature of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

      So I would respectfully suggest that it needn’t be either or … but rather a belief in someone, as well as a source of wisdom ….

  • David

    @Gerald Can I ask where your suspicions are originating from? Again, spirituality is a complex subject and a personal one that involves more than a simple “yes” and “no” as far as answers go. What Jordan did is utilize the same arguments that parables make. To illustrate a point by burying it within a story. And his “story” (personal experience) is what informs his argument. He has his book available on this website, “Maps of Meaning” that you can read for free if you’re interested in seeing how he came about to his religious convictions. I’ve only read the first dozen or so pages, but it does provide a window into his perspective and how it came about.

    I wasn’t aware that particular passage was a “clear” forgery, but my points still stands.

    Also, what question would you most ask Peterson if you could? If your question is only about whether or not Christ has died and was resurrected, then I really don’t know how he (or anyone) can provide you with an argument that is persuasive enough to change your opinion. Your opinion is your own, and faith in your ability to discern the truth, is also a responsibility that belongs only to you. Human beings have a tendency to rally around a particular figure, mythological or not, who tells them what “truth” really is, when the truth is, that it is more subjective and malleable than it is not. This is why I suspect Professor Peterson to have included Viktor Frankl in his reading list. “Man and his Search For Meaning” makes a strong argument that we shouldn’t let “facts” get in the way of living a happy and honorable life that is rooted in truth. Arguing about someone’s character or existence, is a type of self-inflicted diversion in my opinion. Although character/deeds do lend themselves to “legitimacy” of whatever one “preaches” to others, it is not the sole measure of truth. And I think this is what many people struggle with in trying to understand. That they must *know* Christ to have existed in order for his teachings to be valid. And that’s an impossible expectation to have, unless it is intuitively apprehended, because you can’t quite formulate a rational argument without resorting to anecdotes, parables and as Peterson did on the podcast; tangents. There are no clear answers to be had. Despite how badly people want them.

    I also share your interest in wanting to hear more about Peterson’s views. I hope he considers doing a long-form video podcast in the same way that Joe is doing. Discourse like this only makes the world into a better place. And also, I appreciate you engaging me in it, thank you 🙂

  • I ask this not necessarily for you well being but for those who observe and and are learning how dialogue and good conversations can occur in practice, as spectacle for us to observe, like a good mythological theater, rather then behind closed doors or on paper which isn’t always “connected” grounded in the body and behaviour

    i enjoyed your recent post you have had, great talk

  • Gerald

    @David. You are correct in that there is no ‘right’ answer in this case. This is why I am so very interested in Professor Peterson’s point of view.
    I am curious and perhaps even a little bit suspicious of why he answered the way he did. I’m not trying to win an argument. I’m trying to learn more about his perspective. I felt his interview was very enlightening.
    I actually agree that “Christ” is a prototypical meta hero. I believe this is how the apostle Paul viewed it…
    …but I would like to know Professor Peterson’s thoughts on the historical Jesus as well.
    PS: Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth and the passage in Testimonium Flavianum is a clear forgery, but that is perhaps a discussion for another place and time.

  • David

    @Gerald I don’t pretend to speak for Professor Peterson, but I imagine there is no “right” answer to your question that he can satisfy your (and others) curiosity with. Did Jesus exist? It seems like he did. Josephus Flavius, a Roman historian acknowledged it. And that’s really all we have to go off of as far as an unbiased historical source goes. But your question isn’t even the most important question to be asking. The real question is whether or not Jesus is a fitting role model for humanity to have. Whether he achieved miracles or not, is besides the point, that’s not relevant. As Jordan said on the podcast, Christ is a “meta” hero. An amalgamation of qualities and attributes. A powerful archetype. There is no “correct” way to answer your question, because if Peterson stated that he believed in the miracles, then you will laugh and dismiss his entire point of view. However, if he does not believe in the miracles, then you will say, “I knew it! Christianity is false!” So there is no way to properly “win” the argument and satisfy the burden of proof you’re hoping for him to provide you with. He can’t provide that. No one can. Just like no one can confirm whether or not Buddha actually existed. Or Mohammed. Or even Socrates. But their teachings do exist, and there is value in what they’ve taught. As much as people want to be able to dismiss all that with a wave of their hand and base their convictions on physical proof; the fact is that such systems of belief are important and valuable ones to have. Whether or not these individuals have existed and achieved any of what they did, is not what true spirituality hinges upon. A serial killer, or a child rapist has just as much of a capacity to speak the truth as anyone else does. Regardless of their character and deeds. Truth can be found in anyone and everything if you know how to look for it. As for how will you know what “truth” is, well that’s what the whole spiritual journey is all about. To develop the ability to intuitively and rationally extract it from all that is out there. It’s a process. A journey you embark upon. I think Professor Peterson would agree that it is all about the journey and not the destination. As human beings, we’re obligated to embark upon the search. That’s the only condition that “God” would place upon us. Christ as an archetype, serves more like an ambassador to higher truths, than a solitary pillar of wisdom. At least that is what I think.

