I did the course. It was amazing. Looking at xmas trees, altars, having dinner, and doing worship (especially being a part of the worship team) has heightened my awareness of how important they are and what it is we are actually doing. As well, made me think of the symbol(s) of marital relationships. BTW, when's the exam????
Jonathan is such a generous man. Jordan now uses Pageau’s concepts so often that he repeats them to the man himself and Jonathan never says ‘yes Jordan that’s an argument I first made to you years ago’ 😆
@marcschaeffer1584 Unfortunately Dawkins learned to think in a way which reduces concepts. Why do reality must be constrained to the limits of one's thinking process which is reductionistic in a sense that it serves survival and it blinds us?
I think Pageau is quite happy... If pageau ideas wasnt smart/comon sense enough jordan would not have taken them... If a friend of you addopt your beliefs in some aspects it is because you convince him (by tslking or living them) that it a good one and Peterson is quite a good observer an listener
Taking your psychology class when I was in university is something I am always proud of. I am deeply grateful that God personally met you and He is using your life to proclaim His words. Hallelujah! God is good. Please keep up the great work, Dr. Peterson. You are in my prayers.
Unless I misunderstood @paradise745, they have left a very odd reply. I'm glad you find value in Dr. Peterson-thank you for sharing. I'm sorry that you have to deal with crass, insensitive comments whilst having to cope with substantial suffering in your life. God bless x
Not sure it would help. He's profoundly unwilling to accept the symbolic nature of human is anything but random chance. He literally doesn't believe in meaning as such.
Whenever I hear Jonathan Pageau speak, it always feels as if he's not quite a part of our world. He's like a monk of times long past who has touched a piece of God and has begun transcending our mortal coil.
And note that he never takes credit for the wisdom. The glory always goes to God. His gift is oratory and he uses it to try and teach others to see. Cool guy for sure.
Jordan gets better with age. He is like a learning machine with a big loving heart. The information he sums up for us is infinite fundamentally complicated and i am forever grateful. I can't wait to hear what he has to say 10 years from now.
Respectfully, I disagree. He has faltered since his breakdown challenge. I saw him in person just prior to this period, hearing and seeing him with your ears and eyes, you could see the cracks. The way he has responded to his challenge is not in kind to how he has liked to preach. Personally, seeing his arc has been a lesson in not putting people on a pedestal.
Because this knowledge is unknown to them. That's the biggest mistake religious people make, to assume that the "church" understands the bible, they don't in most of the cases, being a father, priest or what not, is not based on whether they have the knowledge, they're put in those positions for other reasons completely different from those of sharing God's message. And it doesn't happen just in religions, it happens in work places, companies, governments etc. Ineptitude permeates human groups. That's the main message of Christ, he was against the church, and taught people to search the truth for themselves, it's written right there in the gospels, the kingdom of heaven is already within you, just waiting for you to discover it, Don't search for it outside.
I think people previously just lived these stories, they were naturally part of life. so explaining them was not necessary, it has become necessary because of post modernism and atheism I think. This is just relatively new and as a protsentant I think most churches have not been able to deal with this and tried to conform to the worldly order instead of building the Kingdom of Heaven.
I love it when you two get together. Your friendship is so obvious and you are so comfortable with each other that you build on each other and go to new heights of thought and philosophy. Love it!
Dr. Peterson. I had no idea (of course I wouldn’t) that you lost both your parents this year. I had three funerals, separately, within a couple of months. Death’s poetic hand touches us all during those times and I am so sorry for your losses.
I've listened to the Dawkins conversation six times. So much misunderstanding could have been avoided if Dr Peterson had opened with the idea that an archetype is a meme that has been genetically assimilated via the Baldwin effect, which is the point of agreement that they reached at the very end. I really believe in the depths of my soul that a follow-up conversation needs to occur picking up on this point of agreement. The interdisciplinary implications could be huge. It seemed to really help the flow and progression of the conversation when Dr Peterson started to formulate his ideas and arguments in Dr Dawkins' terms. If either of the dear doctors read this, please try and make a follow-up conversation happen, and Dr Peterson, it may really help the conversation if you try to explain your Maps of Meaning theory in Dawkins' terms. This may open him up to the value of story and myth from an evolutionary perspective. If he were to accept that the thesis underlying Maps of Meaning is true, it could really go a long way toward resolving the meaning crisis. With the utmost respect and admiration for you both, David
Dawkins is always being intentionally obtuse so he doesn't accidentally absorb any information. Just in case it could be the evidence for things he disagrees with.
Yes, I think Peterson missed an opportunity here. Before doing the biblical series, Peterson had a much bigger emphasis on using evolutionary explanations for his ideas. I think that’s a much better space to start in with Dawkins then to try and impress him with bible stories.
I am worried that Dawkins always understood Peterson, he just refuses to acknowledge Peterson’s whole point. I am no genius, but the first time I heard a Peterson talk, I knew exactly what he was talking about, and without anyone talking about it, I instantly connected the idea of archetype with Dawkins idea of a meme. I thought. “This is exactly what Dawkins is missing!!!” It is so difficult for me to believe that someone as intelligent as Dawkins actually could not understand what Peterson was talking about. “Drunk on symbols” is such a stupid thing to say.
Yeah I hear....although I will say that also seems to reinforce the other that Dawkins seem just SO closed off to other ways of thinking that, until you start to use his terms, language and perspective, you're bashing your head against a brick wall. Like....for most of the conversation it felt like, for me, he just had no idea AT ALL about where Peterson was coming from. It was like Peterson was talking another language to him.
Yes but her won't. Peterson never ever ever will. He is drunk on symbolism and thinks the world needs to bounce to his ball. JP can't and will not play anyone else's game. He is incapable, just like he is incapable of recognizing He is the king of postmodernism. What do you me by God? And comes up with the biggest world salad imaginable
Remember, Richard Dawkins is not the enemy. He asked to be called Richard. He doesn't want to give up his belief easily, but if he can see and understand a different perspective, he could become a great ally.
He’s actually not capable. He has to be autistic. That’s the only explanation. Unless he somehow managed to squeak through higher education on the strength of nepotism and an 85 IQ.
Dawkins has had lifetimes worth of knowledge and wisdom extended to him and he still refuses transcendental truth. The only thing that'll change his heart and mind is an experience of God's grace but Dawkins wont humble himself enough to accept it.
Best explanation of the problem of the sacrifice of Isaac from Jonathan that I have heard. This is not just an academic conversation. It is a an urgent message of the human fate or future….
