It was really good to see words being used to describe me and my situation atm.
I have known for a long time the importance to a society of a spiritual belief system and especially the Ten Commandments of Christianity. Even though I’m not a practicing Christian.
And also that I want and am trying to believe in God. Especially Because I see so much ugliness in humanity these days and I assume it will not get any better.
So I therefore see why it has been foretold and the merit of the second coming.
And I hope it is true, because without the values and ethics of Christianity, this world is definitely destined for an awful future
I hope it’s not too late and tbh things can happen that you never expect would ever happen. So x fingers the wheel of history is turning for the better
A very thoughtful piece. For many years on forms which ask about religion I always said no faith. Recently I have been ticking the. Christian box. I do ponder on Christianity a lot. When at school my best O level result was religious knowledge.
Thanks Julie. You are right, it’s fascinating history. Although I’m not able to believe myself, I see it, more and more, as vital for society that we have a shared belief system we respect.
It's taking all the symbolic and mythical stuff literally that I'm not interested in. And my only problem with JBP is that he takes the Jungian free association too far and becomes boring.
I think you picked up on Jordan’s honesty on the struggle of practicing Christianity vs being a believer. I maybe off on this statement being Jewish and having ethnicity to fall back on. This is a tough wrestling mental exercise that most of us avoid.
This seems very thorough and correct. I flinched when I saw the clip because it was so clearly a case of a child trying to score points out of thin air. Peterson was clearly hurt by the disrespect and his hesitation was perfectly in keeping with his history of responses to the same question. In some ways Peterson is guilty of putting himself in such a stupid situation. Moreover, his thin skin, which makes him so razor sharp emotionally and intellectually in some instances is a serious liability in others, and I think that’s been true throughout his career. No matter what anyone says, he has not just been influential in the culture of ideas, but helpful, especially to millions of young men.
Thank you, and you’ve expressed here some very important points I didn’t raise in the article. That thin skin point is true, I think, as is the one on the positive nature of Peterson’s influence. It is bizarre that someone is so hated for reviving basic moral lessons of conduct.
Excellent article! I would say in addition that Peterson advice was more profound than basic moral conduct. As an example take his advice to stand straight and put your chest forward. A man in this position does not just express a self-confidence and pride in himself, he also expresses a willingness to accept straightforwardly all the adversity that comes his way. This is very high level of thinking.
I'm a big fan boy of Jordan Peterson and he is always saying he is very careful of what he's saying as in his evisceration of Channel 4's Kathy Newman a few years ago.
It is absolutely true that it is more difficult to argue with an idiot than it is a genius.
Having said that Christopher Hitchens would have eaten this Danny creature alive !
I have some affection for CH, he did things with flair. But I think his brother was the smarter one, and CH’s arguments against religion are essentially obvious and childish, even though emotionally I can feel them. For me the existence of evil is a problem for the belief in a benevolent deity, but it’s no great insight to spot that and there comes a point where it’s essentially like a child saying “this is so UNFAIR” to a parent.
Thanks for the kind words on the post though, and like you I think Peterson deserves respect.
It comes down to the goal of the benevolent deity. If the goal is that people should all be pampered and protected from anything bad, then the existence of evil is a problem. But if the goal is for people to become good themselves, the existence of evil is a necessity, as is free will - because you are only _good_ if you have the option not to be, and you make the right choice.
I admire Peter Hitchens for many things not least his stance on Cannabis and Covid 19 but I do wish he wouldn't mumble, which is where Christopher has the edge. Both brilliant and fearless.
Quite. I have yet to see any kind of ‘professional atheist’ I’m genuinely impressed by. Christopher Hitchens was the most charismatic of the modern era, but his arguments are essentially childish. Dawkins is a coward who avoids the topic of Islam. Sam Harris is an idiot and a moral void. Dennett is as unthinking and clunkingly obvious on politics as any ivory tower intellectual you can think of (no more perceptive than a 14 year old who hates Trump). A serious atheist for me, does not proselytise atheism. The removal of God should be an awful thing, a private agony more than a public mission.
It's always a debate between faith and concepts in the end. People who conceptualize religion don't understand faith, and people who have faith won't make any points trying to defend concepts.
Usually the faithless simply repeatedly point at their idea of unchristian behavior and want you to explain how you can call yourself a Christian and do something unchristian. As you say, incredibly shallow but also pointless to debate.
The "perhaps some kind of collapse" is pretty well documented as an inadvertent dependency on IMO malprescribed benzodiazepine, with a difficult and expensive (and continuing) recovery, and with subsequent withdrawal of his professional license to practice. This was pretty big, and IMO essential to understand today's Peterson vs the 2019 version. He's been through the fire.