  • Gerald

    I agree with Char Peter’s curiosity below: did the REAL Jesus Christ die and raise from the dead? It’s a simple question that requires as simple answer. I wanted Mr. Peterson’s view on this. If it is just a metaphor or an allegorical truth, then the religion of Christianity as we know it is false. There may be some value in parables and teachings, but the Christian religion hinges on the historical and literal perspective. He answered it like a politician.

  • Thank you for a very interesting discussion. I just wanted to comment that the spiritual and a concept of God is complex because this is in the realm of the experiential and can only be grasp through actual internal/psychic spiritual experience.

    We should be asking why in Jung’s Individuation process, one experiences having to struggle through an outer temptation that comes right out of life and a person is held fast to face that and struggle to defeat it which takes considerable moral effort on the part of the experiencer. I mean what force would be behind this part of the process that pushes the person to internally struggle to reach an aim of securing your own conscience, not one conditioned in or securing your own character, not one conditioned in?

    We should also be asking why in the Individuation experience, does one witness the image of Jung’s Archetype ‘Aion’ especially when the person does so without any knowing that the image existed. Surely this Archetype is some kind of psychic substructure that contains consciousness until the psyche is balanced and the experiencer attains psychological maturation and psychic well-being.
    Why do the greatest spiritual experiences take place only after this image is witnessed and what force beyond us would deem that possible or necessary?

    After the Individuation experience it is clear to me that Religion has an important part in our physical lives and how we comport ourselves through life, while Transcendence and the Individuation process has an important part in our internal spiritual/psychic lives, well-being, wholeness in consciousness and psychological maturity. We should wonder why after the experience a person no longer believes in God but now says they know God. Why would this be built right into the experience and be so deeply personal?

    I commend Prof Peterson for his courage, integrity and huge ability to bring clarity to all these issues which are so important to discuss.
    God bless and God speed!

  • Vitalii oulanov

    Dear Jordan B Peterson.
    I think you need to start talking and having conversations with people of the “opposite” views who are well grounded to stretch and challenge your “assumptions” and expand the horizons of the issue at hand and the events.
    I believe that Thomas Sowell and Slavoj zizek would make good candidates to whom to begin these talks.
    As so far all I hear are talks with those that only echo “like mindedness” but the key is to is to how to coexist with opposing values. The meta— costumes of people whilst being opposing in daily practice.
    Good talk

  • Adams
  • David

    @Gerald I stand somewhat corrected that it wasn’t quite a debate as far as religion goes, but despite the tangent, I feel professor Peterson answered Joe’s questions. They weren’t short, concise answers, but they shouldn’t be. Spirituality is a complex subject, and Peterson is correct that civilization needs it’s archetypes and dramas in order to keep itself sane and mindful of greater causes and ways of being. His ability to distill the truth of the Bible (and Buddhism also) is really quite commendable. Much of the parables and stories may well be fictitious, but that doesn’t invalidate their meaning and purpose. They only serve to illustrate it. This is exactly what the extreme right needs to pick up on, and exactly why training kids to think for themselves, is such an important quality that the educational/institutional system is failing to provide. And also, Jordan’s viewpoints on religion speaks to a common ground where atheists and the religious can congregate upon. I think that part is especially important given how divisive and polarized everything is becoming.

  • Jose

    Amazing podcast

  • Andrey

    A brilliant podcast Professor Peterson and hopefully judging by the widespread positive reaction to it you’ll consider starting a long-form educational podcast of your own, perhaps in a similar style to Dan Carlin’s ‘Hardcore History’. Yours is an intellectual voice that is sorely lacking in the west.

  • Gerald

    I didn’t think that Joe was debating him on religion at all. He is interviewing him and asking for his view on the certain aspects of religion. I did find that Mr. Peterson did evade certain questions and spun off into a bit of a tangent a few times with out answering directly. I actually agree with much of what Mr. Peterson said, but I would have liked to heard a more concise response to his religious convictions.

    • Char Peters

      I agree. I was curious about … did the REAL Jesus Christ die and raise from the dead.

      As well as … are you speaking of an actual God?

      And I concur with healing the wounds of our past … I am curious about Dr. Peterson and his perspectives on the blood of Jesus and the role of His finishing work on the cross to enable us to be free from the chains of our past.

  • John Carino

    Jordan, what is your point of view on the Venus project?