In a warmly lit room lined with books, Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Pageau sit across from an empty chair, waiting. Suddenly, the door opens, and in walks C.S. Lewis, his presence warm and inviting, as if he had just stepped from another world. After introductions, the three settle in, eager to discuss the concept of “myth becoming fact” - the idea that in Jesus, the grand archetypes and myths of humanity became historical reality. Lewis: (leaning forward, smiling warmly) I’m thrilled to speak with you both about this. When I first came to see Christianity as “myth become fact,” it struck me like a thunderbolt. It’s an idea that can seem strange at first but holds immense power if understood correctly. Peterson: (nodding thoughtfully) Yes, I’ve wrestled with that concept myself. Myth, in a Jungian sense, touches universal patterns of the psyche. Yet the notion that a myth could break into historical reality - that’s something I’ve struggled with. It’s hard to imagine the archetypal becoming concrete. Lewis: (smiling gently) Precisely, Jordan. That’s where the beauty of Christianity lies - it doesn’t dismiss myth as mere fiction. Instead, it says, “Here, finally, is the myth you’ve been longing for, made real.” Every ancient story, every longing of the human heart, culminates in this event. In Christ, we find that God speaks not only through symbols but also in history. The Logos entered the world - myth became flesh, you might say. Pageau: (leaning in, eyes bright) And that’s why symbolism is so vital in Christianity. Christ fulfills what every other story and symbol points toward. In him, we see the highest archetypes - the sacrificial hero, the conquering king, the suffering servant - all in one. Lewis: Indeed, Jonathan. The ancient myths contained fragments of truth, shadows of a reality beyond our grasp. Consider how so many cultures have tales of gods who die and rise, heroes who sacrifice for others. These stories are like echoes of a great truth. In Christ, these echoes are harmonized into a symphony. What was once shadow became substance. I remember saying to Tolkien once that Christianity is “true myth” - a myth that happened in time and space. Peterson: (thinking deeply) It’s an audacious claim. Myths are timeless, bound by the human psyche. Yet you’re saying that in Jesus, something unique happened. But Lewis, why should we believe that this myth - Christianity - uniquely crossed from the realm of the archetypal into the literal? Lewis: A fair question, Jordan. Let’s consider this: myths satisfy something deep within us because they resonate with our innermost longings. When I first encountered the Gospel, I felt a similar resonance but with a twist - here was a myth that wasn’t only like our myths but that claimed to be true. As I read, it struck me: here was a story that, if true, would mean that our longing was not in vain. It would mean that history itself has meaning, not as a series of random events but as the unfolding of God’s purpose. Pageau: So, in Jesus, you believe we see not just an archetype or symbol but the actualization of all human longing. We’re no longer talking in abstractions, but in the particular - a human life, a historical death, a physical resurrection. Lewis: Precisely, Jonathan! If this story is true, then everything changes. We don’t only long for transcendence; we find it. We don’t only hope for redemption; it’s offered to us. It means that our lives aren’t just fragments but are woven into a grand narrative. In Jesus, God enters time and shares our suffering, transforms it, and invites us to participate in his victory over death. Peterson: (sighing, his voice intense) There’s something undeniably powerful in that. Humanity’s deepest stories have always revolved around suffering, sacrifice, and redemption. But the idea of God stepping into our world - experiencing suffering and even death - that elevates suffering itself to something that can be redeemed, doesn’t it? Lewis: Yes, it does. And that’s the heart of it, Jordan. If God could only exist as an abstraction, he could not truly meet us in our pain. But if he becomes one of us, he validates our suffering by sharing in it. This, I believe, is what distinguishes Christianity. It doesn’t deny the horror of suffering but says that God himself has taken it upon himself, that even death itself can be transformed. The resurrection of Christ is the ultimate proof that love is more powerful than death. Pageau: (quietly) So myth, then, is God’s way of preparing us for reality. In Jesus, myth is revealed not just as allegory but as the deepest truth of all. Lewis: Exactly. The beauty of Christianity is that it fulfills every longing embedded in human myths, yet it also challenges every expectation. It’s too wild, too astonishing to be something we would invent on our own. No human could imagine a God who conquers not through strength but through humility, who brings life by dying. This is why I believe it’s true, Jordan. Because in every way, it’s beyond our invention. Peterson: (almost whispering) There’s something in that - a story that is both greater than any other and yet precisely what we most need to hear. And if, as you say, it’s true… then it’s not only myth. It’s a reality that demands a response. Lewis: Indeed, Jordan. If Jesus is real - if the Word became flesh and dwelt among us - then we are standing on holy ground. It’s an invitation to join the story that is not only ours but all of creation’s, the story that calls us to surrender, to trust, to follow this God who became man. He doesn’t ask us to escape suffering but promises to transform it and, ultimately, to bring us into glory. The three men fall silent, the weight of the conversation lingering in the air. Each one, in his own way, feels the grandeur and challenge of the claim before them - that in Jesus, myth became fact, and history was forever changed.
I’m so grateful that I started to have kids at the perfect time to have these stories for them. Literally everything Jonathan writes, I’m buying. Period.
That was an incredible explanation of the Abraham and Isaac story. It’s definitely something I’ve “wrestled” with for a long time. I thank God for the understanding now.
In a new conversation with Dawkins, Jonathan Pageau should participate because he doesn't start with Bible stories. To a materialist like Dawkins, you have to explain from the bottom up - first patterns in everyday life, then on a cosmic scale. Dawkins needs to be made even more aware that he too is ‘drunk on symbolism’, as he calls it. If you break the world down into elementary particles, there is no longer any difference between the parts of a lion and those of a coffee cup or a car or a chair or the moon. These are categories of human perception that bind multiplicity into unity. No tree, no stone, no mountain and no river on this earth contains the earth as a whole and yet the planet earth exists as a whole. Dawkins considers the lion to be a pure fact and the dragon to be a pure fairy tale, although the ‘lionishness’ of the lion is not contained in any of its individual parts. The unity we call "lion" is symbolic.
Well said. Dawkins problem is that he doesn't want to move from the level of abstraction or meaning he is at. He's oblivious that symbolism and meaning is inevitable, that even his views exist under that context. Once you understand what Jonathan Pageau is talking about, you can move between levels of abstraction, from the atom, where a lion and a cup are indistinguishable, to the idea of living beings, where the atom has little importance but the lion and cup are distinguished.
@@DoubleOhSilver It isn't well said. It is woo-woo that reeks of armchair mental masturbation from people who either don't really want to know reality, or are deeply invested in denying it because of their ideology (most here, it is religious dogma). Peterson has become a crank peddling word salad. The simple fact that most of you reduce Dawkin's to "materialist reductionist", as you all seem to call it (parroting Peterson), down to atoms shows how truly ignorant your understanding of reality is. There is an emergence of complexity and systems at every stratification of reality. The whole thing of placing significance on symbolism, like it has meaning beyond the "meta" bullshit in our heads, is laughable. Go make something, go truly interact with reality...not just in your heads. And you will understand that the lion and the cup are not just the idea of living beings. Bunch of clowns.
I would love to know more about ARC and the projects you mentioned it's beautiful I'm deeply moved and wholeheartedly warmed by such selfless and humbling movements
Dawkins was passive aggressive and not conversing in good faith. Dawkins wants to shunt any conversation into a science-vs-religion debate, and act as if Jordan was there only to "impress him" so he can gleefully decline to be "impressed".
And Alex O'connor was the worst mediator ever. He would summarise everything Jordan said into a "so you don't know?". There was zero attempt to understand what Jordan is saying cannot be reduced to "yes" "no" or "I don't know", but those were the answers they were looking for. They didn't want an actual dialogue, just gotcha moments. Its embarassing. But they are British men, and as someone currently stuck on this disillusioned wasteland of an island, I'm way too familiar with the British aversion to any deep discussion of religion. White British males in particular are seemingly allergic to all Christianity related discussion. Unless they are accusing the church of something of course...
I wouldn't say he acted in bad faith. (To see bad faith, look at Destiny, man.) I think he's just comfortable in a very rigid box of 'That which is 100% proven'. He values certainty. And it's _really hard_ to get people like that to step out of their comfort zone and accept that, sometimes you have to be a pioneer and check out ideas which may have only a 90%, a 70%, a 30% or even a 1% chance. That's where science happens, in those places where we wander into the unknown and let whatever happens happens.
@@nomoresunforever3695 Dawkins was holding to his truth. It just took exactly the right argument for Jordan to reach him that, 'What I'm talking about is just another form of what you value too.' Y'know, it's kinda like how, if you discover some weird new scientific principle, you can do the math to figure out why it works. But in the short-term, you can also come up with a metaphor for what's going on, a story, that conveys the general principle to people, so you can start making *use* of that principle, without having to 100% understand it first.
Dr. Jordan Peterson, thank you very much for this, all the other conversations, lectures and speeches that you have freely provided us. May God give you health, wisdom, guidance and happiness. I have one REQUEST, can you have a conversation with Dr. Thomas Sowell?
