@@taliaeve969 I understand he wants to dispel what he calls the Western conception of the word belief. But at the same time he can come off as a sophist, overcomplicating things he fully understands the meaning of. It seems his mind is naturally highly logical and cannot break those logical structures for the common person. Paul had his number in my opinion, “Claiming to be wise, they became fools”
What are games 34? 35:18 what does that mean when we add words to fit the narrative what does that word mean? Meme. I take truth as a testimony to the truth, the channel Truth is Christ then the 1611, 1612, 1769 English Translation to the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary and the correct word of God is truth. 🤝🌞👍 KJV STRONG LMG AND THE WORD TO LOOK UP IS PHILANTHROPY BEFOREHAND THE WORDS ARE IMPORTANT, Rev 22;18,19 stuff. What Bible we don’t study and study dictate the bloodlines. 🤫🏳️💙👈🎚️🔥🆙🎵🌞🕊️
But he really doesn't. His commonly-stated slavery objection is a purely emotional argument, quote mining for the worst sounding passage about slavery while ignoring all the context about what that word means in the Bible. He plays at biting the bullet when it comes to morality, saying it's illusory, while being an "ethical vegan" as if that should means anything according to his worldview. He borrows meaning and morality from a theistic worldview to prop up a deterministic, materialistic atheism in which meaning and morality are, by his own admission, nonexistent. He needs a philosophy course.
@@owensullivan252Theistic worldviews didn’t invent meaning and morality. They borrowed everything they espoused from other ideas had simultaneously by everyone else alive on the planet that had thoughts in their heads. It would be a strange thing indeed if atheist and theist morality wasn’t mostly aligned because we all live together in societies. I think you are just a bitter person that doesn’t like when people don’t believe exactly what You believe and should probably take a course in humility.
We need more people like Alex - I've only just found him but wow. Amazing to have someone who can challenge beliefs intelligently without being rude whatsoever. It seems like an exceedingly rare skill these days.
Bruh... English is my first language and I only understand like 30% of these podcasts lol Congrats tho! It is a privilege to be able to listen to these and understand somewhat.
Same here, I'm glad I started watching movies in English when I was 8 and started reading English books while in college, gives me an advantage over my monolingual friends 😂
The best thing about this conversation is that it’s the oldest debate in the book. It’s Plato vs Aristotle. Peterson represents Plato’s style of theological, spiritual and artistic thinking whereas O’Connor represents Aristotle’s scientific, logical and technological school of thought. Such a great conversation between two extremely intelligent individuals.
@@24toofast Maybe commenter indeed finds him incoherent, and you could disagree and even question directly instead of adscribe motivation to others. Jumping to a corporate defense of daddy while insinuating ideological motivation on the other part is, well, lazy and hypocritical. If you read the comments, you'll find a lot of people agreeing on the fact that Peterson positions are-deliberately or not-convoluted and sometimes incoherent. The fact that this conversation is considered by lots to finally elucidate some of his positions, after years of him being in the spotlight, suggest that either he's not communicating his ideas efficiently (like some Peterson less vitriolic apologists like to argue) or that he is indeed trying to weasel out giving a clear answer (as most of his detractors would point out). So regardless you love or hate him, maybe don't be so triggered my dude.
@@symboland That's fair, but from my perspective that is usually the case. The use of daddy tells me you're an athiest that says skydaddy a lot? 🥱 So this was partially you offering advice and partially you filling your own ego and getting jabs in. Breaking down conversation by saying triggered lol. I do agree Peterson could weasel out of things. I haven't watched a full video in a while. I'm open to differing views. Even Alex isn't the "be all end all" and dare I say arrogant. Hitchens was arrogant as well, but Alex is much more intelligent and argues better. Gee wilikers
@@24toofast I accept that maybe referring to Peterson as "daddy" was petty, and I apologize. Let me be sincere: I'm tired of Peterson and his fans' usual apologetics, so I read your message and lashed out. I shouldn't have assumed you are a fan of his, though. I ascribed motive to you by thinking you were emotionally defending Peterson, as you ascribed motives to OP and then to me with the whole "atheist skydaddy" thing-a word I didn't write and can assure you I've never said in my life. English is not my first language and I think the whole "skydaddy" schtick is a little cringe. So I'm pretty sure about that. I'm sorry for being spicy and petty. Still, you don't think your original comment is insightful, right? So maybe we could both do better? Cheers. Have a nice one.
I’m a Christian who appreciates Alex’s line of questioning and explanation here. Jordan seems to know what his religious audience is asking and still refuses to answer their questions on their terms. Alex does a good job of pressing Peterson on this.
I've come away with much less respect for Peterson. His conception is of God is obviously a synthetic one and he's pretending he is describing the God of the Bible.
@@Todd_Thinks I am inclined to agree. I suspect Peterson knows exactly what his own beliefs are and how they significantly differ from the traditional Christian understanding. He is not prepared to be explicit about them and it is that that I find dishonest.
Dude, how can people stomach listening to Peterson? He always dodges every question possible and his "deeper" digressions into details are meant exclusively to obfuscate things he wishes not to answer.
@@Todd_ThinksMy friend you didn't understood correctly. Please back to 22:00 Peterson said ABSOLUTELY CLEARLY 💯 % : YES I believe in the resurrection of Jesus. End. This is sufficient. But if you don't believe yet, go to 51:00 and pay attention when Peterson describe that he believe that a young man was possessed for something (spiritual, obviously, it's clear man). He described like a light, there isn't other way to be more clear than this. Other thing that you probably didn't pay attention: in start of conversation Peterson described and explained that Alex was engaged in his mission to prove that Peterson didn't believe in God, or something like this, and you are all obsessed with your vision of the conversation that you all can't realize and pay attention, rational and with your heart, that Jordan really and clearly believe in God and in Jesus. 60% of what Peterson talk was spiritual, FOR GOD GUYS if you are cristian and don't understand what it means SPIRITUAL WORLD, God, how are you cristian??? Jordan believes in God, can you accept or not. 22:00 go and check it out. God bless you all and give direction. 🙏🏻
I pray that he is still this respectful in his older years. I’m 21, he had a brief adoptive phase of Hitchens in his earlier years. He has grown and has become less confrontational which is always a plus for a fruitful discussion.
Maybe a devout Catholic?? 😅 He is my favourite atheist by far. I enjoyed his conversations with Bishop Barron. He will go far no matter in which direction he goes.
He’s a typical young philosophy student and his views on religion are where I was at in 2008 after reading Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. He is not original.
@PaulB_864 It's just not something you hear very often, and it speaks to the good-natured and honest conversation. I didn't mean it in a mocking way at all.
Alex is a hero. I'm convinced there are THOUSANDS of us who openly listen to both sides of this conversation and see the full merits of both. And we need more REAL bridges like Alex. If you allow me the irony, Alex you're doing God's work!
@jeremytine so he seemed intellectually dishonest throughout this interview? He was digging deep throughout, as he always does, and showed far more of himself than Alex did.
@@aaroningl to be honest I haven't watched but a small clip yet, but will when I have time. Could be possible here, dunno yet, but I made no mention in reference of this video, I was speaking in the totality of past expression of the two. I hope that clears it up for you.
Alex was absolutely brilliant in asking direct and clarifying questions to Jordan’s beliefs. It’s something I’ve been begging people to do for years now. It helped me understand Jordan so much more and what he believes and doesn’t believe.
I think most believe Alex was totally wrong by making that video last year that Jordan Peterson is an atheist. I think he understands him better too in that unlike an atheist, Jordan Peterson, not only uses the literal meaning of the word, but the spiritual senses as well in context.
No he wasn't. The entire time his primary goal is a game of Gotcha, albeit a little more subtle and sophisticated. The reason this is apparent, is his consistent demand that Peterson answer according to his perspective.
he's not. Here he's on best behaviour. He's sitting opposite a giant of contemporary thought, and this showcase will open his channel to a potential audience in excess of 2 million. He can't afford to be anything but affable. He flew to the States just to be on the podcast - he has a lot riding a favourable outcome. Neither does he want to say some of the feeble stuff he often says. As Dr P states, he was made aware of Alex by a trusted third party - one of his production time I believe.
For what it's worth, if he were my son, I'd take him to see a stylist and supply him with a modest wardrobe that would more appropriately reflect the intellectual and cultural heritage he come from. I'd also like to find him a confident, educated, happy Chappy boyfriend he could soften too, and enjoy in a real life partnership. If I didn't know better, I'd guess he drive whisky and sigar and never quite finishes them. I was personal assistant to accompliscjed famous and successful. I'm enjoy having professional banter with him in regard to his brand values and the lives he impact c He need a crying into the pillow hug, and a warm drink.
@@dominicbrant1968 Alex has a growing channel regardless of the JbP discussion, and there is nothing 'riding' on the session. The Hitchins session turned to mud, and it wasn't big Al's fault. Numerous events have gone well because he is an intelligent and wise conversationalist with most of the guests being reasonable people. There is Samson-like power, in that tealeaf sweeper on the upper lip, but the world is not quite ready for the imminent Nietzscheian-style indomitable thicket; it will require fire insurance. Just you wait 'enry 'iggins, just you wait.
If I would work for satan I definitely would hire such an intellectually gifted person as Alex. He is "cunning sensible smart" just as the serpent in the garden and Knowledgeable as the tree in the garden. Even Eve let the serpent close because she wasn't afraid of it at all. More likely the dialogue or the conversation between them has happened similarly as between JP and Alex. This smooth dynamic expression of his belief on this intellectual level can even drive away the "belivers" of God. Just as it has happened in the garden a test of belief=Trust based on an individual DECISION. The tree of Knowledge was offered versus of God very Existence for to make a decision. That's from satan and allowed by God. Why is that? satan aim was to put her trust in Knowledge rather in He who created that Knowledge of tree. So in other-words that was for Eve destruction from satan. As result of a taste of the Knowledge her follower Adam was convince by her's Knowledge to drive away his trust from his creator. satan was clapping & smiling but he didn't know God's plan which was CREATED in Love but yet to FORM in His creation. Therefore is impossible for satan to know the secret of Love as he has no access in that "field" because the love is not in Him. God wants His spirits to be trust in Him not despise Him. God wants to be in Love with His spirits and not to be the other way. God wants to teaching us throughout our own conclusion this is why Jesus was always questions those who wasn’t understand Him. What is Love ? Is it the nature of God. Revelation: Love is a DECISION of an relationship in truth unconditionally. This what God teaching us and demonstrated in John 3:16. Eve could have ask God of reason of her doubt but she didn't look any relationship with Him. So the Love failed in her. Adam could have run to God after he ate it, but he was hidding rather looking for relationship even blamed God. The God of forgiveness questioned Adam as a opportunity to confess his disobedience. So the love failed in Adam. God's plan was Jesus the perfect Love. Jesus was tempted in everyways but His Love remained in Him so the nature of God was chosen by a decision. The Love was successful in Jesus. So therefore He is the example of Gods nature this is what God's spirit looking for.... That's why is the only way to God's relationship is Jesus. So Love is a DECISION of an relationship in truth unconditionally. The Way The Truth the Life makes perfect sense. The difference of JP and Alex is exactly "conceptualised" in the service. JP has a heart which feels the other spirits deeply and genuinely in service, while He "wrestling with God" to understand it in full spectrum. That's impossible but because of the constant wrestling he stronger every day. In the other hand Alex with his catch phrase "seem to me" cold heart who has no genuine intentions to understand God and help to the others with his service as well. However He said it He has it but as his fruit shows that he has not at all. His work is only for himself and only for his comfort . As Jesus said "by their fruit ye shall know them" He also said "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Alex trying to prove his belief of atheism and disprove the belief of God. As this happens intellectually on high level, therefore his purpose very sophisticatedly hidden. Even he convinced chatGPT of God existence. This wasn't because of the service of God or genuinely looking for Him but to disprove Him as even an AI can be "fooled" by a such thing as God existence. The spirit of confusion is not from God but the spirit of discernment. Very very clever..👏 He is for those belivers whose close to God just as Adam and Eve were at the time of genesis. Did the serpent beguile Eve? Many "believers" are amazed beguiled or charmed of his smooth kind friendly manner even recognise him as a nice person who talks about God, yet he constantly against God. So God let him to be cunning sensible and smart just as for the serpent for at least the above mentioned reasons. Paul also wrote about him therefore the evil can use such spirits: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man... (This image would be in his mind) I pray for that God Bless Alex and JP spirits with His Truth everyday. Let their heart never be comforted in lies but in Truth in this way they shall know their right pathway to their creator. Amen🙏
@@simifire79 To speak so ill of someone genuinely attempting to understand JP demonstrates your bias, your unwillingness to further understand, and that you belong to that christian camp or team that JP spoke rather contemptuously of in the beginning. This is very basic logic and deconstruction. To compare it to anything else is unwise sir. Please be respectful
@JamesJessenfedden What do you mean of expand on this topic? (Kindly questioning) I mean this topic is very deep I would say eventually the essence of the message from the Bible. My comment was about to discern the spirits. I found JP spirit for benefiting the others to become close to the Truth. However I found Alex spirit non beneficial to the others. Alex's conceptions of God is closed while JP conceptions is open. One is on his adventure of discovering the Truth, while the other believes he knows already the Truth and try to prove that. One will greatly benefit of the journey while the other is benefited of those who seeking or mining the Truth. JP clearly said He doesn't really knows whats going ...on but he definitely perceiving something which he couldn’t answer. Alex absolutely convinced, there is no doubt in him of his beliefs in atheism. The point was to see how the serpent could fool Eve by a smooth kindly cunning sensible high intellectual level of conversation when eventually God was the subject. The results was to drive away her from God just as Alex results is to take further not closer to the Truth anyone who listens him. He must knows this deep in himself but he believes=Trust in his knowledge and he doesn’t really care the others. if just 1% "chance" is God exists and he drove away many from Him how he considered the others with care. JP is the opposite as He also intellectually gifted but doesn't work against God to disprove Him. He even pursues the others to seek Him. The Love is missing of Alex because thats God's nature. "Coincidentally" this is connect to the Genesis account in the Garden. (There is no coincidence in the Kingdom of God) As the Love was missing from Adam and Eve. It was created but couldn't be in a form in them as their decision was block it by the serpent helps" of Eve desire. I believe in her the desire of the limited knowledge was chosen rather than God's nature = Love. Which was the limitations of her potential. If I think of my own desires between God's nature then I can limit my potential in "xxx-sites" everyday. Therefore that day I wouldn't be looking for God's relationship but rather hide in shame. If I was then I would need to confess my sin and then after days I should feel bad myself if my desire would drive me there again to my sin So to be with my sinful nature as I desire I have to chose to cut off the God's nature as Love wich is relationship with God. Otherwise I should say everyday to God "ohhh I'm sorry for...." and that is would become hard and harden day by day. Or I just would saying that "I'm sorry for.. but not meant to be that... so I would be in lie then I'm again not in Truth so not in Love. Therefore my potential would reach the top because its end up wherever or whatever is manifested in my desire. Food drink or any addiction of a sinful nature... Unfortunately we all failing time to time from God's standard but God asking us throughout our conscience just as He asked Adam even when he was hidding. So we can be in Relationship with Him but needs to be in Truth and that is Unconditionaly. But if we lie , deny the Truth how He could keep us in relationship where He knows we are lying in order to have access to His benefits and we are not interested in Him. This is what the gold digger do. The perfect Love was not formed in human until Jesus. The Love isn't a feeling but a decision. If would be feeling then today would be different as tomorrow concerning Love. The feeling is the manifestation of Love in various ways. I hope that makes sense but please contact to the main source as confirmation to your spirit.🙏 God is Love Love is a DECISION not a feeling God is a decision not a shaky feeling. God bless you richly 🙏
Alex clarified Sam Harris' arguments about morality better than anyone else ever has, and he's just done the same with Peterson's position on God and truth. He's one of the most impressive conversationalists of our time.
