The Peterson Affair: Spiritual Seriousness in an Age of Absurdity

The pathetic ‘gotcha’ that wasn’t.

It never fails to amaze me how stupid many takes on things are. This is especially true when you hear a take on a debate and how it went.

A few days ago Jordan Peterson, the Canadian former academic who first came to prominence by refusing to use imaginary pronouns and has since become one of the most influential independent social commentators in the Western world, sat down for a debate event titled Jordan Peterson vs 20 Atheists. The event (originally titled 1 Christian vs 20 Atheists, so perhaps the title change is telling) attracted a great deal of attention. The set up partly explains that. Deliberately outnumbered and deliberately adversarial in format, the confrontation was a very modern kind of discussion as entertainment event.

It was clearly intended as akin to those Chess Grand Master or chess prodigy showpieces where one person takes on multiple chess challengers at once. From the perspective of Peterson’s camp it must have seemed like it would be a fun little display of debating virtuosity. Peterson’s daughter is apparently handling his social media accounts these days and the event seems like something that might be dreamed up or signed up to by a younger person than Peterson himself, particularly since the ‘opponents’ Peterson faced were considerably younger.

It’s hard to imagine though how anyone involved could have thought that this format with these other participants would produce anything of even marginal seriousness. Peterson has been subject to an awful lot of demonisation since he first emerged as a well known figure outside of his original academic circles. The LGBTQ+ lobby remains a powerful one, and the public refutation of the power of imaginary pronouns was something Peterson rejected at the very height of efforts to compel language on their use. The issue was emotive enough to both expel Peterson from his old career and propel him into a much more lucrative new one, make him a bestselling author, and garner him what seems like the eternal hatred of progressive leftists throughout the West.

The atheists selected to debate him were of the age and university educated background that would most likely include the type of people almost raised detesting Peterson intensely, given how long it has now been since he first became famous and how often he has been subject to cancel culture, online hatred and repeated abuse since he became a public figure. There has been a long effort to cast Peterson as a rightwing or even Far Right figure, despite the ridiculous nature of such labels in the face of Peterson’s actual statements and behaviour. The reality that Peterson is very obviously a classical liberal in most if not all of his views has not intruded on this demonisation process at all.

Of course Peterson’s interests and influence have extended far beyond the original issue of whether or not people should be compelled to use certain novel pronouns when addressing or referring to others. Before confronting this matter, Peterson was a highly respected expert on psychology and an ideological vendetta driving him out of the profession for what seems to have been the crime of insufficient wokeness has not ended his interest in psychology. By contrast, his own treatment at the hands of modern cancel culture pushed him towards applying his academic skills more broadly than they had been deployed before, and to start as a controversial ‘influencer’ to examine and critique the kind of thinking in our society that had led to his own professional difficulties.

By trying to compel his speech on ideological grounds, they made him a public defender of free speech. And by trying to bully him into silence or out of the respectable sphere, his critics likewise seem to have forced him to think about and discuss the psychology behind such attempted censorship and control, particularly in relation to the woke mindset and modern progressive leftism. In doing so Peterson began to become an advocate of traditional Western civilisation and it’s lessons, first in terms of classical liberal ideas on free speech and then, perhaps more dangerously, on a moral and spiritual front when thinking about the things our culture lacks, has lost, or now actively attacks. Again, guided as much by what his critics were attacking as by his own spiritual development, this led Peterson inevitably towards Christianity as a topic to be examined, both in terms of what it added and contributed to western civilisation and in terms of what its denial and removal means too.

For me personally, Paterson is a serious person and a genuine thinker, mainly because throughout this process he has been articulating what he thinks at each step of the way, and doing so (on the whole) cogently and rationally. There is however an inherent contradiction in his career as a public thinker disconnected from respectable academia. That contradiction is that the books like 12 Rules For Life: An Antidote to Chaos which have sold millions of copies in total are connected to a podcasting, debating and social media discussion exosphere which includes both truthful voices excluded from the mainstream and outright charlatans grifting the alternative media circuit purely for personal gain.

On the whole I would say that Peterson has navigated this environment relatively well. He has never subscribed, so far as I am aware, to any actually extreme position (either the extreme positions that are favoured by the powerful and designated as respectable, or the extreme positions of a genuine political fringe). He has debated with and interviewed other figures with their own controversies, such as Russell Brand, but has not been as simplistically and naively supportive of everyone he talks to in everything they say as a Joe Rogan or a Tucker Carlson would be.