This is Jordan Peterson at his best. I could listen to this type of conversation every day. We are too stuck in our time through the scientific revolution to only see material concrete reality as the only reality as opposed to the phenomenological experience we have of life. We are desperately in need to reconnect with the symbolic because it’s the only thing which provides life with value and meaning. I think a big part of depression and mental disorders, brainwashing of people with bad ideologies comes down to the sterility and boredom we feel for not being in touch with meaning and value. The value of this work is it redeems for modern people the validity of these stories, a different sort of religion (religion=re-connection) with the divine, injecting meaning once again into life and the possibility of progress in human culture which has been has created to be creative.
You know I just seen your university website and I was amazed by what you offer. So to see that you offer it at such an amazing price is truly such a blessing. I really appreciate what you’re doing and to have some of the brightest minds from such renowned universities is unbelievably brilliant to say the least. I look forward to December when I enrol
Im here to say become Orthodox. If you think the Bible stories seem deep when Jordan talks about them then you'll be blown away by the writings of the saints.
Yea, can't stand an 70 yo atheist that isn't open to anything and would say that aliens are messing with him if he sees "I am God trust in me" on the sky. He's a "this is no evidence" machine that can't comprehend a complex subject in its' true depth.
It's pretty much a long slog of Richard thinking in pure scientific certainties, and Jordan trying to reach him that, just because we haven't 100% quantified all this archetype stuff yet, doesn't mean it's not real. If you can, skip to like the last half hour. I think it's Dawkins that brings up the Baldwin Effect: a known scientific process by which a species' behavior can turn into genetics over generations. That's the point where Jordan's able to meet Dawkins on his turf, and Dawkins' eyes just light up. It's so, so heartwarming seeing the two of them finally understand each other.
When Peterson says "there is no perception independent of action, and no action independent of motivation", while I am not challenging the assessment, I would like to read more about the ideas. Does anyone have any references or names to look up to read more? Thanks.
Haven't seen the Pageaus on the show for a bit. Great job getting Jonathan back on. And congratulations to Jordan for a successful endorsement of Trump and the X-Men! Bravo!
I would watch a weekly podcast with those 2 guys. In fact their conversation titeled'" The perfect mode of beeing" is one of the best podcasts ive ever seen.
At 1:05:53, Dr Peterson candidly says that both his parents died this year. I didn't get to this part before I posted my first comment. My condolences to you and your family, sir. The fact you have achieved so much this year while suffering such a loss is extremely admirable.
Jonathan needs to find some international distribution partners for his publishing. Right now it's prohibitively expensive to buy the books from his store because of shipping prices.
Can't wait to listen to this, i felt the conversation with Dawkins showed Dawkins blind spots, so was a little frustrating, but did further highlight Petersons genius and generosity of spirit, always massively thankful ❤️🙏
Have you thought about inviting Dr NT Wright? It would be so good!!! This episode was one of the best i've ever seen. It was a great journey. I would love if Jonathan Pageau could finish his thoughts with no interuptions 😅 Much respect and love! God bless
Ever since the Exodus table i have really appreciated Jonathan. I look forward to this new book. The cover is beautifully illustrated. December is a month of great reading.
In defense of Dawkins, I must admit that the question "but did it really happen?", at least where the resurrection is concerned, is of fundamental importance. As Paul said, if Christ is not risen, then our (the Christian) faith is vanity.
Both of these grifters know this, but answering that in a straightforward manner would piss off their payor base and hurt their wallet. So they speak in ridiculous symbolism and word salad.
I think there's a less cynical way to approach the topic that admits the possibility that JBP's evasiveness is not just grift but authentically engaging with what we consider in Christianity to be "mystery". From what I saw in the Dawkins conversation, there was a lot of focus on specifically on the Virgin Birth. In Catholicism and Orthodox there's a tradition of talking about Mary as Virgin "during" Christ's birth, so there is intended to be a deep meaning to what we say by virginity that's more than just the status of the hymen. I think JBP's unwillingness to articulate the specifics of that is in theory perfectly consonant with a (small o) orthodox understanding of the Virgin Birth, and I think his perspective on Resurrection is the same. Of course it is possible he is just grifting but I personally don't think that's necessarily the case
@@lukeminton-schwarzmanschol1943 I suppose my cynicism stems from me doubtful that he would be so”mysterious” in dealing with any other religion. If asked if a miracle in the Koran or Book of Mormon or any other text “really occurred”, my bet is he’d get to the point. Unless that religion was predominant one in his locale and he knew he’d lose money by being honest and straightforward.
@ Yes - but "mystery" has a specific purpose in Catholicism and Orthodoxy that isn't present in any other religion, so perhaps for that reason alone I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. In the NT and in the Catholic Mass for example there is an explicit mention of "the mystery of faith" (τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως) and the Eucharist as well is mentioned by Paul (and contemporary non-Christian sources) to be very baffling to non Christians, so it is not out of bounds for Christianity. For both LDS and Islam (which do have a lot of similarities in how they were "revealed") I would agree he would be less mysterious but both of those religious traditions are a lot more explicit about what the fundamental interpretations of their "theophanies" consist of
@ So I get your point but for what it's worth he has also drawn the distinction between Catholicism/Orthodoxy and Protestantism where he has mentioned the latter as being much more dependent on an "axiomatic" acceptance of certain faith statements
Very interested in Pageau's publication, in the many ideas and conversation topics as well as how Christianity, mythology, and psychology intersect. Thank you for the video. Can't wait for my preorder of We Who Wrestle With God arrives!
Hello , “ghetto” Hermetic American negro here. I’ve returned from desert, Independently studying and mediating here and there. I enjoyed the conversation (stopped at 31:37) realizing at that specified point that you’ve entered the realm of analytical thinking. It was through Hermeticism I learned that everything in the universe before creation has an origin coupled with motivation. Which reveals the question of “WHO’s!?” I’ve learned a lot from Jung as well But you’ve played your part in this cosmic dynamic of mine. (“Exposed” by my response) The fool , the jester , the joker , the trickster. It was you who revealed the fundamentals I’m furthering my education and hope my ignorance teaches me a great deal BEFORE I am able to “properly” teach others . Thanks man , good luck.
The insight on sacrifice, aim/purpose and sense of ownership or personal interest is insanely beneficial to understand. It can be extrapolated to almost everything, just as Pageau said.
re: Jonathan talking about honoring stories instead of acting like you're above them. This makes me feel better about when Little Me would write fanfictions based on my favorite shows. I'd read lots of other people's stories and knew what a Mary Sue was, even if I didn't know the term. Same for grimdark depression-fests. So I wrote my stories as a *gift* to the characters that comforted me. I made an OC, and I wanted him to never outshine the heroes. He was there to help. I wanted to help my heroes.
Phenomenal conversation. I get what Jordan says when he says, "You have to sacrifice your child to the world." But I think it's better said by something like, "You have to sacrifice your role as the child's world to the world itself."
Jesus first resurrected in a man full of love, then He died on the cross to prove that you do everything for love, even you give your life for love. He showed us the only right way to live, living for Love. S. N. L.
*re: Jordan talking about how the spirit of Cain leads to resentment of life, being, and God.* I've always wondered what happens if you go *_past_* that though. Because I'm thinking also of what Jordan's said about how, sometimes if you go deep enough into the abyss, you find the light at the end of the tunnel. What if you could start with the knowledge of, 'I will not make anyone else's life worse, no matter how deep down I go.' My discovery is that, if you _fully_ investigate all that is wrong with life, you begin to understand _why_ things are as they are, and then you develop a respect for God as a craftsman.
"....... My discovery is that, if you fully investigate all that is wrong with life, you begin to understand why things are as they are, and then you develop a respect for God as a craftsman." This is also confirmed by my experience.
The Dr Dawkins discussion. Jordan understands his world view - basic evolutionary framework - but Jordan has long left that simple novice framework long behind and elevated to a world where the 2 can barely communicate. Passing on different tracks so to speak. Different wave lengths…… unfortunately Dr Dawkins has not moved beyond the trenches.