Where have you heard Alex clarify Harris' arguments? I would like to hear that. I don't understand Harris at all past the point that he thinks Christians are stupid. I would seriously like to understand his argument.
@@melissasw64if that’s what you understand about Sam you were emotionally triggered by something he said and were unable to actually listen any further. I can guarantee you he’s never said Christian’s are stupid. I don’t even think he thinks that. He’s specifically discussed the rather interesting seeming paradox of highly intelligent religious people.
@@goodvibes-gy3jn I can't remember who he debated, but by the end of the debate, Sam was attacking Christianity. To be honest I don't remember if he used the word "stupid," but it was clear that is how he feels about Christians and I wondered by he didn't attack Muslims or Buddhists or some other religion. I really just wanted to understand his explanation for objective morality without God. If you can point me in the direction of a good explanation of his theory, I am truly interested.
Harris criticized every form on monotheism and religion for some shared reasons and some specific reasons. He has criticized Judaism despite being of Jewish heritage himself and criticized Islam despite the fear-induced climate that has been brought upon the entirety of the Western world, as well as being called a racist and a xenophobe even by his peers, as everyone who criticizes the religion of peace is. I highly suggest you actually look up his debates (free on UA-cam) and read his books, you will find that his position and his articulation of it is the most reasonable anyone has put forward in the last 30 years.
Alex needs to sit down with Bernardo Kastrup and the empirical evidence he has found against materialism. He paints himself as an 'always the truth' seeker type guy, but is ignoring a whole swathe of empirical evidence against his frame of seeing things. I'm not sure if it's intentional because he knows it would prove him wrong, or he's simply not aware of the data.
@frankxu4795 I don't think I'd disagree, in a sense. Sometimes the best way to ease someone out of their own way is that diplomacy. His discussion with Ben Shapiro is probably one of the better examples of this.
@frankxu4795 I think the mistake would be in thinking this is a one stop shop. Alex intends to make a career out of talking to these people. Most of the comments in this thread already mention that this is the most clarity they've ever seen out of Jordan on religion. Baby steps.
Yes!! I personally know people have had their frustrations with Peterson on the very task Alex set out to answer. (Count me among them on points as well)
@@CleverGirlAAH Alex is notoriously good at pressing people on points that others rarely do, for whatever reason. He's a great discussionist (if I may make up a word) for that reason.
so many Christians here praising Alex who simply thinks you are wrong and his whole output is designed to prove you're wrong. He's not your brother in Christ.
The multi dimensional existence of layered truth in so many facets is perceived if one follows their true meaning and walks that tight rope. It's sad we can't accept the notion of truth being a concept that deviates based on perception and none are wrong to the individual if it's subjective and is within. It's possible the only objective truth in Christianity is the accumulated totality of subjective experiences and truths manifest from that.
Years ago I saw a youtube comment describing Peterson as "not so much of a philosopher as much of a poet meandering through his thoughts" and that's probably the most succinct way to understand his "ethos".
I gathered that throughout the conversation, Jordan was constantly in awe of the amount of insipid stupidity required to ask him those questions. I suppose the fans got what they wanted.
This is THE definition of a proper argument we all need to aspire to... No one-upmanship... No ego... No shouting or arguing or name calling... Just two people trying to better their understanding.
@baishihua His latent contempt for Dr. Peterson is disrespectful. He regards Peterson as an educated peer, which is also disrespectful and ludicrous. He came there with a closed mind. His only purpose was to catch Jordan Peterson admitting he's a biblical literalist. At worst, he has an agenda. At best, he's too stupid to get out of his own way.
Alex really did a magnificent job at getting some solid answers out of Peterson in regard to the resurrection - He knew exactly how to phrase his questions without coming off as hostile or adversarial.
He’s just not great at connecting together points for people who don’t have the same underlying edifice of belief that he does. It’s very tough to challenge someone like this
Alex O'Connor is absolutely brillant. I really appreciated this conversation. I've seldom seen Jordan Peterson become interested in this way, where he listens and Alex inquires in a good-faited and clinical manner.
Yeah Peterson was clearly highly stimulated and excited by the "brain picking" Alex was applying on him. And it was very helpful that Alex is just as sharp, precise and witty as Peterson himself is.
@@nicolasbascunan4013 Alex O'Connor stated early on in the conversation that one of his main goals is to try to get a good grasp of Peterson's view. Peterson can't properly navigate his own view, and more than once did he say that he doesn't care if people understand him. An inquiry like this was therefore much needed. If you want Alex O'Connors view, he has his own channel. Go check it out.
I don’t think Peterson liked getting unwrapped it’s like he was always withholding some things. It’s like Alex had a sharp knife and smoothly cut the wrapping and unravelled it
@@builtbywalsh when the host re-frames your question, and gives you full context, and then you ask the same question again and again, it suggests the questioner isn't open to understanding or entering a new paradigm. Listen again, Alex throws quite a few low balls when Dr P has challenged some of Alex's fundamental assumptions. The discussion about mathematics. There is an implicit symbolism. Hence theoretical maths can be see as exercising in the realm of eternal truth. Alex then has to concede that his philosophical arguments are essentially a form of symbolism - where the actual truth doesn't lie in the words and arguments spoken, but in the meaning and 'logos' of those words. He quickly moves to a gnostic argument as if that was an equivalent. Asking whether the resurrection is true is like asking does 1+1=2. Symbolical Yes, but 1 bucket of sand plus 1 bucket of sand is two buckets of sand, OR is you pour them on the floor, it's just One bigger pile of sand. The truth of the resurrection might be literal - was Jesus in a coma etc. Primitive cultures didn't measure death imperially like we do. Hence even Victorian graves where fitted with bells to attract help if the deceased wasn't actually deceased. CPR is the world's favourite resurrection tool. So, back to symbolism, it doesn't really matter which 'facts' you look for, symbolism and meanings generate an eternal truth.
@@dominicbrant1968 Yeah, Alex was basically hell belt on getting Jordan to say "I adimit, these events didn't actually happen but these stories speak to a universal truth through metaphors and symbolism" but Jordan just refuses to. Imovable object and unstoppable for type sh*t.
If I could have picked any two people in the world to have a conversation, it would have been these two brilliant thinkers. As a Christian and a huge fan of both Dr. Peterson and Alex O'Connor, I want to sincerely thank them for making this happen. It has been such a treat.
I was noticing how many interjections there were in this conversation, but I quickly realised it’s not attempts to dominate, rather lots of enthusiastic ‘sparks’ about the ideas. Very refreshing actually!
Yea I think oftentimes JP does interrupt out of excitement and sometimes it’s relevant and deepens the conversation and other times it veers it off of the initial course it was going.
I think this is an important point, and this is often the case with Peterson, I don't think it's usually attempts to dominate, but sparks of interest and also sometimes attempts to clarify what area of interest he's trying to get at. He catches flak for it because it annoys some people, but I'm not sure it can be solidly categorized as a weakness on his part, because I think it's a side effect of how he thinks to some degree, which is part of how he arrived at where he is. However, it's true it doesn't flow as naturally in some conversations, and it's not clear to me there's an easy solution there. Some say "just let the other person talk", but what of the fact the conversation is for Peterson's channel, and he has limited time and may never talk to this person again? Claims that he's doing something wrong will have to be more useful than "stop interrupting", because annoying some people a bit isn't always evidence that you're doing something wrong. I dunno. I'm not decided on this. I think it would be interesting if an interviewer as incisive as Alex could really question Peterson about this, using specific examples.
I’m not meaning it as a criticism against Jordan, I think he’s absolutely wonderful. Just doesn’t work for my brain - I’m listening to his conversation partner, making a point and I’m trying to connect and follow that point, and when he interrupts, my brain isn’t ready to shift with him. It’s jarring, it means I am less mentally adroit than others that I can’t just roll with it, but I can’t
This was the final nail in the coffin for Jordan for me. Alex did a great job of pointing out his conflicting positions and he still avoided it at all costs
Richard Dawkins wrote the Selfish Gene, articulating how you can make sense of the world by focusing on how the fittest genes survive, spread, replicate, and evolve over time. He also popularized the term "meme" for ideas that act in a similar way. Well, with memes its also survival of the fittest. What are the fittest memes? What is the fittest meme? It's hard to come up with an idea more fit for survival than the one true God upon which all of reality rests. How do you beat that idea? What idea could be more compelling?
@GeneralProfessor Pepe is the embodiment of primordial chaos, mischivism, and the spirit of rebellion. In contract, Harambe represents order. Harambe is the sacrificial guardian who lays down his life for the innocent. He is stability, wisdom, and strength.
Sure thing... but it would have been awesome if they end up in a fist fight with each other, ya know, Jerry Springer style, calling each other names. Now that would have broken the internet for a while. But well, civilised conversation it is.
This is the most satisfying conversation I've seen JBP have regarding religion. O'Connor approach to pulling out Dr Peterson's personal thoughts was wonderful and very enlightening.
This is the best interview/discussion of all time, change my mind But seriously, if you watched Peterson 2016-2020 era and then wondered what he actually thinks about these questions and wanted to see him simplify his answers in order to reason weither or not he was being deceitful in his average response, this is the best possible and most thought out line of questioning (from O’ Connor) that you could ask for
@CosmicSkeptic Fantastic work here in this conversation. Of the last 6 years of listening to Peterson carefully and trying to get a read on his true beliefs concerning religion, you've done the absolute best job i've seen of managing to get Jordan to distill his ideas and beliefs down into a digestible and understandable format. Well done. This conversation was incredible.
I’ve listened to hundreds of religious conversations and debates, even political, and I’ve often screamed at the screen like “rephrase the question” or thinking how something could be positioned slightly different to bring clarity and certainty to views. I think I do a very good job, but Alex is incredible in this area. You gained a follower friend. God bless
God, (no pun intended) Alex speaking with Jordan is f*king Christmas morning. He's pushing all the questions I've wished others would pry for and Jordan is giving me all the gifts I expected he might and then some. Thanks, guys. This is the clarity on linguistic ontology nearly nobody has seemed to even have the words or notion to triangulate, let alone extract from JP.