One of the features of Peterson’s discussions, at least those I’ve seen, is that he will take moments to pause and reflect within the discussion, think about what has been said to him, and then express whether he agrees or disagrees and why. His body language can be quite rigid, almost birdlike, and his focus intense. Endorsement and support is not guaranteed, but challenge of what Peterson sees as inaccuracy or error is, especially if it pertains to things in which he remains an expert (like psychology and some key areas of social statistics). His demeanour during these encounters is almost the exact opposite of that of the relaxed Rogan or the affable Carlson. Peterson is not laughing along or looking for a good and friendly time, he’s much more alert and inquisitorial, looking for a good and accurate answer. That intensity applies to both what the other person is saying and what he himself is saying.

It’s also been evident in the course of the years in which he has become well known that Peterson has not just been studying psychology, but living it. He’s undergone periods of depression and apparent anxiety, perhaps some kind of collapse, which have added impetus to his naturally urgent style of theorising and debating. There’s been periods both paychologically and spiritually where it might be accurate to say that Pertaon has himself gone through forms of torment, endured difficulties, and overcome them. Whether from personal life or from the public pressure of the kind of hate that has been applied to him. Or even just from the shift from academia to fame and success tinged with controversy, there has been a hint of a person who not only advises others how to deal with issues, but does so from some experience of his own.

Throughout this though I’d say that Peterson has remained a serious figure. He’s by no means someone with whom I always agree. It’s always seemed odd to me that a man excluded by respected professionals who are at the top of academia and not in the least bit bright still sees success as primarily granted by IQ and hard work. It’s to both Peterson’s credit and a mark against him that he doesn’t really factor in professional charlatanism, corruption and ideological gatekeeping (let alone partisan political purges or outright fanaticism) when discussing success, but generally considers positive memes and their intelligent application as the key to social and personal fulfilment. This is both refreshing when compared with victimhood narratives and identity culture and useful as a positive moral template for others. But it’s also curiously lacking in the modern context, especially when expressed by someone who themselves has been excluded from a profession he has the skills for on the basis of ideological nonconformity.

To be an actual victim who opposes victim narratives is however an admirable thing, as is Peterson’s I believe genuine dedication to truth and enquiry. He is both an old fashioned classical liberal and a very old fashioned type of academic (the type that existed before academia was overwhelmingly aligned with one side of politics, the type concerned first with scholarship and only secondarily, if at all, with politics. Personal troubles, even a breakdown, and certainly not the distractions of fame, do not trouble the innate seriousness of a genuine scholar, of a person whose pursuit of truth is fundamental to their character.

These characteristics are especially important and especially evident when a person’s life experiences turn them towards thinking about religion, faith and spirituality. Peterson has done just this on both a personal and social commentator level. I think he has looked to Christianity for lessons to supply to others, for lessons to deal with his own psychological and spiritual difficulties, and as a core focus of what used to go right and now goes wrong in western society as a whole. In his books he deploys Christian homilies and examples, but in longer form lectures he has been even more obvious about this wrestling with Christian heritage and example. His lectures on Genesis and Exodus as very serious literary and cultural masterpieces that deserve and reward respectful and deep analysis are genuinely brilliant examples of such analysis and what it can offer.

Whether you agree with him or not, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Peterson can think, can think deeply, and desires and strives to do so more often and at more cost than most people today try to do or are prepared to pay for in terms of intellectual effort and seriousness along the way.

All of which makes the circus like entertainment display of the 20 against 1 debate on religion a thing which wax probably a bad idea from the start. This was a serious person engaging with people who aren’t serious, in a format that wasn’t serious either.

Since he did so, I’ve been hearing non stop that Jordan Peterson had a terrible encounter where some kid ‘smoked’ him, defeated him, and proved he was an idiot on Christianity. It was a big Peterson fail and Peterson was so flustered he couldn’t remember whether or not he even is a Christian.

One clip in particular has caused this general impression, and it’s a clip where a ‘vlogger’ called Danny confronts Peterson on whether he is actually a Christian. That moment is the meeting of an incompatible seriousness with a fundamentally shallow opposite. It’s been watched more than 7 million times already. Outlets like Unherd (an essentially conformist rag of self declared non conformists) have almost gloatingly described this moment as a Peterson defeat. But really for me it’s more like a reflection of how seriousness gets treated by people who don’t know they are shallow.

Here is Unherd’s take, which is fairly standard fare in its negative reading of Peterson’s performance:

“Jordan Peterson this week got himself into some difficulties debating the truth of Christianity with young atheists. This didn’t concern the highbrow theological aspects of the meaning of God, or how one comes upon divine knowledge, but instead on the most basic question: is he a Christian?