@@benjamincatling5827 yes that is fine to defend him. With respect to his place on the spectrum of things, he has not risen beyond the evolutionary biological basics - and sees the world entirely through that lens and is unable to communicate on a different plane - except for example in some of his talks and his writings, when under the authority / guise of “science’’ he sidetracks and delves into the philosophical belief realm to attack ideologies that differ from his own. If you don’t like the “trenches” word analogy, I am happy to hear better suggestions.
@@antbrown9066 "If you don’t like the “trenches” word analogy, I am happy to hear better suggestions." How about "Just a scientific mind that doesn't entertain the religious idiots trying to cope with their nonsense in an increasingly scientifically literate world."
@@GoogleIsNotYourFriend that is a somewhat superior way of making a point about Dawkins. I understand the sentiment. However, as it suits him - he diverts into philosophical beliefs and claims in an attempt to discredit philosophical positions that do not align with his own. So despite wandering the trenches, he occasionally peers out to shoot at something he believed was there.
Is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus a tragedy or comedy? I love Tolkien's term; it's a euchatastrophy -- the deepest low and the highest high, encapsulated in one moment.
The individualism which flowed out of “Protestantism” is exactly what leads to the ability to truly reach that “higher order” of being called love. If the individual’s dignity is not expressed then it cannot offer itself freely in service to others and that higher order.
It’s fascinating that the more we discover about the humans and being in general, the more we see beauty AND brokenness. At every level we see glimpses of the beauty but we also see how that went wrong when we fell.
Good evening Jordan and Jonathan Wonderful shared conversation. Thank you for your and indeed my sensemaking brain gym. A surprising dance with a team that recognise sharing knowledge experience and wisdom is truly supportive and conveys a sense of caring, very much required. In short! Unbelievably thin on the ground in the wee world that surrounds me currently. Truly grateful for story and to you both. 💜
the Story of Hannah is about her begging God for a Son so that she could give him to God and his work. Thank you Gentlemen for your time in sharing your great knowledge to the masses 🤩💜❤🌲🌴
It's absolutely wonderful to transition from Dawkins to this space! 😃 The more I hear you speak, Dr. Peterson, the more I seek to understand your views on The One True Living God, YHWH. It does puzzle me at times how you refer to God's word as myth, but only you and Him truly know your faith in HIM! In Christ, our Lord and Savior. I pray for you as you share the TRUTH of scripture with those who may be hard to reach!
This is incredibly powerful stuff. I marvel at their ability to derive true, valuable and practically applicable meaning to concepts that were opaque to me.
Thank you both for a wonderful discussion as always. You are two amazingly brilliant gentlemen. At the very end something piqued my interest and causes me to post this. Is sharing food uniquely human? I’m not aware of any scientific studies but I have owned pets and have been in a family which owned pets for many years (I’m 55, so I think it’s fair for me to suggest that I have a good amount of life experience). We had one dog who would drag their stuffed animal buddy and purposely put the stuffed animal’s face in the food and water bowls. Also our current 2 cats very obviously share food. Now, I will bring up something important. I dare say my wife and I are loving pet owners who provide abundantly for our beloved cats, meaning they always have more than enough food, treats, and water. So my question is, if resources were scarce, would their gracious attitude remain? I tend to think “no”, but it is interesting to think about. Sure, human sharing is also situational, but I do believe that even under tight resource constraints, humans *can* have the propensity to put loving relationships above petty squabbling
Why would you have national debates with people about a subject you clearly know nothing about. Professor dawkins thinks he knows the bible, without taking anytime to make sure he understands it properly. He may be very smart, not very wise.
summary of our problem: in the beginning was the poetic age, but what goes around comes around. the doctor diagnosed the disease as hypertrophy of the senses and prescribed the strengthening of the intellect. but what goes around comes around. the doctor diagnosed the disease as hypertrophy of the intellect and prescribed the strengthening of the feeling of power. the ancients didn't have this sense. It grew out of the intellect. again what what goes around comes around. the doctor refuses to prescribe a remedy until they can rejoice in the knowledge that everything goes around and comes around, until they can cure themselves.
I learn much from this talk that intellectual talk is not only benefited to talkers, universal well-being is concerned, so I have revere to these people ^^
Jonathan Pageau’s course
"Symbolism & Christianity" as well as my courses, are available at petersonacademy.com
Absolutely love you Jonathan... Thank you for doing God's work
😆
I did the course. It was amazing. Looking at xmas trees, altars, having dinner, and doing worship (especially being a part of the worship team) has heightened my awareness of how important they are and what it is we are actually doing. As well, made me think of the symbol(s) of marital relationships. BTW, when's the exam????
Suffering will ultimately drive us to either shake our fists at God or throw our arms around Him.
Jonathan is such a generous man. Jordan now uses Pageau’s concepts so often that he repeats them to the man himself and Jonathan never says ‘yes Jordan that’s an argument I first made to you years ago’ 😆
He is brilliant and very humble.
They both work for the good of people.
There is a depth of concept in matteau and jonathan that sharing it does not reduce what they have, but helps to expand it.
@marcschaeffer1584 That what l think, too.
I'm very thankfully to both gentelmen.
It helps what l think to expand.
Both brilliant and humble!
@marcschaeffer1584 Unfortunately Dawkins learned to think in a way which reduces concepts.
Why do reality must be constrained to the limits of one's thinking process which is reductionistic in a sense that it serves survival and it blinds us?
I think Pageau is quite happy... If pageau ideas wasnt smart/comon sense enough jordan would not have taken them... If a friend of you addopt your beliefs in some aspects it is because you convince him (by tslking or living them) that it a good one and Peterson is quite a good observer an listener
These two care for each other deeply, it's plain to see. What an honour and a privilege to be witness to this conversation. Praise God.
Taking your psychology class when I was in university is something I am always proud of. I am deeply grateful that God personally met you and He is using your life to proclaim His words. Hallelujah! God is good. Please keep up the great work, Dr. Peterson. You are in my prayers.
I feel the same way…sometimes I think God sent him to save the spirit of humanity from being demonized as much as he can…God bless him…
@@Pari991-y3ovb
I wish I had been so blessed!
@Cryharder-k2d One of the unfortunate symptoms of a highly specialized world.
@Cryharder-k2dand what you are exhibiting is called resentment.
I wished I had a friend to whom I could talk about deep and meaningful topics like these two gentlemen do.
Pray
Do you live in Ohio?
@@Nicholas_Powell no, in Germany
I have had two strokes one on the left and one on the right and I listen to Dr. Peterson because it helps stimulate my brain.
Very common situation for people who are still Peterson fans
Unless I misunderstood @paradise745, they have left a very odd reply. I'm glad you find value in Dr. Peterson-thank you for sharing. I'm sorry that you have to deal with crass, insensitive comments whilst having to cope with substantial suffering in your life. God bless x
@@adrbaz thank you. I don’t let people offend me. I only worry about what God thinks of me.
@@paradise745 and yet here you are not only watching but scrolling through the comments. Bless your heart ❤️🩹
@@annawaugerman I’m glad :). Take care x
Don't have another talk with Dawkins without having Pageau with you, Dr. Peterson.
Lol. We’ll have him soon 😅
Not sure it would help. He's profoundly unwilling to accept the symbolic nature of human is anything but random chance. He literally doesn't believe in meaning as such.
@DrJordanB.Peterson Let's go! 😎
Fantastic advice 😃
Would love to see a round table with Dawkins, O'Conner, Peterson, and Pageau. Who would the 5th be?
I am sorry to hear about your loss Jordan. My deepest heartfelt condolences ❤
What happened?
@@3ethel318 He mentioned that both his parents passed away this year.
Jonathan is perhaps one of my favorite human beings out there.
Whenever I hear Jonathan Pageau speak, it always feels as if he's not quite a part of our world. He's like a monk of times long past who has touched a piece of God and has begun transcending our mortal coil.
He's really one of the most insightful people around. It's incredible how clearly he can see what's really going on.