What about the last hard question ? I’m kind of wondering why was it so hard ? . Well Alex has been reading Thomas , and the so called forgotten narratives of the New Testament , which I don’t care , but , yes I do care if it is on a debate . Aren’t you ?
@@Wattyb2 No, I’m lauding Alex for asking the right questions. As Jordan says, (paraphrasing) he usually can’t answer the question in the full capacity he’d like to because he knows the people asking the questions don’t have the framework to know what he means. Also it’s exhausting and time consuming to answer so I don’t blame him for usually not trying to dive into it. I had this conversation with my mom when we talked about my beliefs on the phone the day before this came out. It’s a conversation killer lol
JP has always been clear, he didn't said anything new at all that he hadn't said before using the same analogies and the same stories, nearly. But Alex did much better and pushing the conversation along than Harris/Dawkins because he already knows the Christian traditions well. So the ideas flow much more naturally.
I've had these same issues with Peterson for a long time. I had hoped that Stephen Fry (a literature expert) had put to task the way Alex has. It's a fantastic conversation. And I thank Alex for being relentlessly par for the course on his inquisition. 🙏
I don’t there’s anything wrong with being “drunk on symbols” especially when you consider that most of the rest of the world has built up a pretty high tolerance against symbols.
I could never have imagined Alex and Jordan would have or could have this much chemistry. Alex brought out the Peterson I feel like I first was entranced by a few years back but haven’t seen in forever. This conversation was so appreciated.💚
@@galindoof you must be new to Jordans content. As someone who’s consumed almost all of both of theirs over the last few years and seen Jordan live twice, once while a huge fan and follower and again just a few weeks ago no longer a follower but there for different reasons, I can say with full confidence this wasn’t an oil meets water chemistry. Alex was able to so successfully lower Jordan’s defenses and create an atmosphere more agreeable to Jordan than any other atheist coming with the same questions ever has that - lo and behold…. he gave us a side of Jordan and answers to questions put to Jordan a million times over we’ve never seen nor heard. The denial of this is an admittance of a lack of knowledge or experience with Jordan’s content and history. You needn’t take my word for it. A couple minute breeze through the comment section shows hundreds of people grateful for Alex giving us a Jordan some of the best of the best that came before couldn’t come close to introducing us to. But you and I both know these words will fall on deaf ears because you’re just here for contrarian purposes.. my boredom this Friday night got you a response all the same.
@@jayjaychadoy9226 two things here. One, if the redness his face reached in this discussion scared you I highly recommend you don’t watch literally any other conversation he’s had with an opposing interlocutor.. as this was both the most mild and productive. Second. If the level of redness his face turned during this was scary at all to you I suggest bubble wrap before going outside, ear muffs and an adult.
So incredible to follow Alex's journey all these years. He continues to evolve and broaden his horizons, to adapt flexibly to the language/worldview of all sorts. He can speak with Dillahunty, Peterson, Kisin, Harris, Dawkins, Pageau, and so many more and he never misses a beat. He always finds the overlap, adapts his langauge game, and delves for the heart of the conversation. I've been waiting for this for a long time. Tough to say who I align with more. I feel that I naturally tend to use more narrative, religious language when I discuss life; but when it comes down to it I would always say I agree with Alex more--or at least I resonate with his past criticisms of Peterson's flakiness/question-dodging. But then I understand how Peterson simply sees things differently. He doesn't see religion as most people do. He doesn't see God as most people do. I thoroughly resonate with his critics when they confront him for not acknowledging this; but I also thoroughly resonate with him when he grows frustrated with their inability to engage with the narrative/phenomenological side of life, or even his argument from evolutionary biology. Anyway thank you both! Incredible. Tragic that I have a meeting in five minutes
So far, one thing stands out: This conversation is quite a lot better than previous conversations Peterson had with non-theists. Something about Alex's attitude, character and quite frankly, intelligence, brings out the best in Peterson. It just shows that militant atheists and militant religious people are much more alike than those who prefer to not play a group game, but a knowledge extraction game. I was kindof personally unhappy with Peterson's form of late (politics, deranged rants, etc.). This is more like it, feels like 2018 again.
Jordon is seeing through today's world twisted underlying tyranny. Long may he speak sense. Regarding his understanding of God, that's his journey and he sees much truth at times.
Agree 100% I respect a desire to talk on politics but I believe that recently it’s left a lot less time for Peterson’s best areas like philosophy and religion.
@@InfernoG-or4sthere’s no problem with talking about politics, but the kind of extremism tribalism Peterson has been gravitating towards these past few years has been hugely disappointing compared to the calm, curious, reasonable demeanor he approached some topics with in the past. It’s not the political talk, it’s the nature of the political talk.
@@Deifiable well again personally I'm a fan but I completely understand if you're not and I'm sorry that you miss older times. But I'm someone who's politically active and I'm guessing a lot of old listeners are apolitical. Remember if something isn't your cup of tea, don't force yourself into it.
Alex's tangent about Genesis was fascinating to me. I am someone who has never held *any* interest in the contents of the Bible, and yet I had a smile ear to ear listening to this deconstruction. Usually when Alex is quoting the Bible in his discussions, they feel like citations and footnotes, and this one just felt completely different. An actual scholarly fascination with the possible interpretations. And let me be frank... I'm not a Peterson fan. But these two bouncing ideas off of each other so freely might be the most enjoyable conversation I've listened to in years.
No one assumed you were, this entire comments section are here from their atheistic algorithm or from O'Connor's page. Like any parasitic ideology the fans travel in packs...
Admiration? Lol no I'm not a fan of Peterson for a myriad of reasons, but Alex has worked wonders wading through the depths of word salad and religiously charged language to come out with something useful on the other side.
@@angloortho8146 Yes, it is (depending on who you arbitrarily define as "Christian"). Camus convincingly argues that early "Christian metaphysics" was essentially Neoplatonism as exemplified by Augustine of Hippo. Aristotelianism entered mainstream Christian Metaphysics much later.
@@m3po22not sure if you're referring to Peterson or the commenter with your statement. To me it seems like the person wanting a straight yes or no is not willing to understand why Peterson cannot give a simple yes or no answer.
Oh we need more of this. Independent thinkers whether they agree or not, willing to sit down and work on concepts together -- and let we the public in on their discourse. Just Wow. So helpful, and meanwhile so encouraging. About all I want to listen to nowadays is is long-form interviews on interviews like this: on concepts, on the life of the mind.
This might be the most enlightening conversation I've ever seen Dr. Peterson ever participate in. I've never seen him get so down in the details in this way and so much of what he has said in the past finally fell into place and made sense.
It’s great to see Alex, an atheist, take the time to put a lot of research and reflection into religious matters instead of rejecting religious beliefs without any knowledge about what is actually being rejected. A superb interview that is interesting, informative, and insightful. A masterclass on how an interview should be conducted. Well done!
It's not simply an interview. It's a brain storm battle of the minds. Sounds hyperbolic I know, but I truely felt that was the case with just how excited and stimulated both of them were to reallly hone the concepts and ideas each of them presented.
Alex is not only far more versed on everything religious, but his ability to speak clearly without beating around the bush is so refreshing. He’s genuinely at ease with his own thinking. As for Peterson it drives me crazy how much he struggles with committing to an answer that explains his position on religion. It strikes me as if he’s afraid of disappointing and alienating part of his audience. He’s guarded and strategic, and keeps leaning forward on his chair as if that will make his arguments more convincing.
I would disagree with the reason he leans forward - it seems more that it comes from his passionate monologue, he is "hyping himself up" and leaning in to further emphasize his speech. His passion makes him more tense in a sense lol
@@MiKo97100 I was happy burning 3 seconds of my life to reply to this comment, thanks. Free will in action! (Or is that its own can of worms?). It was a small thrill.
@@brunolopes2205 I admit, I'm no Tim the toolman Taylor, but I have a Home Depot in my local area. Please compile a list of tools I may be lacking for my collection to help better understand. Probably a hammer? To help... better nail a point? (JP might be in more need of a hammer). Or how about some bits to help better... drill these mega brain University of Toronto level concepts into my skull? About how really old popular myths/fiction somehow eclipse reality, historical records and common sense because it's old and popular enough? I understand his argument well enough. I am just not convinced. I also thought his point about Hamlet hurt his argument big time. But he seemed as if he thought that point was a slam dunk.
As a catholic, I followed Jordan for a lot of years and seen him with in a bunch of podcasts and interviews with Catholics, most recently in podcast Pints With Aquinas with Matt Fradd, but Alex O'Connor in 30 minutes pulled out from Jordan the best answers about God and religion. Thank you for that @CosmicSkeptic! I hope Matt Fradd invites to the podcast or Jimmy Akin. :)
@@aaroningl So you got nothing new out of this conversation? I'd say you should watch again. Jordan's beliefs have grown over the years, so there is definitely more to learn by listening to him.
@@paulaaron4821 I got something out of it, for sure. I always do. But JP dug down into himself far more than Alex managed to. However, I do feel that Alex was reluctant to acknowledge the education he was being given.
I loved listening to this! I cant help but think my mind is "narrow" when listening to these two. But the thing that keeps coming to mind throughout this discussion is when Christ said "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." I presume this doesn't mean "just believe everything you are told" But to have that child like faith. Even though Evil exists, the child will lean toward what is good and towards faith. This is truly the mystery of faith, When your faith is lived out in practice then becomes the proof in your own life. Until you "trust" and have "faith". Nothing will ever suffice for your intellect as proof. I added quotations to trust and faith because you can orientate your trust and faith wherever you want. Material things, government, money, other intellectuals etc. The proof then becomes how does that trust and faith manifest in your life. There are endless examples to argue the point of God, Christ, Satin, things of history etc. But until you orientate your life to live for one of those you don't see the proof or the fruits until you live it out by faith.
I've seen Jordan Peterson mad, wouldn't want him mad at me, he can be brutal. Lol And when he's done verbally shredding me, he'd beat me up! He's a scrapper! little fighter 😊
Jordan saying "maybe" to Alex with regards to his unwillingness to die for the belief in the existence of the chair really made me chuckle. That was a great moment (11:05).
Agree! Just 12:35 in, and this point is critical. If a tyrannical government were to develop who denied the existence of chairs; you, as a carpenter, might just be willing to die.
I always had that mentality. People like to ask.. "would you kill someone". I say we probably all would if it meant we would live instead of dying. Any person with a gun to their head would probably kill someone else
@@Anonymous_Whisper There are a lot of people that would just die and not fight back. Demoralized people often won't defend themselves out of disbelief for what is happening in the moment.
I love how well put together Alex stays while being very respectful towards Jordan. He really tries to listen and follow Jordan's thinking process which is an admirable way of approaching a conversation. Well done to both.
I was made aware of Alex years ago when I was delving into Christian philosophy, I'm glad he's become such a big figure. In most philosophical debates/conversations, the participants tend to continually talk past each other in a way that makes you want to step in yourself, but I never feel this way when Alex is there. He's very perceptive.
I tend to agree with Petersons worldview more, but Alex is extremeley good faith, extremely intelligent, and very percise in his language. This should be a great discussion.
Spot on. Same goes for me. I disagree with Alex here and there (I agree with him on certain topics) but I feel he is intellectually honest (super scarce stuff nowadays) and always running himself with the best intentions.
The interesting question is what is "good faith" really? ;) I think Alex unpacks that within the interview he does of Jordan, which was really interesting to watch because it was supposed to be Jordan interviewing Alex.
Peterson’s flowery word salads serve to obfuscate more than elucidate the points he’s trying to make. He often jumps back and forth between literal truth and literary/ metaphorical truth, and blurs the line in a misleading way. He seems to conflate them or use them interchangeably, and it’s very disorienting at times. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that people often feel even more confused after hearing JP on certain issues (or dismiss it as too “profound” for us stupid peasants), but understand the clear and succinct argumentation of someone like Alex. Someone should always strive to explain complex issues with simplicity and clarity, not complicate it to an excessive degree. Keep in mind, JP also said you can only induce smoking cessation through mystical experiences on mushrooms, and also encouraged young and immature women to have children because they don’t know what they want or who they are yet. Just demonstrably wrong and asinine.
@@matthewzang6688 the immaturity is subjective; statistically it's better for women to have children if they are in a stable relation, and it's better to have them younger; and better for the children too; not to mention the consequences for society and the fact that we are in the middle of a demographic catastrophe; calling a common sense advice "demonstrably wrong and asinine" only shows how confused and demoralized the western world has become
@@twilekcustodian you think recognizing that two people are good at what they do and are both highly respected public figures from different backgrounds means I must idolize them as gods? What an interesting psychology you must have.
I work with people who have communication difficulties, Alex was doing what i aim to do in order to get any specific person's view communicated effectively. It isn't easy, and it takes a considerably amount of energy. I think Alex is one of the few who created an environment where JP didn't have to fear miscommunication.