I haven't seen the clip, but isn't 'that's private' the proper christian response? Don't cast pearls before swine and all that?
I would have thought that professing a deeply held faith to win an argument against some little shitstain, as a spectacle for the masses would be a deeply sinful act. What else would 'taking the lord's name in vain' possibly mean?
Excellent analysis. I often reference Buddhist teachings, but when I am asked whether I am Buddhist, or if I am referred to as Buddhist, I am quick to point out that I am not Buddhist, nor, for that matter, in the same way, am I Christ.
It was pathetic alright. Pathetic all around. The kid was arrogant & off-putting, but he nailed JP dead to rights. If you're going to be the "1" in "20 Atheists vs. One Christian" but you refuse to say you're a Christian, then you lost. And Peterson lost big, got humiliated, by a young man whose IQ might be half the professor's. An unforced PR error of stupefying proportions.
I was asked by a professing Christian if I was religious. I answered, "Privately, yes." But there's no way I could explain what that means in conversation. It's why we have the arts.
I haven’t seen the clip in question yet, but this is a topic where he ALWAYS avoids giving clear answers. I have had this discussion for years with another friend who is angry he won’t declare his faith, but I’ve always thought it’s to do with keeping as broad a reach as possible with his multicultural audience.
I’ve seen him speak twice in Australia, and both times I happened to meet students from India who were grateful that one of his online programs - “Self Authoring” - had changed their lives. They both told me they’d not have embarked on their chosen career paths without having done it, and were now in Australia as uni students.
This is obviously anecdotal, but I’m sure he sees himself as being able to impact young people the world over, and doesn’t want to be pigeonholed in a way that might make him less appealing to people of other faiths.
I think Mr. Peterson struggles with being worthy of calling himself Christian. He's trying to be Christian, but he worries about being able to live up to what a Christian is view. He doesn't want to be a hypocrite, or let himself down.
It was really good to see words being used to describe me and my situation atm.
I have known for a long time the importance to a society of a spiritual belief system and especially the Ten Commandments of Christianity. Even though I’m not a practicing Christian.
And also that I want and am trying to believe in God. Especially Because I see so much ugliness in humanity these days and I assume it will not get any better.
So I therefore see why it has been foretold and the merit of the second coming.
And I hope it is true, because without the values and ethics of Christianity, this world is definitely destined for an awful future
I retain some hope that it will get better. We are seeing some signs of spiritual revival. Whether it’s too late or not is another matter.
I hope it’s not too late and tbh things can happen that you never expect would ever happen. So x fingers the wheel of history is turning for the better
A very thoughtful piece. For many years on forms which ask about religion I always said no faith. Recently I have been ticking the. Christian box. I do ponder on Christianity a lot. When at school my best O level result was religious knowledge.
It’s interesting history .
Thanks Julie. You are right, it’s fascinating history. Although I’m not able to believe myself, I see it, more and more, as vital for society that we have a shared belief system we respect.
It's taking all the symbolic and mythical stuff literally that I'm not interested in. And my only problem with JBP is that he takes the Jungian free association too far and becomes boring.
I think you picked up on Jordan’s honesty on the struggle of practicing Christianity vs being a believer. I maybe off on this statement being Jewish and having ethnicity to fall back on. This is a tough wrestling mental exercise that most of us avoid.
This seems very thorough and correct. I flinched when I saw the clip because it was so clearly a case of a child trying to score points out of thin air. Peterson was clearly hurt by the disrespect and his hesitation was perfectly in keeping with his history of responses to the same question. In some ways Peterson is guilty of putting himself in such a stupid situation. Moreover, his thin skin, which makes him so razor sharp emotionally and intellectually in some instances is a serious liability in others, and I think that’s been true throughout his career. No matter what anyone says, he has not just been influential in the culture of ideas, but helpful, especially to millions of young men.
Thank you, and you’ve expressed here some very important points I didn’t raise in the article. That thin skin point is true, I think, as is the one on the positive nature of Peterson’s influence. It is bizarre that someone is so hated for reviving basic moral lessons of conduct.
Excellent article! I would say in addition that Peterson advice was more profound than basic moral conduct. As an example take his advice to stand straight and put your chest forward. A man in this position does not just express a self-confidence and pride in himself, he also expresses a willingness to accept straightforwardly all the adversity that comes his way. This is very high level of thinking.
Great post Daniel.
I'm a big fan boy of Jordan Peterson and he is always saying he is very careful of what he's saying as in his evisceration of Channel 4's Kathy Newman a few years ago.