Those ancient monks are still with us today. More than 18 monasteries have been founded in the last century right here in the US
And note that he never takes credit for the wisdom. The glory always goes to God. His gift is oratory and he uses it to try and teach others to see. Cool guy for sure.
Eastern Orthodox Christianity, my brother. Look into it! Those monks are alive and real throughout the world today.
You gotta listen to his brother too. I really wish they did more together in public.
Jordan gets better with age. He is like a learning machine with a big loving heart. The information he sums up for us is infinite fundamentally complicated and i am forever grateful. I can't wait to hear what he has to say 10 years from now.
I remember a certain Nick Matte asking him: "Are you open to learning?"
Respectfully, I disagree. He has faltered since his breakdown challenge.
I saw him in person just prior to this period, hearing and seeing him with your ears and eyes, you could see the cracks.
The way he has responded to his challenge is not in kind to how he has liked to preach.
Personally, seeing his arc has been a lesson in not putting people on a pedestal.
the big question for me is why the church has become so poor at explaining these stories to us, when they are so rich in meaning?
Because this knowledge is unknown to them. That's the biggest mistake religious people make, to assume that the "church" understands the bible, they don't in most of the cases, being a father, priest or what not, is not based on whether they have the knowledge, they're put in those positions for other reasons completely different from those of sharing God's message.
And it doesn't happen just in religions, it happens in work places, companies, governments etc. Ineptitude permeates human groups.
That's the main message of Christ, he was against the church, and taught people to search the truth for themselves, it's written right there in the gospels, the kingdom of heaven is already within you, just waiting for you to discover it, Don't search for it outside.
@@juniperstardust5549god forgive you for your blasphemy, Mathew 16:18, Mark 16:15, read this and See, that Jesus Christ has done the opposite
They haven't. Nearly all of Jonathan's wisdom comes from the church.
People just don't want to become Orthodox.
Which church? The churches that are attached to tradition usually haven’t forgotten. The newer churches unfortunately have
I think people previously just lived these stories, they were naturally part of life. so explaining them was not necessary, it has become necessary because of post modernism and atheism I think. This is just relatively new and as a protsentant I think most churches have not been able to deal with this and tried to conform to the worldly order instead of building the Kingdom of Heaven.
Oh! well this should be interesting.
Hurray for PVK!
Looking forward to your analysis.
THE OG OF THE INTERNET PASTOR GAME
🌝🍿
Glad to hear Jonathan is an architect of ARC. Having people who clearly have 0 desire for power behind things like that is very important.
I love it when you two get together. Your friendship is so obvious and you are so comfortable with each other that you build on each other and go to new heights of thought and philosophy. Love it!
Dr. Peterson. I had no idea (of course I wouldn’t) that you lost both your parents this year. I had three funerals, separately, within a couple of months. Death’s poetic hand touches us all during those times and I am so sorry for your losses.
The Brothers Pageau, especially Jonathan, are/is so underrated it's painful.
mathieu is much more underrated than jon. i love em both tho
I've listened to the Dawkins conversation six times. So much misunderstanding could have been avoided if Dr Peterson had opened with the idea that an archetype is a meme that has been genetically assimilated via the Baldwin effect, which is the point of agreement that they reached at the very end.
I really believe in the depths of my soul that a follow-up conversation needs to occur picking up on this point of agreement. The interdisciplinary implications could be huge. It seemed to really help the flow and progression of the conversation when Dr Peterson started to formulate his ideas and arguments in Dr Dawkins' terms.
If either of the dear doctors read this, please try and make a follow-up conversation happen, and Dr Peterson, it may really help the conversation if you try to explain your Maps of Meaning theory in Dawkins' terms. This may open him up to the value of story and myth from an evolutionary perspective.
If he were to accept that the thesis underlying Maps of Meaning is true, it could really go a long way toward resolving the meaning crisis.
With the utmost respect and admiration for you both,
David
Dawkins is always being intentionally obtuse so he doesn't accidentally absorb any information. Just in case it could be the evidence for things he disagrees with.
Yes, I think Peterson missed an opportunity here. Before doing the biblical series, Peterson had a much bigger emphasis on using evolutionary explanations for his ideas.
I think that’s a much better space to start in with Dawkins then to try and impress him with bible stories.
I am worried that Dawkins always understood Peterson, he just refuses to acknowledge Peterson’s whole point.
I am no genius, but the first time I heard a Peterson talk, I knew exactly what he was talking about, and without anyone talking about it, I instantly connected the idea of archetype with Dawkins idea of a meme.
I thought. “This is exactly what Dawkins is missing!!!”
It is so difficult for me to believe that someone as intelligent as Dawkins actually could not understand what Peterson was talking about.
“Drunk on symbols” is such a stupid thing to say.
Yeah I hear....although I will say that also seems to reinforce the other that Dawkins seem just SO closed off to other ways of thinking that, until you start to use his terms, language and perspective, you're bashing your head against a brick wall. Like....for most of the conversation it felt like, for me, he just had no idea AT ALL about where Peterson was coming from. It was like Peterson was talking another language to him.
Yes but her won't. Peterson never ever ever will. He is drunk on symbolism and thinks the world needs to bounce to his ball. JP can't and will not play anyone else's game. He is incapable, just like he is incapable of recognizing He is the king of postmodernism. What do you me by God? And comes up with the biggest world salad imaginable
Remember, Richard Dawkins is not the enemy. He asked to be called Richard. He doesn't want to give up his belief easily, but if he can see and understand a different perspective, he could become a great ally.
He’s actually not capable. He has to be autistic. That’s the only explanation. Unless he somehow managed to squeak through higher education on the strength of nepotism and an 85 IQ.
Richie is overhyped.
@@jefffeathers9116”tea and crumpets”… how cringe. yet another idiotic american i see
Dawkins has had lifetimes worth of knowledge and wisdom extended to him and he still refuses transcendental truth. The only thing that'll change his heart and mind is an experience of God's grace but Dawkins wont humble himself enough to accept it.
Mr Dawkins is a legend! God bless him
Best explanation of the problem of the sacrifice of Isaac from Jonathan that I have heard. This is not just an academic conversation. It is a an urgent message of the human fate or future….
In a warmly lit room lined with books, Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Pageau sit across from an empty chair, waiting. Suddenly, the door opens, and in walks C.S. Lewis, his presence warm and inviting, as if he had just stepped from another world.
After introductions, the three settle in, eager to discuss the concept of “myth becoming fact” - the idea that in Jesus, the grand archetypes and myths of humanity became historical reality.
Lewis: (leaning forward, smiling warmly) I’m thrilled to speak with you both about this. When I first came to see Christianity as “myth become fact,” it struck me like a thunderbolt. It’s an idea that can seem strange at first but holds immense power if understood correctly.
Peterson: (nodding thoughtfully) Yes, I’ve wrestled with that concept myself. Myth, in a Jungian sense, touches universal patterns of the psyche. Yet the notion that a myth could break into historical reality - that’s something I’ve struggled with. It’s hard to imagine the archetypal becoming concrete.
Lewis: (smiling gently) Precisely, Jordan. That’s where the beauty of Christianity lies - it doesn’t dismiss myth as mere fiction. Instead, it says, “Here, finally, is the myth you’ve been longing for, made real.” Every ancient story, every longing of the human heart, culminates in this event. In Christ, we find that God speaks not only through symbols but also in history. The Logos entered the world - myth became flesh, you might say.
Pageau: (leaning in, eyes bright) And that’s why symbolism is so vital in Christianity. Christ fulfills what every other story and symbol points toward. In him, we see the highest archetypes - the sacrificial hero, the conquering king, the suffering servant - all in one.
Lewis: Indeed, Jonathan. The ancient myths contained fragments of truth, shadows of a reality beyond our grasp. Consider how so many cultures have tales of gods who die and rise, heroes who sacrifice for others. These stories are like echoes of a great truth. In Christ, these echoes are harmonized into a symphony. What was once shadow became substance. I remember saying to Tolkien once that Christianity is “true myth” - a myth that happened in time and space.