I am a Christian, but since the time I saw Alex,I have been enjoy listen to him, his very intelligent, No human get to believe one thing that will that could qualify him for a stand in religion,, religious beliefs is spiritual,, most of this biblical writing were revelation through faith,, you can't just understand them properly unless you have faith
Alex is the quintessential "interrogator" of other people's thoughts. I find it refreshing how calm and clear he is in his questioning. I have to believe he has worked through his own thinking w the same scrutiny.
"I'm not sure you even know what club you're in" 😂 As an atheist/skeptic I'm thoroughly enjoying this conversation. Peterson and O'Connor bring out the best in each other.
well, what do you mean by the "best"? What do you mean you "enjoy" a conversion as profound such as this? You surely operate on a metaphysical substrate that are fundamentally unskeptical. Whatever the hell that means!!!!!
That was one of the best lines! As an atheist/skeptic that was studying authoritarian thought reform tactics when "atheism plus" infected the community... I've been saying atheism is an unacknowledged denomination of Protestantism. I argue atheism has their club and purity test members, same as any Christian denomination purity tests all the others.
It really was awesome. After seeing the past clips on Alex’s channel sort of disparaging JP, I thought this would be more of a “gotcha” debate, but it was the farthest thing from that, as far as I can tell. I have a lot more respect for Alex because of that.
I actually read this as a double entenderé. In that, you can know you are real and know and not know the things around you are real depending on your epistomology.
@@user-ki4xw2rb8q If you’re talking about the video essay Alex made, Jordan said towards the beginning of the video that he watched it “this morning”. So I would assume yes.
@@shreyaathalye2069 I just kept watching and ended up seeing that part. Yeah, he did watch it. I wish he talked about his opinion on Alex calling him an atheist lol
@johnsterman77 Brother, there's so much about Christianity that is right and much of it that is wrong, so as he says he believes some of it. I've also somehow came to Tolstoys position while also becoming an atheist, and that's something I never ever would have ever imagined ever doing as a young LDS kid. So somehow I think Jesus was right politically but not supernaturally.
Its refreshing to listen to JP discuss religion with someone who isn't intent on recruiting him to their 'team'. Props to Alex, well done. - A Christian
Didn't you watch the video???? Peterson said and Alex confirmed his intentions to prove his point about Jordan, that he didn't believe in God. And he failed miserable in 22:00 When Jordan clearly and loud said: I believe in the resurrection of Jesus. End.
"The more I seek, the more is present". The fundamental problem with JP's analysis of the information is that he cannot distinguish between his own thoughts about a thing and the thing. The more he seeks, the more he adds his own mind to the topic, the further he travels from the information. He is very much like a hallucinating LLM.
I can agree with this but a defense: I think Jordan's goal is to avoid reducing truth along his way to understanding it. He refuses to compress it into an edible pill, easy for us to swallow. And why should he? It would satisfy us momentarily, but then the pursuit would be over. And it wouldn't be the full truth, just a projection of part of it.
“The information”, “The thing”, maybe most people are just approaching the nature of reality too rigidly, out of a desire for clarity and sense of safety.
I have no words after watching this podcast. The best way I can describe this exchange is as a transcendent and redemptive uphill stumble toward what is most meaningful, on display for the rest of us not gifted enough to come to this level of understanding ourselves. This is certainly one of the best JP podcasts out there, and I hope the two of you meet again to continue this process.
This is very true because we can feel the big issues but generally are unable to articulate the big issue. Leaders like Jordan do us the service of articulating the things we can feel but cannot articulate.
Holy smokes, it seems Jordan has met his match, and he realizes it. He's speaking with a rare openness and level of respect towards Alex. I suspect this will be the first of many conversations!
Alex, an atheist brought out civility and respect from William Lane Craig for crying out loud lmao. That's how you know his oratory and ability is at a high level.
I felt this exact same thing as well. I came into this conversation very casually, obviously being interested and excited, but nothing too special. But as I started listening I began noticing this one was unique, precisely because of how you described it. "Met his match". And I'm here for it. My hope is that this conversation and hopefully future conversations between them, will generate cross-pollination and stimulation, which will grow to enhance and inspire both intellectually. This genuine "picking of the brain" state of discussion can really act as a true fertile ground for the growth of new ideas.
1hr 55min - The silence produced by the question of what it means to be lying or wrong, as it relates to a persons subjective belief, is a profound moment and wonderful to watch JP grapple with its complexity.
The Old Sage versus The Young Prodigy. Love to see it. This is how you bridge the generational gap: an elder filled with wisdom and understanding conversing with a humble and sincere young wo/man. No competition, just a desire to learn and investigate the truth(s) about life.
Jordan caught himself a few times (not every time) not letting Alex finish the sentence (because of his love of speaking and explaining) - well done, Jordan, that's personal progress ,) And Alex is quite literally a personification of Peterson's ideal of concise, clear speaking... he's a master of wording. Very nice conversation... I especially liked the agreement on the futility of 'winning a debate' and the recognition of usefulness of fruitful exchange of ideas - and putting that to practice. Well done, both, I enjoyed.
Alex is only concise in his speech in sofar as he's willing to critique another person's beliefs. When you have no belief, you are almost immune to scrutiny.
Such a belief simply means: The belief that reality is comprised of that which you can gather evidence for. Well, that's just a non rational belief, as we know that human perception has limits, as well as human understanding and human ability to gather evidence. From that follows that there will actually be some phenomena which is infact real, however, humans will not be able to explain or find evidence for it. This type of phenomena, by definition, is actually expected to then be classified as mystery, magic or miracle. @@jeremytine
@@wtfgrooves3268 it is the opposite of non rational as it is working within the limits of human perception. Belief in explanations of what is inherently unknowable and supernatural is what is irrational. The reasonable conclusion then is to simply say, I don't know rather than to invent fantasy that can never be proved.
Maybe he has more knowledge on Jordans philosophy given that Alex is an expert on that matter. But if it were the psychology of an individual, Peterson would run circles around him. Such is the beauty of individuals. We all know things others do not, and so we can learn, learn, and learn.@Memfys
@Memfys I don't think it's worth much giving him grief for venturing into new territory. He's been a clinical psychologist for some 40 years by now. Maybe a switch up is what he needs.
Amazing, rivetiing, wow....Alex tried to hold Jordan feet to the fire in a poite and professional way....Jordan's responses were actually very enlightening....I want to listen to this again....I thank you both profoundly....This was such a treat....Thank you, thank you, thank you.
What a brilliant discussion. Alex O'Connor must only be about 24 or 25 but he held his own with Dr Peterson and clearly has a mind as sharp as his interviewer. Alex's generation get a lot of stick so it is great to hear from such an articulate, intelligent man in his mid-20s. Such an interesting discussion, very thought-provoking and will keep me awake thinking about all the ideas exchanged. Dr Peterson sporting his Christian-themed jacket and a living room in LA with a white grand piano, would love to know who that belonged to. I look forward to the publication of "We Who Wrestle With God" and I will definitely try to order "Maps Of Meaning" at some point too. Good to know that Dr Peterson was able to visit his father this week. One of the best interviews you have done, Dr Peterson, much appreciated here in the UK.👍
What an incredible conversation. It almost brings me to tears seeing two brilliantly intelligent people having a discussion where they disagree, and yet approach it with a willingness to put their ego aside, truly listen and learn from each other. Alex, you held your own incredibly here, expressing yourself clearly and probing JBP to do the same. Jordan, you are truly inspirational, and I've been really appreciating these more transparent conversations you've been having about God
I’d argue Jordan held his own. Alex, in my opinion, is able to see right through Peterson, and pose the right questions to probe for an answer. The best analogy I can think of for this is, imagine you are trying to corner a dog in order to trap him. You can outright run and close corners on him and be aggressive ( the dog will understand you mean danger), or you can bait him, offer some treats, a pat on the head, a few belly rubs, and he’ll think twice about biting you when you trap him. Jordan is the dog. If you are too obvious with your questions, he’ll avoid them. Run you through a series of abstractions and tangents you will not be able to keep up with until he’s dodged the main question. If you establish some kind of comforting understanding, and then probe with subtlety, you’re more likely to force a much more genuine answer.
I think it’s the job of an intellectual to distill ideas into its essentials. I really respect Alex’s ability to cut to the heart of a matter with as few words as possible.
THAT Panasonic Video Cam LCD screen moment Alex posited REALLY helped me, as it politely MADE Jordan drill down into eye-sight vs belief, perception & the 🤷🏼♂️ "it's what I feel" believer. Nebulous descriptions MAKE us believers. I still know next to nothing & appreciate ALL of this... stuff. 🙏🏽
And Peterson's further explanations regarding 'hierarchy of meaning' or the level of resolution in perception of an issue, helped showcase better how he approaches the question of whether he "believes" or not in something.
This was….easily the unbelievable, articulate, logical, and intelligent conversation I’ve ever had the honor of listening to - I am truly just blown away. I wish there was more conversation like this happening in everyday life. Just, WOW.
A lot of the naysayers in this comment section really just didn't get a handle on this conversation. I really, really enjoyed it! I am a big fan of Alex O'Connor, increasingly so since I discovered him for his anti-monarchy views during the coronation of King Charles II, and I was a long-time fan of Jordan Peterson since I discovered his videos in 2017, though I've become increasingly less interested over the years. This conversation made me realise Peterson is still very lucid, awake, and reasonable in conversation, and it soothed my fears that he was not really able to engage with objections. It also made me realise just how formidable Alex O'Connor really is; he really stood his ground in this conversation and presented a very strong series of objections and critiques to Peterson in a way that forced him to confront some issues and clarify some points he had previously been unclear on. Thank you extremely much for making this publicly available! It was a joy to watch and a real learning experience; I feel much better from having watched it!
Classic Peterson cocksucker response. Any criticism is net by 'oh you didn't understand' despite Benzo Jordans super clear cowardice when it comes to answering difficult questions. He just keeps obfuscating by deconstructing questions where everyone knows what is being asked. 'depends what your definition of 'is' is' -level of intellectual dishonesty
Peterson has been about this clear already. His interview with Tom Bilyeu was very much the same. He's lost in a false modesty along the lines of 'I'm to unknowledgeable to answer these questions' when the questions are about what he believes (which as O'Connor points out he could just say 'I am unsure') but rather Peterson claims to be one of the best and most faithful interpreters of the Bible! What an extraordinary claim and proof that his modesty is quite shallow. How many more people are there that can answer these very simple questions and yet wrestle with even deeper ones. All that said, I do not completely disagree with Peterson's views, some are very helpful. But he is certainly still in this interview evasive and unclear. I don't think it is out of I'll intent, I think he's just a little unused to saying 'I don't know' and saying it properly without the fake modestly and lengthy defences.
@@benjaminread5287 Lmfao what are you on about bro "Peterson claims to be one of the best and most faithful interpreters of the Bible!" Please show me where Peterson has made the claim "I am one of the best and most faithful interpreters of the Bible" Guys like you are so ridiculous, you just make stuff up out of thin and then believe it
One of the best podcasts I've heard. I've been a Christian since I was little and listening to you made me grow intellectually in my faith (as contradictory as it may be). As Alex said, being skeptical is a tool. I can't say I agree with everything, but I certainly grew up with this podcast .
Had to sit down for the full 2 hours. As a Christian I really appreciate the way Alex posed his questions. This was an amazing dialogue. Thank you for posting.
I find it difficult to see how a believer can listen to Alex's arguments and still hold on to their belief in the same way day did before.. he decomposes the arguments for God to a point where I'd become a nonbeliever if I wasn't already. Hbu?
@@browsedrops really? Idk how to reply to this properly rn, but I appreciated the fact that he was just honestly asking a question. I also appreciate JP pressing Alex to explain what he meant whenever he would ask a question i.e. he asked him to define what he meant by belief. It was one of the closest convos in terms of two people talking about the Bible and Christ as if there were no cameras and lights.
@@browsedrops I feel like this conversation had very little to do with the validity of faith; it was almost entirely about clarity of communication. So if this is anyone's first time hearing Alex talk, I doubt their faith will be shaken from this alone 😂
@@browsedrops I figured as much. I assumed most people watching this video will be getting introduced to Alex for the first time since I reckon there's not a huge overlap between JP and Alex's audiences. All good though 👍🏾
Got to say - Alex/Peterson had great chemistry; Alex did an incredible job holding Peterson to task - and Peterson gave Alex space to ask great questions.
That's actually a very good point on Petersons part, especially as the conversation progresses. He gave Alex lots of room to talk. I should have expected it really but its still refreshing.
I think Alex made Peterson feel very comfortable that he's willing to show Alex what's behind the curtain. I finally understand where JP is coming from when asked about the existence of god or the accuracy (historically) of Biblical events. If I understand him correctly, he'd rather answer the question by "yes" or "no" if it was asked by an atheist than theist.