  • Sean

    As a person who has felt the force of truth suppression at a graduate level at one of the UK’s best if not the best social science institute, but this gives me hope. I brought up the issue of nature versus nurture using peer reviewed articles (some you’ve cited yourself) so as to add to the conversation, yet I was shouted out by leftists pushing their ideology. I was wondering when the push back towards truth was going to come. Your stand is brilliant and so well articulated, please keep going!

  • Char Peters

    Dr. Peterson, I just wanted to drop a few words of support and commendation your way! I have been following you as of late, and have been absorbed and enthralled by your intelligent and well rounded perspectives on our world; how you portray the then and the implications for our contemporary culture we find ourselves in. In a recent video you used the term, synchronicity. I prefer the term, providence … as one who has read Mans Search For Meaning; and listening to your conversation posted here, reading this article this AM takes on a providential flavor, for me. The correlations between what you have decribed in the past 170 minutes and the events that this man lived out … as compelling an arguement as any, as to why we must stand up for truth ~



    Char in Saskatchewan

  • Juraj

    I think you´re on to a very important thing when you say youtube is interesting not as a means to make high quality videos but as a means to spread speech. I spent 30 hours in my car last week and been able to go through most of your personality and Maps of meaning lectures and it made the time spent at the wheel worthwhile. I hope you do make the podcasts you said you were thinking about doing. I´m willing to preorder.

  • Char Peters

    Just listened to this last night; just read this story this morning. I am certain that you have heard of this man … the correlations between what our have studied, why you are taking a stand against gender neutral pronouns, and what this man warns of? all tie together. I happen to believe in Providence. I know you used a different but similar term in a prior video. … anyway …. wanted to share this link. Wanted to commend you and offer my Saskatchewan girl support ☺


  • Dave

    I second everything David said. From another Canadian (BC) named Dave

  • Vitalii Oulanov

    Dear JBPeterson,
    WOW, FASCINATING PROJECT(S) at [1h40min] disclosing your utube output of content…
    I look forward to seeing this project develop…. please could you share preliminary plans of what you think you’ll need to tackle this future plan!?
    I mean to share not just finances, but in your current understanding of vital resources to get this going?!

  • Michael Donnarumma

    An awesome podcast. I’m not one for reading long books, as I get distracted, but I am now reading The Gulag Archipelago. I’m on chapter 5 and thoroughly appalled at what we are capable of. Thank you for your efforts and helping to enlighten people.

  • David

    Fantastic podcast. I’ve been listening to Joe for years, and was greatly amused at how much of a hard time he was having in debating you on the idea of religion, which he is very much against. You made excellent points regarding it, and put up an impregnable defense against the questions he brought up. Very rational and well reasoned argument. It was my first exposure to you, and as a fellow Canadian/Albertan, I’m disappointed I haven’t heard about you sooner. And after hearing you, I had to check out your debate (trial?) and was appalled at the conduct of the moderator and the two other women who advocated the nonsense that is Bill C-16. It’s good to put a face on what society is up against.

    I’ve got a million other things I’d like to comment on and discuss/praise/etc. But this blog comment box isn’t large enough to contain it all. I just want to drop in my thanks and appreciation for all that you do and are standing up against. The truth is a powerful weapon, and I’m proud that men like you aren’t afraid of wielding it. Hopefully more will follow.

    Best regards.

  • What a great podcast. Thank you

  • Good vital cause, appreciated by those who see what is going on. If the jugular that is the West falls everyone’s fair game for Global Governance. That was really enjoyable to know that the word will be getting out there, especially seeing how Joe Rogans demographic is a good ‘quality’ one. I’d imagine them not to be too extreme one way or the other and also he has a lot of budding fighters who watch, good honest family men in my experience. It’s hard to fool an honest man I was taught. These men are potentially the core of the fight for future stability in my humble opinion. If you are a radical the world is insane or asleep !! Laugh Out Loud. Indeed! Could the university take the SJW and Feminist victim students out on very long nature expeditions people always find who they are when confronted with nature and survival it’s real empowering. Nature only knows 2 Genders perhaps this would resonate with them subconsciously. sorry always got too much to say always have had!! Cheers Professor.

  • Dr Peterson, I believe your areas of expertise are more intimately connected than you may realise. I implore you to give me the opportunity to explain in detail how this is the case. https://radicalconfessions.com/2016/11/26/unifying-the-big-5-aspect-scales-with-jung-myers-briggs-and-keirsey/

  • Jaroslav

    My wishes were granted. Awesome podcast. Thank you for everything, Professor. 🙂

  • Chris

    Excellent job. At one point while I was listening I felt a profound sadness for those who have the opportunity to be taught by you and squander it with their stubbornness. Brilliant podcast. As Joe said, one of my favourites.