Peterson: (thinking deeply) It’s an audacious claim. Myths are timeless, bound by the human psyche. Yet you’re saying that in Jesus, something unique happened. But Lewis, why should we believe that this myth - Christianity - uniquely crossed from the realm of the archetypal into the literal?
Lewis: A fair question, Jordan. Let’s consider this: myths satisfy something deep within us because they resonate with our innermost longings. When I first encountered the Gospel, I felt a similar resonance but with a twist - here was a myth that wasn’t only like our myths but that claimed to be true. As I read, it struck me: here was a story that, if true, would mean that our longing was not in vain. It would mean that history itself has meaning, not as a series of random events but as the unfolding of God’s purpose.
Pageau: So, in Jesus, you believe we see not just an archetype or symbol but the actualization of all human longing. We’re no longer talking in abstractions, but in the particular - a human life, a historical death, a physical resurrection.
Lewis: Precisely, Jonathan! If this story is true, then everything changes. We don’t only long for transcendence; we find it. We don’t only hope for redemption; it’s offered to us. It means that our lives aren’t just fragments but are woven into a grand narrative. In Jesus, God enters time and shares our suffering, transforms it, and invites us to participate in his victory over death.
Peterson: (sighing, his voice intense) There’s something undeniably powerful in that. Humanity’s deepest stories have always revolved around suffering, sacrifice, and redemption. But the idea of God stepping into our world - experiencing suffering and even death - that elevates suffering itself to something that can be redeemed, doesn’t it?
Lewis: Yes, it does. And that’s the heart of it, Jordan. If God could only exist as an abstraction, he could not truly meet us in our pain. But if he becomes one of us, he validates our suffering by sharing in it. This, I believe, is what distinguishes Christianity. It doesn’t deny the horror of suffering but says that God himself has taken it upon himself, that even death itself can be transformed. The resurrection of Christ is the ultimate proof that love is more powerful than death.
Pageau: (quietly) So myth, then, is God’s way of preparing us for reality. In Jesus, myth is revealed not just as allegory but as the deepest truth of all.
Lewis: Exactly. The beauty of Christianity is that it fulfills every longing embedded in human myths, yet it also challenges every expectation. It’s too wild, too astonishing to be something we would invent on our own. No human could imagine a God who conquers not through strength but through humility, who brings life by dying. This is why I believe it’s true, Jordan. Because in every way, it’s beyond our invention.
Peterson: (almost whispering) There’s something in that - a story that is both greater than any other and yet precisely what we most need to hear. And if, as you say, it’s true… then it’s not only myth. It’s a reality that demands a response.
Lewis: Indeed, Jordan. If Jesus is real - if the Word became flesh and dwelt among us - then we are standing on holy ground. It’s an invitation to join the story that is not only ours but all of creation’s, the story that calls us to surrender, to trust, to follow this God who became man. He doesn’t ask us to escape suffering but promises to transform it and, ultimately, to bring us into glory.
The three men fall silent, the weight of the conversation lingering in the air. Each one, in his own way, feels the grandeur and challenge of the claim before them - that in Jesus, myth became fact, and history was forever changed.
Write a book please
Most impressive youtube comment I’ve ever read.
I can't believe I've just read this in a UA-cam comment. Love as myth coming true in actuality transforms even this place.
Truly how grand it would be to have such great minds converse.
Amazing comment
I’m so grateful that I started to have kids at the perfect time to have these stories for them. Literally everything Jonathan writes, I’m buying. Period.
That was an incredible explanation of the Abraham and Isaac story. It’s definitely something I’ve “wrestled” with for a long time. I thank God for the understanding now.
In a new conversation with Dawkins, Jonathan Pageau should participate because he doesn't start with Bible stories. To a materialist like Dawkins, you have to explain from the bottom up - first patterns in everyday life, then on a cosmic scale. Dawkins needs to be made even more aware that he too is ‘drunk on symbolism’, as he calls it. If you break the world down into elementary particles, there is no longer any difference between the parts of a lion and those of a coffee cup or a car or a chair or the moon. These are categories of human perception that bind multiplicity into unity. No tree, no stone, no mountain and no river on this earth contains the earth as a whole and yet the planet earth exists as a whole. Dawkins considers the lion to be a pure fact and the dragon to be a pure fairy tale, although the ‘lionishness’ of the lion is not contained in any of its individual parts. The unity we call "lion" is symbolic.
Beautiful well said.
Well said. Dawkins problem is that he doesn't want to move from the level of abstraction or meaning he is at. He's oblivious that symbolism and meaning is inevitable, that even his views exist under that context.
Once you understand what Jonathan Pageau is talking about, you can move between levels of abstraction, from the atom, where a lion and a cup are indistinguishable, to the idea of living beings, where the atom has little importance but the lion and cup are distinguished.
@@DoubleOhSilver It isn't well said. It is woo-woo that reeks of armchair mental masturbation from people who either don't really want to know reality, or are deeply invested in denying it because of their ideology (most here, it is religious dogma). Peterson has become a crank peddling word salad.
The simple fact that most of you reduce Dawkin's to "materialist reductionist", as you all seem to call it (parroting Peterson), down to atoms shows how truly ignorant your understanding of reality is. There is an emergence of complexity and systems at every stratification of reality. The whole thing of placing significance on symbolism, like it has meaning beyond the "meta" bullshit in our heads, is laughable.
Go make something, go truly interact with reality...not just in your heads. And you will understand that the lion and the cup are not just the idea of living beings.
Bunch of clowns.
I would love to know more about ARC and the projects you mentioned it's beautiful I'm deeply moved and wholeheartedly warmed by such selfless and humbling movements
Just type arc conference peterson and you can find a video of it in London I think.. there's a website as well
Do you think Jordan enjoys speaking with Pageau? Haha I always love when these two come together.
absolutely, they both think very similarly too, and they're very close friends
They're best buddies
I don't know wtf they're talking about but I'm here for it
welcome to the party!
😂
Psychomotor kicks🦶🏽
Lol I hear you 🤣 me too
Hang in there! These two fine gentlemen do a great job explaining the REAL point of humanity and this short journey each person has on this planet ❤
Bless you Jordan, truly it has been magical to watch your journey to Christ in the last 5 years. He and I love you.
Jonathan always brings depth!
I'm sorry for your loss, Doctor. I'm grateful that your parents could precipitate your creation🙏
Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, you provide so many deep insights! I just want to thank you for helping to explain the symbolism of the Bible
Dawkins was passive aggressive and not conversing in good faith. Dawkins wants to shunt any conversation into a science-vs-religion debate, and act as if Jordan was there only to "impress him" so he can gleefully decline to be "impressed".
Vices blind us, in a manner we can start saying things that reveals our defects without noticing, while other people will notice.
And Alex O'connor was the worst mediator ever.
He would summarise everything Jordan said into a "so you don't know?". There was zero attempt to understand what Jordan is saying cannot be reduced to "yes" "no" or "I don't know", but those were the answers they were looking for. They didn't want an actual dialogue, just gotcha moments. Its embarassing.
But they are British men, and as someone currently stuck on this disillusioned wasteland of an island, I'm way too familiar with the British aversion to any deep discussion of religion. White British males in particular are seemingly allergic to all Christianity related discussion. Unless they are accusing the church of something of course...
I wouldn't say he acted in bad faith. (To see bad faith, look at Destiny, man.) I think he's just comfortable in a very rigid box of 'That which is 100% proven'. He values certainty. And it's _really hard_ to get people like that to step out of their comfort zone and accept that, sometimes you have to be a pioneer and check out ideas which may have only a 90%, a 70%, a 30% or even a 1% chance. That's where science happens, in those places where we wander into the unknown and let whatever happens happens.
He was good faith. You are just too dug into the trenches.
@@nomoresunforever3695 Dawkins was holding to his truth. It just took exactly the right argument for Jordan to reach him that, 'What I'm talking about is just another form of what you value too.'