@@teresaamanfu7408 I would love to hear whether he thinks man has a soul as I discussed above. Neuroscience seems to challenged that view, even evangelical Philosophers like Nancy Murphy do not believe the Bible says we have a soul . See Murphy ed Whatever Happened to the Soul. There is also an interesting non-religious book The Brain That Changes Itself.
Round and round in circles with words and definitions and everything else but meaning and true insight and honest conversation. Another chapter of Jordan Peterson. Alex, I absolutely love you. You fought the good fight.
@@adamborowicz7209so you wanted a stranger to tell you what to think in 2 hours about the most complicated human issue. I watched the whole thing and it was very stimulating. Far too many people have an infantile view of what Christianity should answer on demand. Jesus said knock and seek, not wait for another to tell you all about it. And beyond that, most”evasions” made perfect sense; it sometimes required replaying over and over to get the understanding where on first listen it sounded scrambled. These comments just feel very shallow about the whole topic it’s pretty embarrassing.
Alex does a fantastic job here. He has managed to get Peterson to clarify his position on religion better than anyone else has ever before. Already in my top 5 conversations.
Not quite, it seems like the only question he asked in 2 hours is " is it historically real", despite the analogy of Hamlet, mathematics and crime of punishment, he could message back to that same question, I was expecting him to shake up JP to understand the foundational thinking and assumptions which did not really happen😮
@@hundlyI’m so grateful to see in the comment section there exists only one or two of you. . Who either didn’t understand or are just haters. Either way you and the two others in your camp are clearly wrong judging from the hundreds (likely soon to be thousands) who got exactly what the original post here conveyed.
@user-wn1kq8jx5q Haven't watched the video can't confirm nor deny either of your views yet, but I'd caution you to use better reasoning than consensus for why their idea is wrong. Groups can all believe the same wrong idea.
@@TheHunt-t8o you could simply have pointed me to the part of the discussion where they discuss a point that is not about " is it really factually real?" And I would have felt like an idiot...now we know who the idiot is. This is not called hate if you have argument...and what camp will I be in, I thought those 2 guys are interested in the truth, aren't you?
I can't tell you how unbelievably perfect the timing of this video is. I find myself wondering more and more what the purpose of life is and where in the world I might find God. I'm reading Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard, and honestly, I've gotten more insight from that book and these 2 gentlemen in such a short span of time than I ever did over the course of several years attending church.
Personally I find Tolstoy reassuring, with the kingdom of God is within you. As for the purpose...... Everyone has a different one, so there's what works for you. Personally for me, it's to spend as many years disease Free, having fun doing good works, and having a good support network so that I don't have to fear becoming destitute or disease ridden. Then, when it's my time to go, going quickly and painlessly. As for what good works to actually do that will have an effective impact, as an environmentalist rewilding seems to have a good return on investment, both for humanity and the world at large. And thats not just backed up emotionally, but empirically as well, as a drawdown of carbon.
Thanks for this, Dr. Peterson. A thoroughly animating conversation!
@CosmicSkeptic Any time BUDDY
Nice jacket, mate
Why wouldn't it come to Sanatana yet, one day in the near future, not in the need i presume but in the awakening.
you have a history channel take on christianity.
A long overdue conversation. Thank you both!
This is the most detailed and well-explained version of Peterson’s position on God. Finally, thank you Alex
@@taliaeve969surely you can’t have watched this video and still have that view of him?
He seems not happy about divulging this info. He interrupts quite often when talking to those he appears to disagree with (from the onset).
And yet he still managed to wiggle out of it by not answering because he "doesn't care" about his own base's frustrations with his evasiveness.
@@taliaeve969 I understand he wants to dispel what he calls the Western conception of the word belief. But at the same time he can come off as a sophist, overcomplicating things he fully understands the meaning of. It seems his mind is naturally highly logical and cannot break those logical structures for the common person. Paul had his number in my opinion, “Claiming to be wise, they became fools”
What are games 34?
35:18 what does that mean when we add words to fit the narrative what does that word mean? Meme.
I take truth as a testimony to the truth, the channel Truth is Christ then the 1611, 1612, 1769 English Translation to the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary and the correct word of God is truth.
🤝🌞👍 KJV STRONG LMG AND THE WORD TO LOOK UP IS PHILANTHROPY BEFOREHAND THE WORDS ARE IMPORTANT, Rev 22;18,19 stuff.
What Bible we don’t study and study dictate the bloodlines.
🤫🏳️💙👈🎚️🔥🆙🎵🌞🕊️
Alex has an unmatched mastery of using emotion-free logic while still maintaining a human level of personability.
Perfectly said. He's an impressive individual, not often you come across someone that intelligent.
Eloquently framed.
But he really doesn't. His commonly-stated slavery objection is a purely emotional argument, quote mining for the worst sounding passage about slavery while ignoring all the context about what that word means in the Bible. He plays at biting the bullet when it comes to morality, saying it's illusory, while being an "ethical vegan" as if that should means anything according to his worldview. He borrows meaning and morality from a theistic worldview to prop up a deterministic, materialistic atheism in which meaning and morality are, by his own admission, nonexistent. He needs a philosophy course.
He is the only one that can steer Peterson in a way that he starts making some sense
@@owensullivan252Theistic worldviews didn’t invent meaning and morality. They borrowed everything they espoused from other ideas had simultaneously by everyone else alive on the planet that had thoughts in their heads. It would be a strange thing indeed if atheist and theist morality wasn’t mostly aligned because we all live together in societies.
I think you are just a bitter person that doesn’t like when people don’t believe exactly what You believe and should probably take a course in humility.
We need more people like Alex - I've only just found him but wow. Amazing to have someone who can challenge beliefs intelligently without being rude whatsoever. It seems like an exceedingly rare skill these days.
Man, I am just grateful that I spent all these years learning English. What a privilege it is to be able hear and understand this conversation
Bruh... English is my first language and I only understand like 30% of these podcasts lol
Congrats tho! It is a privilege to be able to listen to these and understand somewhat.
Oof. You might wanna take an IQ test, you might be eligible for benefits.
Same here, I'm glad I started watching movies in English when I was 8 and started reading English books while in college, gives me an advantage over my monolingual friends 😂
😂😂😂
Lmfao😂@@Jeroen4
This is my super-bowl.
For sure!
Haha yes!
Best comment 2024
O'Connor is a BA in philosophy and theology and he has a podcast? So he's qualified to work at a Starbucks in LA?
😂
I’m a Christian but I thoroughly enjoy listening to Alex. He articulates his ideas so clearly it’s a pleasure to listen to
No way! A Christian enjoying listening to an atheist? How revolutionary 😅
@@r.the.mazzochist2259Except he’s not an atheist. On the whole, atheists aren’t worth paying attention to.
Yep, me too.
@@jayjaychadoy9226Well, he kinda had to, he's often livelier
Mental mesturbation
The best thing about this conversation is that it’s the oldest debate in the book.
It’s Plato vs Aristotle. Peterson represents Plato’s style of theological, spiritual and artistic thinking whereas O’Connor represents Aristotle’s scientific, logical and technological school of thought.
Such a great conversation between two extremely intelligent individuals.
If only Peterson could display any of those things on a coherent level.
@@steaminghottake6221 We get it, you don't like him because you think he's mean and a phobic. I respect them both.
@@24toofast Maybe commenter indeed finds him incoherent, and you could disagree and even question directly instead of adscribe motivation to others. Jumping to a corporate defense of daddy while insinuating ideological motivation on the other part is, well, lazy and hypocritical. If you read the comments, you'll find a lot of people agreeing on the fact that Peterson positions are-deliberately or not-convoluted and sometimes incoherent. The fact that this conversation is considered by lots to finally elucidate some of his positions, after years of him being in the spotlight, suggest that either he's not communicating his ideas efficiently (like some Peterson less vitriolic apologists like to argue) or that he is indeed trying to weasel out giving a clear answer (as most of his detractors would point out). So regardless you love or hate him, maybe don't be so triggered my dude.
@@symboland That's fair, but from my perspective that is usually the case. The use of daddy tells me you're an athiest that says skydaddy a lot? 🥱 So this was partially you offering advice and partially you filling your own ego and getting jabs in. Breaking down conversation by saying triggered lol. I do agree Peterson could weasel out of things. I haven't watched a full video in a while. I'm open to differing views. Even Alex isn't the "be all end all" and dare I say arrogant. Hitchens was arrogant as well, but Alex is much more intelligent and argues better. Gee wilikers
@@24toofast I accept that maybe referring to Peterson as "daddy" was petty, and I apologize. Let me be sincere: I'm tired of Peterson and his fans' usual apologetics, so I read your message and lashed out. I shouldn't have assumed you are a fan of his, though. I ascribed motive to you by thinking you were emotionally defending Peterson, as you ascribed motives to OP and then to me with the whole "atheist skydaddy" thing-a word I didn't write and can assure you I've never said in my life. English is not my first language and I think the whole "skydaddy" schtick is a little cringe. So I'm pretty sure about that. I'm sorry for being spicy and petty. Still, you don't think your original comment is insightful, right? So maybe we could both do better? Cheers. Have a nice one.
I’m a Christian who appreciates Alex’s line of questioning and explanation here. Jordan seems to know what his religious audience is asking and still refuses to answer their questions on their terms. Alex does a good job of pressing Peterson on this.
Totally agree! Alex refused to be mesmerised by Peterson so didn't allow Petersons timely interuptions to deter him.
I've come away with much less respect for Peterson. His conception is of God is obviously a synthetic one and he's pretending he is describing the God of the Bible.
@@Todd_Thinks I am inclined to agree. I suspect Peterson knows exactly what his own beliefs are and how they significantly differ from the traditional Christian understanding. He is not prepared to be explicit about them and it is that that I find dishonest.
Dude, how can people stomach listening to Peterson? He always dodges every question possible and his "deeper" digressions into details are meant exclusively to obfuscate things he wishes not to answer.
@@Todd_ThinksMy friend you didn't understood correctly. Please back to 22:00 Peterson said ABSOLUTELY CLEARLY 💯 % : YES I believe in the resurrection of Jesus. End. This is sufficient. But if you don't believe yet, go to 51:00 and pay attention when Peterson describe that he believe that a young man was possessed for something (spiritual, obviously, it's clear man). He described like a light, there isn't other way to be more clear than this.
Other thing that you probably didn't pay attention: in start of conversation Peterson described and explained that Alex was engaged in his mission to prove that Peterson didn't believe in God, or something like this, and you are all obsessed with your vision of the conversation that you all can't realize and pay attention, rational and with your heart, that Jordan really and clearly believe in God and in Jesus. 60% of what Peterson talk was spiritual, FOR GOD GUYS if you are cristian and don't understand what it means SPIRITUAL WORLD, God, how are you cristian???
Jordan believes in God, can you accept or not. 22:00 go and check it out.
God bless you all and give direction. 🙏🏻
The fact that Alex is only 25 years old is shocking to me. Fascinated to see where he'll be when he's 40 or 50.
I pray that he is still this respectful in his older years. I’m 21, he had a brief adoptive phase of Hitchens in his earlier years. He has grown and has become less confrontational which is always a plus for a fruitful discussion.
Maybe a devout Catholic?? 😅
He is my favourite atheist by far. I enjoyed his conversations with Bishop Barron. He will go far no matter in which direction he goes.
The greatest apologist of the 21st century.
He's not gonna get there. The fog is coming👹
He’s a typical young philosophy student and his views on religion are where I was at in 2008 after reading Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. He is not original.
"Sorry, I don't want to derail you from your tangent."
That's hilarious. Great conversation you two.
@LoftyAssertions i get that a lot. Totally understandable.
I incorrectly guessed who would say that
@@brandonrussell8306 i would have too :-)
Was it Alex?@@brandonrussell8306
@PaulB_864 It's just not something you hear very often, and it speaks to the good-natured and honest conversation. I didn't mean it in a mocking way at all.
Alex has this great balance between listening to try to understand and sharing his own view (also when that requires interrupting Jordan sometimes)
I just found his stuff he's probably my favorite intellectual so far
After mentioning that he frequently talks too much, I imagine JP appreciates a challenge always.
I just ran the transcript of this conversation through a program - peterson speaks for almost 85% of the podcast
@@daredevilaceyou just made that up
@@boxforusa8970 yeah, obviously
Alex is a hero. I'm convinced there are THOUSANDS of us who openly listen to both sides of this conversation and see the full merits of both. And we need more REAL bridges like Alex. If you allow me the irony, Alex you're doing God's work!
Well said Bojack, well said.
To add to the irony, you've offered JP zero credit. How unsurprising.
@@aaroninglnot irony, I find JP less intellectually honest
@jeremytine so he seemed intellectually dishonest throughout this interview? He was digging deep throughout, as he always does, and showed far more of himself than Alex did.
@@aaroningl to be honest I haven't watched but a small clip yet, but will when I have time. Could be possible here, dunno yet, but I made no mention in reference of this video, I was speaking in the totality of past expression of the two. I hope that clears it up for you.
You do not realise how long I have waited for this!