It is absolutely true that it is more difficult to argue with an idiot than it is a genius.
Having said that Christopher Hitchens would have eaten this Danny creature alive !
I have some affection for CH, he did things with flair. But I think his brother was the smarter one, and CH’s arguments against religion are essentially obvious and childish, even though emotionally I can feel them. For me the existence of evil is a problem for the belief in a benevolent deity, but it’s no great insight to spot that and there comes a point where it’s essentially like a child saying “this is so UNFAIR” to a parent.
Thanks for the kind words on the post though, and like you I think Peterson deserves respect.
It comes down to the goal of the benevolent deity. If the goal is that people should all be pampered and protected from anything bad, then the existence of evil is a problem. But if the goal is for people to become good themselves, the existence of evil is a necessity, as is free will - because you are only _good_ if you have the option not to be, and you make the right choice.
I admire Peter Hitchens for many things not least his stance on Cannabis and Covid 19 but I do wish he wouldn't mumble, which is where Christopher has the edge. Both brilliant and fearless.
I wonder how soon we'll see these atheists debate a few hard core muslims...
Quite. I have yet to see any kind of ‘professional atheist’ I’m genuinely impressed by. Christopher Hitchens was the most charismatic of the modern era, but his arguments are essentially childish. Dawkins is a coward who avoids the topic of Islam. Sam Harris is an idiot and a moral void. Dennett is as unthinking and clunkingly obvious on politics as any ivory tower intellectual you can think of (no more perceptive than a 14 year old who hates Trump). A serious atheist for me, does not proselytise atheism. The removal of God should be an awful thing, a private agony more than a public mission.
Charles Krauthammer "Atheism is the least plausible of all theologies..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma5UgbV3QnU
Quite right.
It's always a debate between faith and concepts in the end. People who conceptualize religion don't understand faith, and people who have faith won't make any points trying to defend concepts.
Usually the faithless simply repeatedly point at their idea of unchristian behavior and want you to explain how you can call yourself a Christian and do something unchristian. As you say, incredibly shallow but also pointless to debate.
And there is now such an air of tired assumption to it all. These debates and this mockery of Christianity have been going on for 150 years.
Wonderful review.
Nicely observed.
Thanks Alexei. 😀
Good take on the "debate" that wasn't.
The "perhaps some kind of collapse" is pretty well documented as an inadvertent dependency on IMO malprescribed benzodiazepine, with a difficult and expensive (and continuing) recovery, and with subsequent withdrawal of his professional license to practice. This was pretty big, and IMO essential to understand today's Peterson vs the 2019 version. He's been through the fire.
You laid it out very well. From this distance, it bears a resemblance to Christ's treatment at the hands of the Pharisees.
I haven't seen the clip, but isn't 'that's private' the proper christian response? Don't cast pearls before swine and all that?
I would have thought that professing a deeply held faith to win an argument against some little shitstain, as a spectacle for the masses would be a deeply sinful act. What else would 'taking the lord's name in vain' possibly mean?
Excellent analysis. I often reference Buddhist teachings, but when I am asked whether I am Buddhist, or if I am referred to as Buddhist, I am quick to point out that I am not Buddhist, nor, for that matter, in the same way, am I Christ.
It was pathetic alright. Pathetic all around. The kid was arrogant & off-putting, but he nailed JP dead to rights. If you're going to be the "1" in "20 Atheists vs. One Christian" but you refuse to say you're a Christian, then you lost. And Peterson lost big, got humiliated, by a young man whose IQ might be half the professor's. An unforced PR error of stupefying proportions.
I was asked by a professing Christian if I was religious. I answered, "Privately, yes." But there's no way I could explain what that means in conversation. It's why we have the arts.
I haven’t seen the clip in question yet, but this is a topic where he ALWAYS avoids giving clear answers. I have had this discussion for years with another friend who is angry he won’t declare his faith, but I’ve always thought it’s to do with keeping as broad a reach as possible with his multicultural audience.
I’ve seen him speak twice in Australia, and both times I happened to meet students from India who were grateful that one of his online programs - “Self Authoring” - had changed their lives. They both told me they’d not have embarked on their chosen career paths without having done it, and were now in Australia as uni students.
This is obviously anecdotal, but I’m sure he sees himself as being able to impact young people the world over, and doesn’t want to be pigeonholed in a way that might make him less appealing to people of other faiths.
I think Mr. Peterson struggles with being worthy of calling himself Christian. He's trying to be Christian, but he worries about being able to live up to what a Christian is view. He doesn't want to be a hypocrite, or let himself down.