After building a career defending Western Christian civilisation against the woke hordes and their pronouns, Peterson couldn’t — or wouldn’t — give a straight answer. When pressed, he mumbled about privacy. The atheist challenger, a young vlogger named Danny, delivered the killing blow: “You’re really quite something, you are. But you’re really quite nothing.” The usually voluble Peterson had no response. The exchange, part of a debate where Peterson faced several atheists in succession, has gone viral, racking up millions of views. The exchange, part of a debate hosted by the YouTube channel Jubilee where he faced several atheists in succession, has gone viral, racking up millions of views.

The debate exposes what some might deem a fundamental contradiction in the psychologist’s brand. Since being exiled from the world of academia and clinical psychology, he has become a defender of Christianity against secular progressivism. Yet when directly asked whether he is a Christian, he became evasive and claimed that it’s “private”.”

The reality though is that this interpretation is just as empty and false as the attack on Peterson in the debate itself was.

Peterson has thought deeply about the social necessity of Christianity and also, I believe, about certain aspects of it that are incompatible with his own thinking and nature. I get the strong sense that Peterson not only knows how vital a genuine belief system, a sense of religious awe and wonder, and a socially structuring framework of meaning are for a functioning and successful culture, but also how truly central these things are to individual psychological wellbeing too. As a respectful atheist who knows the importance of what has been lost, I read Peterson’s silence on whether he is a Christian not as evasion or being ‘caught out’ but as a kind of seriousness his interrogator is too shallow, callow and stupid to understand.

Peterson delays and does not answer because he does not know the answer yet, because the question of whether he is a Christian is a vital question for him, not some flippant throwaway point scoring moment. It’s an agonised question as doubt or faith should be to anyone who is actually thinking about it. The presence or absence of God in one’s conception of the universe, let alone in one’s heart and soul, should be world altering. And if you are still in the process of decision, if you are wrestling with either faith or doubt, if you are a serious adult knowing the vast importance of such a topic and such an answer, you would rather be private than premature with that answer.

And you can absolutely be private on that while prepared and equipped to debate faith in general.

The question “are you a Christian?” is not a surface question of affiliation and not a prerequisite of discussing Christianity or debating atheists on faith. It is much more a private question resolved between the individual and God, between his sense of presence or absence, and the question is really, for a person like Peterson, much more like “does the world make sense to you now?”.

I’d venture to suggest that one can know and discuss Christianity, can feel the worth and importance of the question, before the question has been personally answered. Even though the format of the thing was a circus, and the other participants much younger, Peterson was expecting seriousness because of the depth of the topic and because he himself takes the topic seriously. Instead what he got was a confrontation with the profoundly trivial, a person who turned the vital question that could be explored deeply into a child’s gotcha designed to end thought and mock the topic.

Watch the thing and it’s basically some 15 or 20 year old who has watched Dave Smith, Tim Pool, Charlie Kirk and the rest, probably Peterson as well, and basically taken from every debate the sole lesson that you speak rapidly, interrogate the other person and act as if any response that doesn’t defer to your opening assumptions is an evasion.

It’s literally a pointless little snot saying ‘hey mister, you suck’ and that’s supposed to be a great intellectual victory exposing Peterson?

As I have explained above there are things I disagree with Peterson on but he’s capable of thought and discussion. The kid who ‘owned’ him isn’t. It was just ‘are you a Christian? You say you’re a Christian? Do you know you’re a Christian? Are you saying you aren’t a Christian’?

The most stupid, redundant, meaningless line of attack I’ve seen in a debate from someone who isn’t a professed leftist. It was screamingly adolescent.

To which I would respond as follows: “Hey kid, there’s people who respect Christianity who might not be Christians. There are Cultural Christians, and there are agnostics, there are even respectful atheists such as myself, and there are people like Peterson who seems to have thought about our cultural and religious heritage, had moments of enquiry and moments of torment, and maybe still aren’t sure one way or another.”

The problem then is not that Peterson is too dishonest or evasive to share his religious status, as the shallow believe. It is that he’s the only one in this example serious enough to know it’s a question that requires thought. Serious atheists once knew the topic wasn’t easy, and the answer one way or another required struggle. I suspect that Thomas Hardy, who wrote a beautiful little poem filled with sorrow called God’s Funeral and who wanted to believe but struggled to do so, would have given the same pause as Peterson.

But nowadays atheists are as quick and glib as only the unthinking can be. There’s no sense in child atheists of the struggle that should be there, and none of the struggle that Peterson knows in person.

The kid had a chance to talk with an older person who has been far more thoughtful than himself and he just wanted to rush in, kick the guy in the balls and claim victory, before they had even expressed enough to have anything real to disagree on.

It was pathetic, and not from Peterson. But it was very indicative of our times. Danny called Peterson nothing and got his moment of fame for it, not knowing he was describing himself and an entire culture that regards spiritual seriousness as a thing to be mocked.