For real, it's all I've been looking for this week! 😅
Same 😂
Yup. Same!
same
Ditto
Alex was absolutely brilliant in asking direct and clarifying questions to Jordan’s beliefs. It’s something I’ve been begging people to do for years now. It helped me understand Jordan so much more and what he believes and doesn’t believe.
This is the brilliance of having two intellectuals, with inquisitive intent, asking underlying fundamental building blocks of the other’s beliefs.
I think most believe Alex was totally wrong by making that video last year that Jordan Peterson is an atheist. I think he understands him better too in that unlike an atheist, Jordan Peterson, not only uses the literal meaning of the word, but the spiritual senses as well in context.
I will destroy the wisdom of the wise. ( 1 Cor.1:19;) A true baby in Christ has the awesome truth, Dr. Peterson is searching for...
No he wasn't.
The entire time his primary goal is a game of Gotcha, albeit a little more subtle and sophisticated.
The reason this is apparent, is his consistent demand that Peterson answer according to his perspective.
@@pescatoralpursuit1726Bro you are dickriding so hard rn
Alex is so endlessly patient and precise it's incredible
he's not. Here he's on best behaviour. He's sitting opposite a giant of contemporary thought, and this showcase will open his channel to a potential audience in excess of 2 million. He can't afford to be anything but affable. He flew to the States just to be on the podcast - he has a lot riding a favourable outcome. Neither does he want to say some of the feeble stuff he often says. As Dr P states, he was made aware of Alex by a trusted third party - one of his production time I believe.
@@dominicbrant1968 lol have you watched Alex's channel for several years like I have? You're an idiot. This is how Alex literally always is.
For what it's worth, if he were my son, I'd take him to see a stylist and supply him with a modest wardrobe that would more appropriately reflect the intellectual and cultural heritage he come from. I'd also like to find him a confident, educated, happy Chappy boyfriend he could soften too, and enjoy in a real life partnership. If I didn't know better, I'd guess he drive whisky and sigar and never quite finishes them. I was personal assistant to accompliscjed famous and successful. I'm enjoy having professional banter with him in regard to his brand values and the lives he impact c He need a crying into the pillow hug, and a warm drink.
@@dominicbrant1968
Alex has a growing channel regardless of the JbP discussion, and there is nothing 'riding' on the session.
The Hitchins session turned to mud, and it wasn't big Al's fault. Numerous events have gone well because he is an intelligent and wise conversationalist with most of the guests being reasonable people.
There is Samson-like power, in that tealeaf sweeper on the upper lip, but the world is not quite ready for the imminent Nietzscheian-style indomitable thicket; it will require fire insurance.
Just you wait 'enry 'iggins, just you wait.
@@dominicbrant1968You are such a weirdo. I guess this is the fan that JP attracts…
"the skepticism should be in service of rectifying your ignorance rather than in service of making your point or winning the argument"
Gem
If I would work for satan I definitely would hire such an intellectually gifted person as Alex.
He is "cunning sensible smart" just as the serpent in the garden and Knowledgeable as the tree in the garden.
Even Eve let the serpent close because she wasn't afraid of it at all.
More likely the dialogue or the conversation between them has happened similarly as between JP and Alex.
This smooth dynamic expression of his belief on this intellectual level can even drive away the "belivers" of God.
Just as it has happened in the garden a test of belief=Trust based on an individual DECISION.
The tree of Knowledge was offered versus of God very Existence for to make a decision. That's from satan and allowed by God.
Why is that? satan aim was to put her trust in Knowledge rather in He who created that Knowledge of tree.
So in other-words that was for Eve destruction from satan.
As result of a taste of the Knowledge her follower Adam was convince by her's Knowledge to drive away his trust from his creator.
satan was clapping & smiling but he didn't know God's plan which was CREATED in Love but yet to FORM in His creation.
Therefore is impossible for satan to know the secret of Love as he has no access in that "field" because the love is not in Him.
God wants His spirits to be trust in Him not despise Him.
God wants to be in Love with His spirits and not to be the other way.
God wants to teaching us throughout our own conclusion this is why Jesus was always questions those who wasn’t understand Him.
What is Love ? Is it the nature of God.
Revelation:
Love is a DECISION of an relationship in truth unconditionally.
This what God teaching us and demonstrated in John 3:16.
Eve could have ask God of reason of her doubt but she didn't look any relationship with Him.
So the Love failed in her.
Adam could have run to God after he ate it, but he was hidding rather looking for relationship even blamed God.
The God of forgiveness questioned Adam as a opportunity to confess his disobedience.
So the love failed in Adam.
God's plan was Jesus the perfect Love.
Jesus was tempted in everyways but His Love remained in Him so the nature of God was chosen by a decision.
The Love was successful in Jesus.
So therefore He is the example of Gods nature this is what God's spirit looking for....
That's why is the only way to God's relationship is Jesus.
So Love is a DECISION of an relationship in truth unconditionally.
The Way The Truth the Life makes perfect sense.
The difference of JP and Alex is exactly "conceptualised" in the service.
JP has a heart which feels the other spirits deeply and genuinely in service, while He "wrestling with God" to understand it in full spectrum.
That's impossible but because of the constant wrestling he stronger every day.
In the other hand Alex with his catch phrase "seem to me" cold heart who has no genuine intentions to understand God and help to the others with his service as well.
However He said it He has it but as his fruit shows that he has not at all.
His work is only for himself and only for his comfort .
As Jesus said "by their fruit ye shall know them"
He also said
"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires.
He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.
When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Alex trying to prove his belief of atheism and disprove the belief of God.
As this happens intellectually on high level, therefore his purpose very sophisticatedly hidden.
Even he convinced chatGPT of God existence.
This wasn't because of the service of God or genuinely looking for Him but to disprove Him as even an AI can be "fooled" by a such thing as God existence.
The spirit of confusion is not from God but the spirit of discernment.
Very very clever..👏
He is for those belivers whose close to God just as Adam and Eve were at the time of genesis. Did the serpent beguile Eve?
Many "believers" are amazed beguiled or charmed of his smooth kind friendly manner even recognise him as a nice person who talks about God, yet he constantly against God.
So God let him to be cunning sensible and smart just as for the serpent for at least the above mentioned reasons.
Paul also wrote about him therefore the evil can use such spirits:
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man...
(This image would be in his mind)
I pray for that God Bless Alex and JP spirits with His Truth everyday.
Let their heart never be comforted in lies but in Truth in this way they shall know their right pathway to their creator.
Amen🙏
@@simifire79Could you expand on this?
@@simifire79 Ok, cultist.
@@simifire79 To speak so ill of someone genuinely attempting to understand JP demonstrates your bias, your unwillingness to further understand, and that you belong to that christian camp or team that JP spoke rather contemptuously of in the beginning. This is very basic logic and deconstruction. To compare it to anything else is unwise sir. Please be respectful
@JamesJessenfedden
What do you mean of expand on this topic? (Kindly questioning)
I mean this topic is very deep I would say eventually the essence of the message from the Bible.
My comment was about to discern the spirits.
I found JP spirit for benefiting the others to become close to the Truth.
However I found Alex spirit non beneficial to the others.
Alex's conceptions of God is closed while JP conceptions is open.
One is on his adventure of discovering the Truth, while the other believes he knows already the Truth and try to prove that.
One will greatly benefit of the journey while the other is benefited of those who seeking or mining the Truth.
JP clearly said He doesn't really knows whats going ...on but he definitely perceiving something which he couldn’t answer.
Alex absolutely convinced, there is no doubt in him of his beliefs in atheism.
The point was to see how the serpent could fool Eve by a smooth kindly cunning sensible high intellectual level of conversation when eventually God was the subject.
The results was to drive away her from God just as Alex results is to take further not closer to the Truth anyone who listens him.
He must knows this deep in himself but he believes=Trust in his knowledge and he doesn’t really care the others.
if just 1% "chance" is God exists and he drove away many from Him how he considered the others with care.
JP is the opposite as He also intellectually gifted but doesn't work against God to disprove Him.
He even pursues the others to seek Him.
The Love is missing of Alex because thats God's nature.
"Coincidentally" this is connect to the Genesis account in the Garden.
(There is no coincidence in the Kingdom of God)
As the Love was missing from Adam and Eve.
It was created but couldn't be in a form in them as their decision was block it by the serpent helps" of Eve desire.
I believe in her the desire of the limited knowledge was chosen rather than God's nature = Love.
Which was the limitations of her potential.
If I think of my own desires between God's nature then I can limit my potential in "xxx-sites" everyday.
Therefore that day I wouldn't be looking for God's relationship but rather hide in shame.
If I was then I would need to confess my sin and then after days I should feel bad myself if my desire would drive me there again to my sin
So to be with my sinful nature as I desire I have to chose to cut off the God's nature as Love wich is relationship with God.
Otherwise I should say everyday to God "ohhh I'm sorry for...." and that is would become hard and harden day by day.
Or I just would saying that "I'm sorry for.. but not meant to be that... so I would be in lie then I'm again not in Truth so not in Love.
Therefore my potential would reach the top because its end up wherever or whatever is manifested in my desire. Food drink or any addiction of a sinful nature...
Unfortunately we all failing time to time from God's standard but God asking us throughout our conscience just as He asked Adam even when he was hidding.
So we can be in Relationship with Him but needs to be in Truth and that is Unconditionaly.
But if we lie , deny the Truth how He could keep us in relationship where He knows we are lying in order to have access to His benefits and we are not interested in Him.
This is what the gold digger do.
The perfect Love was not formed in human until Jesus.
The Love isn't a feeling but a decision.
If would be feeling then today would be different as tomorrow concerning Love.
The feeling is the manifestation of Love in various ways.
I hope that makes sense but please contact to the main source as confirmation to your spirit.🙏
God is Love
Love is a DECISION not a feeling
God is a decision not a shaky feeling.
God bless you richly 🙏
Cant even imagine who and where Alex Oconnor will be in 10 years. His evolution is incredible
He’ll be Pope!
He needs to write a book already
I think he will be a non dualist.
My guess is he'll become his own unique version of Tom Holland?
@@jayjaychadoy9226 >> Nah, Alex would be a great Pope! (You know he secretly wants to be St. Paul; that’s the key to his character!)
Alex clarified Sam Harris' arguments about morality better than anyone else ever has, and he's just done the same with Peterson's position on God and truth. He's one of the most impressive conversationalists of our time.
Where have you heard Alex clarify Harris' arguments? I would like to hear that. I don't understand Harris at all past the point that he thinks Christians are stupid. I would seriously like to understand his argument.
@@melissasw64if that’s what you understand about Sam you were emotionally triggered by something he said and were unable to actually listen any further. I can guarantee you he’s never said Christian’s are stupid. I don’t even think he thinks that. He’s specifically discussed the rather interesting seeming paradox of highly intelligent religious people.
@@goodvibes-gy3jn I can't remember who he debated, but by the end of the debate, Sam was attacking Christianity. To be honest I don't remember if he used the word "stupid," but it was clear that is how he feels about Christians and I wondered by he didn't attack Muslims or Buddhists or some other religion.
I really just wanted to understand his explanation for objective morality without God. If you can point me in the direction of a good explanation of his theory, I am truly interested.
@melissasw64 there's no such thing as objective morality without God.
Harris criticized every form on monotheism and religion for some shared reasons and some specific reasons. He has criticized Judaism despite being of Jewish heritage himself and criticized Islam despite the fear-induced climate that has been brought upon the entirety of the Western world, as well as being called a racist and a xenophobe even by his peers, as everyone who criticizes the religion of peace is.
I highly suggest you actually look up his debates (free on UA-cam) and read his books, you will find that his position and his articulation of it is the most reasonable anyone has put forward in the last 30 years.
after watching this conversation I'm convinced that Alex O'Connor is a saint, cause he bloody sure has a patience of one considering the world salad
So glad these two sat down to speak
I'm glad it's now and not 3-4 years ago.
@@GiovanniAdamiwhy?
@@benniheme2you Because Alex has matured and become more open minded.
Alex needs to sit down with Bernardo Kastrup and the empirical evidence he has found against materialism. He paints himself as an 'always the truth' seeker type guy, but is ignoring a whole swathe of empirical evidence against his frame of seeing things.
I'm not sure if it's intentional because he knows it would prove him wrong, or he's simply not aware of the data.
@@johns2220isn't empirical evidence material? So there is evidence undermining the evidence its giving, huh?
Alex O'Connor: the world's champion of good faith arguments.
@frankxu4795 I don't think I'd disagree, in a sense. Sometimes the best way to ease someone out of their own way is that diplomacy. His discussion with Ben Shapiro is probably one of the better examples of this.
@frankxu4795 I think the mistake would be in thinking this is a one stop shop. Alex intends to make a career out of talking to these people. Most of the comments in this thread already mention that this is the most clarity they've ever seen out of Jordan on religion. Baby steps.
Undisputed
Yessir
Did frank delete his comments? I don't see them anymore. Odd.