Y'know, it's kinda like how, if you discover some weird new scientific principle, you can do the math to figure out why it works. But in the short-term, you can also come up with a metaphor for what's going on, a story, that conveys the general principle to people, so you can start making *use* of that principle, without having to 100% understand it first.
this video literally came in the perfect moment in my life, love you
Thank you gentlemen for letting us listen in!
I'm sorry for your loss, Jordan. May your parents rest in peace with God and Jesus Christ.
This episode is a pure gem after quite a bad one with Dawkins.
Would be great to see Seraphim Hamilton or Jay Dyer on this podcast, discussing religion.
This is one of my favorite conversations. Thank you!
Dr. Jordan Peterson, thank you very much for this, all the other conversations, lectures and speeches that you have freely provided us. May God give you health, wisdom, guidance and happiness.
I have one REQUEST, can you have a conversation with Dr. Thomas Sowell?
This is Jordan Peterson at his best. I could listen to this type of conversation every day. We are too stuck in our time through the scientific revolution to only see material concrete reality as the only reality as opposed to the phenomenological experience we have of life. We are desperately in need to reconnect with the symbolic because it’s the only thing which provides life with value and meaning. I think a big part of depression and mental disorders, brainwashing of people with bad ideologies comes down to the sterility and boredom we feel for not being in touch with meaning and value. The value of this work is it redeems for modern people the validity of these stories, a different sort of religion (religion=re-connection) with the divine, injecting meaning once again into life and the possibility of progress in human culture which has been has created to be creative.
Absolutely beautiful to see us embrace our culture. This is precisely the kind of thing that’s going to save us from ourselves
One of the most attractive things in the world is listening to people's lies and discovering the truth. isn't it?
Jonathan brings an interesting perspective.
You know I just seen your university website and I was amazed by what you offer. So to see that you offer it at such an amazing price is truly such a blessing. I really appreciate what you’re doing and to have some of the brightest minds from such renowned universities is unbelievably brilliant to say the least. I look forward to December when I enrol
Im here to say become Orthodox. If you think the Bible stories seem deep when Jordan talks about them then you'll be blown away by the writings of the saints.
Totally !
Someone tell me why Jonathan Pageau is so gooooooood?😅😅😅 He is by far one of the best friends of Dr. Peterson, I like him the best😅
I’m interested in the Dawkins conversation but can’t quite watch it so I’m glad a couple of people with more common ground are discussing it!
Yea, can't stand an 70 yo atheist that isn't open to anything and would say that aliens are messing with him if he sees "I am God trust in me" on the sky.
He's a "this is no evidence" machine that can't comprehend a complex subject in its' true depth.
It's pretty much a long slog of Richard thinking in pure scientific certainties, and Jordan trying to reach him that, just because we haven't 100% quantified all this archetype stuff yet, doesn't mean it's not real. If you can, skip to like the last half hour. I think it's Dawkins that brings up the Baldwin Effect: a known scientific process by which a species' behavior can turn into genetics over generations. That's the point where Jordan's able to meet Dawkins on his turf, and Dawkins' eyes just light up. It's so, so heartwarming seeing the two of them finally understand each other.
When Peterson says "there is no perception independent of action, and no action independent of motivation", while I am not challenging the assessment, I would like to read more about the ideas. Does anyone have any references or names to look up to read more? Thanks.
It has been my pleasure to give up my time and my attention to this conversation ❤
What a wonderful discourse of hope and meaning. Thank you gentlemen, in particular for noticing that our reality is downstream from the resurrection.
Haven't seen the Pageaus on the show for a bit. Great job getting Jonathan back on.
And congratulations to Jordan for a successful endorsement of Trump and the X-Men! Bravo!
I would watch a weekly podcast with those 2 guys.
In fact their conversation titeled'" The perfect mode of beeing" is one of the best podcasts ive ever seen.
At 1:05:53, Dr Peterson candidly says that both his parents died this year. I didn't get to this part before I posted my first comment. My condolences to you and your family, sir. The fact you have achieved so much this year while suffering such a loss is extremely admirable.
Jonathan needs to find some international distribution partners for his publishing. Right now it's prohibitively expensive to buy the books from his store because of shipping prices.
And translators!
Such a good conversation. Pageau is always informative, interesting, and pleasant.
Can't wait to listen to this, i felt the conversation with Dawkins showed Dawkins blind spots, so was a little frustrating, but did further highlight Petersons genius and generosity of spirit, always massively thankful ❤️🙏
Fascinating exploration and conversation. I am especially connected to the depth explored on sacrifice. Thank you
Have you thought about inviting Dr NT Wright? It would be so good!!!
This episode was one of the best i've ever seen. It was a great journey.
I would love if Jonathan Pageau could finish his thoughts with no interuptions 😅
Much respect and love! God bless
No tengo palabras para explicar lo enriquecedora que fue esta conversación
Jonathan always gets at the essentials for me.
Love this convo! Though, we need a Beyond Pageau episode where Pageau completes his thoughts that Peterson interrupted. :P
Ever since the Exodus table i have really appreciated Jonathan. I look forward to this new book. The cover is beautifully illustrated. December is a month of great reading.
In defense of Dawkins, I must admit that the question "but did it really happen?", at least where the resurrection is concerned, is of fundamental importance. As Paul said, if Christ is not risen, then our (the Christian) faith is vanity.
Both of these grifters know this, but answering that in a straightforward manner would piss off their payor base and hurt their wallet. So they speak in ridiculous symbolism and word salad.
I think there's a less cynical way to approach the topic that admits the possibility that JBP's evasiveness is not just grift but authentically engaging with what we consider in Christianity to be "mystery".
From what I saw in the Dawkins conversation, there was a lot of focus on specifically on the Virgin Birth. In Catholicism and Orthodox there's a tradition of talking about Mary as Virgin "during" Christ's birth, so there is intended to be a deep meaning to what we say by virginity that's more than just the status of the hymen.
I think JBP's unwillingness to articulate the specifics of that is in theory perfectly consonant with a (small o) orthodox understanding of the Virgin Birth, and I think his perspective on Resurrection is the same. Of course it is possible he is just grifting but I personally don't think that's necessarily the case
@@lukeminton-schwarzmanschol1943 I suppose my cynicism stems from me doubtful that he would be so”mysterious” in dealing with any other religion. If asked if a miracle in the Koran or Book of Mormon or any other text “really occurred”, my bet is he’d get to the point. Unless that religion was predominant one in his locale and he knew he’d lose money by being honest and straightforward.
@ Yes - but "mystery" has a specific purpose in Catholicism and Orthodoxy that isn't present in any other religion, so perhaps for that reason alone I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. In the NT and in the Catholic Mass for example there is an explicit mention of "the mystery of faith" (τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως) and the Eucharist as well is mentioned by Paul (and contemporary non-Christian sources) to be very baffling to non Christians, so it is not out of bounds for Christianity. For both LDS and Islam (which do have a lot of similarities in how they were "revealed") I would agree he would be less mysterious but both of those religious traditions are a lot more explicit about what the fundamental interpretations of their "theophanies" consist of
@ So I get your point but for what it's worth he has also drawn the distinction between Catholicism/Orthodoxy and Protestantism where he has mentioned the latter as being much more dependent on an "axiomatic" acceptance of certain faith statements
Blessings from Montreal Canada
I would love to see these guys dissect the Stormlight Chronicles.
Stormlight archive?
@ Archives! My bad. Yes, examining Kaladin’s heroic arc would be awesome.
I love reading the comments on this video. You guys are my people!
Very interested in Pageau's publication, in the many ideas and conversation topics as well as how Christianity, mythology, and psychology intersect. Thank you for the video. Can't wait for my preorder of We Who Wrestle With God arrives!
Beautiful conversation
Jordan only loves his family more than he Loves Jonathan.