Great work, Alex. As a Christian, I thoroughly & deeply appreciated your commitment to pressing into the sincere beliefs of Christianity.
Yes!! I personally know people have had their frustrations with Peterson on the very task Alex set out to answer. (Count me among them on points as well)
@@CleverGirlAAH Alex is notoriously good at pressing people on points that others rarely do, for whatever reason. He's a great discussionist (if I may make up a word) for that reason.
@@DANGJOS interlocutor is the word you’re looking for.
@@CodamATW Thank you!
so many Christians here praising Alex who simply thinks you are wrong and his whole output is designed to prove you're wrong. He's not your brother in Christ.
Peterson describes the bible as “inexhaustible in its interpretive space”which just so happens to describe his answer to practically any question.
The interpretative space of every atom is inexhaustible [to the wise].
The multi dimensional existence of layered truth in so many facets is perceived if one follows their true meaning and walks that tight rope. It's sad we can't accept the notion of truth being a concept that deviates based on perception and none are wrong to the individual if it's subjective and is within. It's possible the only objective truth in Christianity is the accumulated totality of subjective experiences and truths manifest from that.
Years ago I saw a youtube comment describing Peterson as "not so much of a philosopher as much of a poet meandering through his thoughts" and that's probably the most succinct way to understand his "ethos".
@@Pllayer064 meandering and monetizing*
@@Pllayer064 meandering and monetizing*
Alex asking Jordan the proper questions we Christians have wanted to ask him forever. Cheers to you both!
Exactly.
Alex was asking all the right questions I wanted to ask Dr. Jordan myself !
He has been asked. He was finally pinned down from his squirming away
Agree! needed an Atheist to ask it!
I gathered that throughout the conversation, Jordan was constantly in awe of the amount of insipid stupidity required to ask him those questions. I suppose the fans got what they wanted.
My thoughts exactly. Praise God for the strange & wonderful ways in which He works.
This is THE definition of a proper argument we all need to aspire to... No one-upmanship... No ego... No shouting or arguing or name calling... Just two people trying to better their understanding.
Imagine trying to better "understand" Spiderman 😂lmao. Gtfo my guy. Cringe
Naw. The kid was very condescending and disrespectful. He just hid it better.
@@pescatoralpursuit1726 the irony of calling someone condescending and disrespectful "the kid" is amazing
@@pescatoralpursuit1726if he "hid" it, then he is not being disrespectful in a perceivable way, how would you conclude he is being disrespectful?
@baishihua His latent contempt for Dr. Peterson is disrespectful.
He regards Peterson as an educated peer, which is also disrespectful and ludicrous.
He came there with a closed mind. His only purpose was to catch Jordan Peterson admitting he's a biblical literalist.
At worst, he has an agenda. At best, he's too stupid to get out of his own way.
Alex really did a magnificent job at getting some solid answers out of Peterson in regard to the resurrection - He knew exactly how to phrase his questions without coming off as hostile or adversarial.
And yet we’re still left unsure of what Jp’s position is entirely.
@@ThaRiddler25 yes, but I think Alex has gotten closer than anyone to this point in time
@@ThaRiddler25Alex at least got road runner into a canyon. Most people can’t even get him off the road.
Lol
@@isthispodracingg it was a joke 😄
Peterson is person who hops from topic to topic until all of conversation loses a purpose
He’s just not great at connecting together points for people who don’t have the same underlying edifice of belief that he does. It’s very tough to challenge someone like this
Alex O'Connor is absolutely brillant. I really appreciated this conversation. I've seldom seen Jordan Peterson become interested in this way, where he listens and Alex inquires in a good-faited and clinical manner.
Yeah Peterson was clearly highly stimulated and excited by the "brain picking" Alex was applying on him.
And it was very helpful that Alex is just as sharp, precise and witty as Peterson himself is.
Not brilliant. He didn’t even express his own thoughts while being inquisitive about Jordan’s.
@@nicolasbascunan4013
Alex O'Connor stated early on in the conversation that one of his main goals is to try to get a good grasp of Peterson's view. Peterson can't properly navigate his own view, and more than once did he say that he doesn't care if people understand him. An inquiry like this was therefore much needed.
If you want Alex O'Connors view, he has his own channel. Go check it out.
Wait, wasn’t this supposed to be Jordan interviewing Alex? This felt like the complete opposite and I loved it 😂
A maniac wearing a maniacal getup. Our civilization is one for.
Lol Alex totally took the wheel and Jordan went along for the ride
Seriously, left to pick Alex's ideas apart, this interview wouldn't have taken 5 minutes.
Alex is an excellent interviewer, whilst Jordan (whilst an excellent lecturer) isn't a good interviewer... So it's probably not surprising.
@@aaroningl What are you on about? Alex interviews people--that's kind of his thing.
Surgical precision with the questions from Alex. Really helps unwrap Petersons worldview. Love both men, thanks!
Peterson's world view can be summarised here: 😂 1:33:14
1:45:52 He describes his method of garbage collection: "make patterns where the data doesn't even match based on what feels most profound"
I don’t think Peterson liked getting unwrapped it’s like he was always withholding some things. It’s like Alex had a sharp knife and smoothly cut the wrapping and unravelled it
Big kudos to Alex for listening to Jordan jump around the question for 45 mins without growing impatient
Didn't you notice that Dr Peterson was re-framing Alex's rather insulting questions?
@@dominicbrant1968 insulting how? Alex asks straight forward questions and tries to drive toward coherent answers. Felt very respectful.
@@builtbywalsh when the host re-frames your question, and gives you full context, and then you ask the same question again and again, it suggests the questioner isn't open to understanding or entering a new paradigm. Listen again, Alex throws quite a few low balls when Dr P has challenged some of Alex's fundamental assumptions. The discussion about mathematics. There is an implicit symbolism. Hence theoretical maths can be see as exercising in the realm of eternal truth. Alex then has to concede that his philosophical arguments are essentially a form of symbolism - where the actual truth doesn't lie in the words and arguments spoken, but in the meaning and 'logos' of those words. He quickly moves to a gnostic argument as if that was an equivalent. Asking whether the resurrection is true is like asking does 1+1=2. Symbolical Yes, but 1 bucket of sand plus 1 bucket of sand is two buckets of sand, OR is you pour them on the floor, it's just One bigger pile of sand. The truth of the resurrection might be literal - was Jesus in a coma etc. Primitive cultures didn't measure death imperially like we do. Hence even Victorian graves where fitted with bells to attract help if the deceased wasn't actually deceased. CPR is the world's favourite resurrection tool. So, back to symbolism, it doesn't really matter which 'facts' you look for, symbolism and meanings generate an eternal truth.
@@dominicbrant1968 Yeah, Alex was basically hell belt on getting Jordan to say "I adimit, these events didn't actually happen but these stories speak to a universal truth through metaphors and symbolism" but Jordan just refuses to. Imovable object and unstoppable for type sh*t.
@@Darko1.0 really nicely put. I like it
I have followed Alex for about 6 years, and for 6 years have been waiting for this conversation. Thoroughly enjoyed it.
He has Jesus waiting behind the magic curtain.
If I could have picked any two people in the world to have a conversation, it would have been these two brilliant thinkers. As a Christian and a huge fan of both Dr. Peterson and Alex O'Connor, I want to sincerely thank them for making this happen. It has been such a treat.
You a Christian or an agnostic?
As an atheist I appreciate them too.
You’d be missing out on so much
O'Conner? "Brilliant Thinker?" 🤔
..
He's seems pretty expected and generic to me.
Jordan peterson is a great thinker?@@whynot1548
I was noticing how many interjections there were in this conversation, but I quickly realised it’s not attempts to dominate, rather lots of enthusiastic ‘sparks’ about the ideas. Very refreshing actually!
Must be just me. It’s so hard for me to follow when JBP interrupts so much.
@@elycetyler1942you're not alone here.
Yea I think oftentimes JP does interrupt out of excitement and sometimes it’s relevant and deepens the conversation and other times it veers it off of the initial course it was going.
I think this is an important point, and this is often the case with Peterson, I don't think it's usually attempts to dominate, but sparks of interest and also sometimes attempts to clarify what area of interest he's trying to get at. He catches flak for it because it annoys some people, but I'm not sure it can be solidly categorized as a weakness on his part, because I think it's a side effect of how he thinks to some degree, which is part of how he arrived at where he is.
However, it's true it doesn't flow as naturally in some conversations, and it's not clear to me there's an easy solution there. Some say "just let the other person talk", but what of the fact the conversation is for Peterson's channel, and he has limited time and may never talk to this person again?
Claims that he's doing something wrong will have to be more useful than "stop interrupting", because annoying some people a bit isn't always evidence that you're doing something wrong.
I dunno. I'm not decided on this. I think it would be interesting if an interviewer as incisive as Alex could really question Peterson about this, using specific examples.
I’m not meaning it as a criticism against Jordan, I think he’s absolutely wonderful. Just doesn’t work for my brain - I’m listening to his conversation partner, making a point and I’m trying to connect and follow that point, and when he interrupts, my brain isn’t ready to shift with him. It’s jarring, it means I am less mentally adroit than others that I can’t just roll with it, but I can’t
This was the final nail in the coffin for Jordan for me. Alex did a great job of pointing out his conflicting positions and he still avoided it at all costs
Hearing Jordan say "Is there a hierarchy of memes?" made my life worth living
Richard Dawkins wrote the Selfish Gene, articulating how you can make sense of the world by focusing on how the fittest genes survive, spread, replicate, and evolve over time. He also popularized the term "meme" for ideas that act in a similar way. Well, with memes its also survival of the fittest. What are the fittest memes? What is the fittest meme? It's hard to come up with an idea more fit for survival than the one true God upon which all of reality rests. How do you beat that idea? What idea could be more compelling?
It's a tossup between Pepe and Harambe.
@@RealBakedTahu o rly?
@GeneralProfessor Pepe is the embodiment of primordial chaos, mischivism, and the spirit of rebellion. In contract, Harambe represents order. Harambe is the sacrificial guardian who lays down his life for the innocent. He is stability, wisdom, and strength.
@@RealBakedTahu thank you. from the bottom of my heart, thank you
This is much more conversation than a debate, and a lot more productive because no one is trying to win or intellectually dominate the other.
Which can all be attributed to Alex. His demeanor put Peterson in this place
More of a Q+A than a conversation.
@@aaroningl They aren't mutually exclusive
Sure thing... but it would have been awesome if they end up in a fist fight with each other, ya know, Jerry Springer style, calling each other names. Now that would have broken the internet for a while. But well, civilised conversation it is.
@@aaroningla Q + A is a form of conversation is it not?
This is the most satisfying conversation I've seen JBP have regarding religion. O'Connor approach to pulling out Dr Peterson's personal thoughts was wonderful and very enlightening.
Enlightening in the sense that it's so incredibly difficult to do. Jordan Peterson doesn't want the Christians to know what he believes.
This is the best interview/discussion of all time, change my mind
But seriously, if you watched Peterson 2016-2020 era and then wondered what he actually thinks about these questions and wanted to see him simplify his answers in order to reason weither or not he was being deceitful in his average response, this is the best possible and most thought out line of questioning (from O’ Connor) that you could ask for
@CosmicSkeptic Fantastic work here in this conversation. Of the last 6 years of listening to Peterson carefully and trying to get a read on his true beliefs concerning religion, you've done the absolute best job i've seen of managing to get Jordan to distill his ideas and beliefs down into a digestible and understandable format. Well done. This conversation was incredible.
To be honest, how could you not have understood his views years ago?
Watch other Jordon Peterson videos, he explajns a lot more in them, other ones are more enlightening...
@@MartinaStCcertainly not. Point us that way, we’ll be waiting.
@@InfernoG-or4s because he Gish gallops constantly every answer is laden with obfuscation and motte and Bailey
@@shelovinthecrewFFS - was you actually listening to a single word he said??
I’ve listened to hundreds of religious conversations and debates, even political, and I’ve often screamed at the screen like “rephrase the question” or thinking how something could be positioned slightly different to bring clarity and certainty to views. I think I do a very good job, but Alex is incredible in this area. You gained a follower friend.
God bless
God, (no pun intended) Alex speaking with Jordan is f*king Christmas morning. He's pushing all the questions I've wished others would pry for and Jordan is giving me all the gifts I expected he might and then some. Thanks, guys. This is the clarity on linguistic ontology nearly nobody has seemed to even have the words or notion to triangulate, let alone extract from JP.
What about the last hard question ? I’m kind of wondering why was it so hard ? . Well Alex has been reading Thomas , and the so called forgotten narratives of the New Testament , which I don’t care , but , yes I do care if it is on a debate . Aren’t you ?
You’re lauding JBP for answering a question? That’s kind of….pathetic?