Hello , “ghetto” Hermetic American negro here. I’ve returned from desert, Independently studying and mediating here and there. I enjoyed the conversation (stopped at 31:37) realizing at that specified point that you’ve entered the realm of analytical thinking. It was through Hermeticism I learned that everything in the universe before creation has an origin coupled with motivation. Which reveals the question of “WHO’s!?”
I’ve learned a lot from Jung as well
But you’ve played your part in this cosmic dynamic of mine. (“Exposed” by my response)
The fool , the jester , the joker , the trickster.
It was you who revealed the fundamentals
I’m furthering my education and hope my ignorance teaches me a great deal BEFORE I am able to “properly” teach others . Thanks man , good luck.
The insight on sacrifice, aim/purpose and sense of ownership or personal interest is insanely beneficial to understand. It can be extrapolated to almost everything, just as Pageau said.
Praise Jesus 🙏♥️
re: Jonathan talking about honoring stories instead of acting like you're above them.
This makes me feel better about when Little Me would write fanfictions based on my favorite shows. I'd read lots of other people's stories and knew what a Mary Sue was, even if I didn't know the term. Same for grimdark depression-fests. So I wrote my stories as a *gift* to the characters that comforted me. I made an OC, and I wanted him to never outshine the heroes. He was there to help. I wanted to help my heroes.
Terima kasih.
For the good of all humanity, have more conversations with Dawkins. For the good of us all.
Thank God these talks exist
I love hearing John Vervaeke's neo-platonic influence on Jonathan 😊
Phenomenal conversation. I get what Jordan says when he says, "You have to sacrifice your child to the world." But I think it's better said by something like, "You have to sacrifice your role as the child's world to the world itself."
Have you really moved beyond Dawkins if Dawkins insists he can't see you or the back of your head as evidence, in front of him?
I trust Jordan as long as he doesn't forget that he could be wrong about anything he believes in. I trust that he's strong enough for it
137
Jesus first resurrected in a man full of love, then He died on the cross to prove that you do everything for love, even you give your life for love. He showed us the only right way to live, living for Love. S. N. L.
*re: Jordan talking about how the spirit of Cain leads to resentment of life, being, and God.* I've always wondered what happens if you go *_past_* that though. Because I'm thinking also of what Jordan's said about how, sometimes if you go deep enough into the abyss, you find the light at the end of the tunnel. What if you could start with the knowledge of, 'I will not make anyone else's life worse, no matter how deep down I go.' My discovery is that, if you _fully_ investigate all that is wrong with life, you begin to understand _why_ things are as they are, and then you develop a respect for God as a craftsman.
"....... My discovery is that, if you fully investigate all that is wrong with life, you begin to understand why things are as they are, and then you develop a respect for God as a craftsman."
This is also confirmed by my experience.
The Dr Dawkins discussion. Jordan understands his world view - basic evolutionary framework - but Jordan has long left that simple novice framework long behind and elevated to a world where the 2 can barely communicate. Passing on different tracks so to speak. Different wave lengths…… unfortunately Dr Dawkins has not moved beyond the trenches.
He’s done more than enough over his career to prove himself “beyond the trenches”
@@benjamincatling5827 yes that is fine to defend him. With respect to his place on the spectrum of things, he has not risen beyond the evolutionary biological basics - and sees the world entirely through that lens and is unable to communicate on a different plane - except for example in some of his talks and his writings, when under the authority / guise of “science’’ he sidetracks and delves into the philosophical belief realm to attack ideologies that differ from his own. If you don’t like the “trenches” word analogy, I am happy to hear better suggestions.
Dawkins is too rigid.
@@antbrown9066 "If you don’t like the “trenches” word analogy, I am happy to hear better suggestions."
How about "Just a scientific mind that doesn't entertain the religious idiots trying to cope with their nonsense in an increasingly scientifically literate world."
@@GoogleIsNotYourFriend that is a somewhat superior way of making a point about Dawkins. I understand the sentiment. However, as it suits him - he diverts into philosophical beliefs and claims in an attempt to discredit philosophical positions that do not align with his own. So despite wandering the trenches, he occasionally peers out to shoot at something he believed was there.
Is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus a tragedy or comedy? I love Tolkien's term; it's a euchatastrophy -- the deepest low and the highest high, encapsulated in one moment.
Dawkins questions were also very important and they needed to be addressed
The individualism which flowed out of “Protestantism” is exactly what leads to the ability to truly reach that “higher order” of being called love. If the individual’s dignity is not expressed then it cannot offer itself freely in service to others and that higher order.
I knew Doc would come back with some shade I love it. It’s like rappers battling.
It’s fascinating that the more we discover about the humans and being in general, the more we see beauty AND brokenness.
At every level we see glimpses of the beauty but we also see how that went wrong when we fell.
Good evening Jordan and Jonathan
Wonderful shared conversation.
Thank you for your and indeed my sensemaking brain gym.
A surprising dance with a team that recognise sharing knowledge experience and wisdom is truly supportive and conveys a sense of caring, very much required. In short! Unbelievably thin on the ground in the wee world that surrounds me currently.
Truly grateful for story and to you both.
💜
the Story of Hannah is about her begging God for a Son so that she could give him to God and his work. Thank you Gentlemen for your time in sharing your great knowledge to the masses 🤩💜❤🌲🌴
It's absolutely wonderful to transition from Dawkins to this space! 😃 The more I hear you speak, Dr. Peterson, the more I seek to understand your views on The One True Living God, YHWH. It does puzzle me at times how you refer to God's word as myth, but only you and Him truly know your faith in HIM! In Christ, our Lord and Savior. I pray for you as you share the TRUTH of scripture with those who may be hard to reach!
This is incredibly powerful stuff. I marvel at their ability to derive true, valuable and practically applicable meaning to concepts that were opaque to me.
The choice in life is between power and truth, Cain and Abel, hell and heaven, life and death.
"We can transform the nature of our being without dying." I wish that thought had been worked through.
Just means that we can let ideas die in a similar form as natural selection. But is just the ideas and not us as it is in evolution.
Thank you both for a wonderful discussion as always. You are two amazingly brilliant gentlemen.
At the very end something piqued my interest and causes me to post this. Is sharing food uniquely human? I’m not aware of any scientific studies but I have owned pets and have been in a family which owned pets for many years (I’m 55, so I think it’s fair for me to suggest that I have a good amount of life experience). We had one dog who would drag their stuffed animal buddy and purposely put the stuffed animal’s face in the food and water bowls. Also our current 2 cats very obviously share food. Now, I will bring up something important. I dare say my wife and I are loving pet owners who provide abundantly for our beloved cats, meaning they always have more than enough food, treats, and water. So my question is, if resources were scarce, would their gracious attitude remain? I tend to think “no”, but it is interesting to think about. Sure, human sharing is also situational, but I do believe that even under tight resource constraints, humans *can* have the propensity to put loving relationships above petty squabbling
Why would you have national debates with people about a subject you clearly know nothing about. Professor dawkins thinks he knows the bible, without taking anytime to make sure he understands it properly. He may be very smart, not very wise.
Dawkins is pre-programmed to scream : "this is no evidence" "you cannot take this as evidence". That's all he does
I'm looking forward to Jordans new book.
summary of our problem:
in the beginning was the poetic age, but what goes around comes around.
the doctor diagnosed the disease as hypertrophy of the senses and prescribed the strengthening of the intellect. but what goes around comes around.
the doctor diagnosed the disease as hypertrophy of the intellect and prescribed the strengthening of the feeling of power. the ancients didn't have this sense. It grew out of the intellect.
again what what goes around comes around.
the doctor refuses to prescribe a remedy until they can rejoice in the knowledge that everything goes around and comes around, until they can cure themselves.
That first ad was good. I got sucked in & didn’t fast forward til the end 😂
I learn much from this talk that intellectual talk is not only benefited to talkers, universal well-being is concerned, so I have revere to these people ^^