@@Wattyb2 No, I’m lauding Alex for asking the right questions. As Jordan says, (paraphrasing) he usually can’t answer the question in the full capacity he’d like to because he knows the people asking the questions don’t have the framework to know what he means. Also it’s exhausting and time consuming to answer so I don’t blame him for usually not trying to dive into it. I had this conversation with my mom when we talked about my beliefs on the phone the day before this came out. It’s a conversation killer lol
40 minutes in and Alex has drawn the most clarity out of JP on this issue, but credit to JP for independently making good points.
JP has always been clear, he didn't said anything new at all that he hadn't said before using the same analogies and the same stories, nearly.
But Alex did much better and pushing the conversation along than Harris/Dawkins because he already knows the Christian traditions well. So the ideas flow much more naturally.
In what way go look at his content he believes Islamic channels who hate Jews and they spread fake media about Israel
@@th3nobodi3Peterson is great at using a lot of words to say nothing of meanings it’s really astonishing to watch .
@@mastermachetier5594 what was unclear to you? the ideas are fairly clear to me.
@@mastermachetier5594is it fair to assume you respect Alex? It's clear he understands what Peterson is getting at.
As a Catholic, Cosmic Skeptic is just what JP needed. And when it was said that JP was drunk on symbols was funny.
The conversation between Alex and Bishop Barron equally interesting.
I've had these same issues with Peterson for a long time. I had hoped that Stephen Fry (a literature expert) had put to task the way Alex has.
It's a fantastic conversation. And I thank Alex for being relentlessly par for the course on his inquisition. 🙏
He is that, but in the end it's metaphor he's drunk on....
I don’t there’s anything wrong with being “drunk on symbols” especially when you consider that most of the rest of the world has built up a pretty high tolerance against symbols.
Daaammnm he got Jordan Peterson very red and stressed 😭😭😭
I could never have imagined Alex and Jordan would have or could have this much chemistry. Alex brought out the Peterson I feel like I first was entranced by a few years back but haven’t seen in forever. This conversation was so appreciated.💚
Yeah, the chemistry: water and oil
@@galindoof you must be new to Jordans content. As someone who’s consumed almost all of both of theirs over the last few years and seen Jordan live twice, once while a huge fan and follower and again just a few weeks ago no longer a follower but there for different reasons, I can say with full confidence this wasn’t an oil meets water chemistry. Alex was able to so successfully lower Jordan’s defenses and create an atmosphere more agreeable to Jordan than any other atheist coming with the same questions ever has that - lo and behold…. he gave us a side of Jordan and answers to questions put to Jordan a million times over we’ve never seen nor heard. The denial of this is an admittance of a lack of knowledge or experience with Jordan’s content and history. You needn’t take my word for it. A couple minute breeze through the comment section shows hundreds of people grateful for Alex giving us a Jordan some of the best of the best that came before couldn’t come close to introducing us to. But you and I both know these words will fall on deaf ears because you’re just here for contrarian purposes.. my boredom this Friday night got you a response all the same.
@@jayjaychadoy9226 two things here. One, if the redness his face reached in this discussion scared you I highly recommend you don’t watch literally any other conversation he’s had with an opposing interlocutor.. as this was both the most mild and productive. Second. If the level of redness his face turned during this was scary at all to you I suggest bubble wrap before going outside, ear muffs and an adult.
So incredible to follow Alex's journey all these years. He continues to evolve and broaden his horizons, to adapt flexibly to the language/worldview of all sorts. He can speak with Dillahunty, Peterson, Kisin, Harris, Dawkins, Pageau, and so many more and he never misses a beat. He always finds the overlap, adapts his langauge game, and delves for the heart of the conversation. I've been waiting for this for a long time.
Tough to say who I align with more. I feel that I naturally tend to use more narrative, religious language when I discuss life; but when it comes down to it I would always say I agree with Alex more--or at least I resonate with his past criticisms of Peterson's flakiness/question-dodging. But then I understand how Peterson simply sees things differently. He doesn't see religion as most people do. He doesn't see God as most people do. I thoroughly resonate with his critics when they confront him for not acknowledging this; but I also thoroughly resonate with him when he grows frustrated with their inability to engage with the narrative/phenomenological side of life, or even his argument from evolutionary biology.
Anyway thank you both! Incredible. Tragic that I have a meeting in five minutes
How did your meeting go
@@connorkillmice it's okay to disagree with him bro...not a big deal
@@InfernoG-or4s It's not about disagreeing with him. JP is the king dodger, fact.
@@pgrothschild hey man that's also fine, I hope you enjoyed the conversation and God bless you my friend.
@@james-fn3fn hopefully it went well...
So far, one thing stands out:
This conversation is quite a lot better than previous conversations Peterson had with non-theists. Something about Alex's attitude, character and quite frankly, intelligence, brings out the best in Peterson.
It just shows that militant atheists and militant religious people are much more alike than those who prefer to not play a group game, but a knowledge extraction game.
I was kindof personally unhappy with Peterson's form of late (politics, deranged rants, etc.). This is more like it, feels like 2018 again.
I see what you mean but I feel like people need to evolve. Talking about politics was the natural next step but this doesn't mean you're wrong.
Jordon is seeing through today's world twisted underlying tyranny. Long may he speak sense. Regarding his understanding of God, that's his journey and he sees much truth at times.
Agree 100% I respect a desire to talk on politics but I believe that recently it’s left a lot less time for Peterson’s best areas like philosophy and religion.
@@InfernoG-or4sthere’s no problem with talking about politics, but the kind of extremism tribalism Peterson has been gravitating towards these past few years has been hugely disappointing compared to the calm, curious, reasonable demeanor he approached some topics with in the past. It’s not the political talk, it’s the nature of the political talk.
@@Deifiable well again personally I'm a fan but I completely understand if you're not and I'm sorry that you miss older times. But I'm someone who's politically active and I'm guessing a lot of old listeners are apolitical. Remember if something isn't your cup of tea, don't force yourself into it.
Alex's tangent about Genesis was fascinating to me. I am someone who has never held *any* interest in the contents of the Bible, and yet I had a smile ear to ear listening to this deconstruction.
Usually when Alex is quoting the Bible in his discussions, they feel like citations and footnotes, and this one just felt completely different. An actual scholarly fascination with the possible interpretations.
And let me be frank... I'm not a Peterson fan. But these two bouncing ideas off of each other so freely might be the most enjoyable conversation I've listened to in years.
No one assumed you were, this entire comments section are here from their atheistic algorithm or from O'Connor's page. Like any parasitic ideology the fans travel in packs...
😊😊😊ii ok u😮😅😅😮😮😮😅😮 o nás vyžaduje 😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😢
Why are you not a Peterson fan? Just wondering. :)
Then you are now a fan. It doesn't mean you have to agree with everything he says, just that you'd probably feel some admiration in his presence.
Admiration? Lol no
I'm not a fan of Peterson for a myriad of reasons, but Alex has worked wonders wading through the depths of word salad and religiously charged language to come out with something useful on the other side.
The evasion on the "did it really happen" issue is truly mind-numbing
Making a division between fictional characters and historical real people is "non-Christian metaphysics"? lol ok
@@angloortho8146your mind was already numb
What's the point of listening to somebody if you can't at least attempt to understand what they mean and take their point of view seriously?
@@angloortho8146 Yes, it is (depending on who you arbitrarily define as "Christian").
Camus convincingly argues that early "Christian metaphysics" was essentially Neoplatonism as exemplified by Augustine of Hippo. Aristotelianism entered mainstream Christian Metaphysics much later.
@@m3po22not sure if you're referring to Peterson or the commenter with your statement. To me it seems like the person wanting a straight yes or no is not willing to understand why Peterson cannot give a simple yes or no answer.
Oh we need more of this.
Independent thinkers whether they agree or not, willing to sit down and work on concepts together -- and let we the public in on their discourse. Just Wow. So helpful, and meanwhile so encouraging.
About all I want to listen to nowadays is is long-form interviews on interviews like this: on concepts, on the life of the mind.
This might be the most enlightening conversation I've ever seen Dr. Peterson ever participate in. I've never seen him get so down in the details in this way and so much of what he has said in the past finally fell into place and made sense.
:D
It’s great to see Alex, an atheist, take the time to put a lot of research and reflection into religious matters instead of rejecting religious beliefs without any knowledge about what is actually being rejected.
A superb interview that is interesting, informative, and insightful.
A masterclass on how an interview should be conducted. Well done!
It's not simply an interview.
It's a brain storm battle of the minds.
Sounds hyperbolic I know, but I truely felt that was the case with just how excited and stimulated both of them were to reallly hone the concepts and ideas each of them presented.
Alex has a degree in theology, and spent three years studying it exclusively at Oxford University, so it's not surprising he knows a few things.
I would argue that a lot of atheist are highly knowledgeable about religion. It's usually where atheism starts for people.
@@mrrubin8131Nah. A lot of them are disillusioned about religion and want to act out and "Epic own" religious people.
@@kenkilos I don't think you have talked to many of us...
Alex is not only far more versed on everything religious, but his ability to speak clearly without beating around the bush is so refreshing. He’s genuinely at ease with his own thinking. As for Peterson it drives me crazy how much he struggles with committing to an answer that explains his position on religion. It strikes me as if he’s afraid of disappointing and alienating part of his audience. He’s guarded and strategic, and keeps leaning forward on his chair as if that will make his arguments more convincing.
If you think that Alex knows more about religion than Jordan Peterson then you are clearly not familiar with Jordan Peterson’s work
I would disagree with the reason he leans forward - it seems more that it comes from his passionate monologue, he is "hyping himself up" and leaning in to further emphasize his speech. His passion makes him more tense in a sense lol
It's probably hard to defend fairy tales
Alex really gets Peterson to break down his ideas on god and the bible more than anyone else I've ever seen
& they still don't make sense! Lol
@@willp2877get a life bro 😂
@@willp2877maybe you just wasted 2 hours listening to something you didnt have the tools to understand. Sorry
@@MiKo97100 I was happy burning 3 seconds of my life to reply to this comment, thanks. Free will in action! (Or is that its own can of worms?). It was a small thrill.
@@brunolopes2205 I admit, I'm no Tim the toolman Taylor, but I have a Home Depot in my local area. Please compile a list of tools I may be lacking for my collection to help better understand. Probably a hammer? To help... better nail a point? (JP might be in more need of a hammer). Or how about some bits to help better... drill these mega brain University of Toronto level concepts into my skull? About how really old popular myths/fiction somehow eclipse reality, historical records and common sense because it's old and popular enough? I understand his argument well enough. I am just not convinced. I also thought his point about Hamlet hurt his argument big time. But he seemed as if he thought that point was a slam dunk.
I'm so happy Alex turned the discussion towards Dr. Peterson and we have mutual discussion that is on equal footing.
As a catholic, I followed Jordan for a lot of years and seen him with in a bunch of podcasts and interviews with Catholics, most recently in podcast Pints With Aquinas with Matt Fradd, but Alex O'Connor in 30 minutes pulled out from Jordan the best answers about God and religion. Thank you for that @CosmicSkeptic! I hope Matt Fradd invites to the podcast or Jimmy Akin. :)
I thought this was a great addendum to the Fradd show. I might have to listen to it again and see if I get something different out of it after this.
Alex didn't pull anything out. Jordan has been reiterating the same philosophy for years now. He has hours of footage saying the very same thing.
@@aaroningl So you got nothing new out of this conversation? I'd say you should watch again. Jordan's beliefs have grown over the years, so there is definitely more to learn by listening to him.
@@paulaaron4821 I got something out of it, for sure. I always do. But JP dug down into himself far more than Alex managed to.
However, I do feel that Alex was reluctant to acknowledge the education he was being given.
I spent the entire video feeling as if the interviewer was being interviewed.
I loved listening to this! I cant help but think my mind is "narrow" when listening to these two. But the thing that keeps coming to mind throughout this discussion is when Christ said "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." I presume this doesn't mean "just believe everything you are told" But to have that child like faith. Even though Evil exists, the child will lean toward what is good and towards faith. This is truly the mystery of faith, When your faith is lived out in practice then becomes the proof in your own life. Until you "trust" and have "faith". Nothing will ever suffice for your intellect as proof. I added quotations to trust and faith because you can orientate your trust and faith wherever you want. Material things, government, money, other intellectuals etc. The proof then becomes how does that trust and faith manifest in your life. There are endless examples to argue the point of God, Christ, Satin, things of history etc. But until you orientate your life to live for one of those you don't see the proof or the fruits until you live it out by faith.
Oh boy, here we go..
Getting my pop corn
Exactly what I thought 😂
Right! It finally happened 🤯 🍿
I've seen Jordan Peterson mad, wouldn't want him mad at me, he can be brutal. Lol
And when he's done verbally shredding me, he'd beat me up! He's a scrapper! little fighter 😊
@@grantparker6092😂
Jordan saying "maybe" to Alex with regards to his unwillingness to die for the belief in the existence of the chair really made me chuckle. That was a great moment (11:05).
One of my favourite moments was Peterson talking about Richard Dawkins at 33:40
Agree! Just 12:35 in, and this point is critical. If a tyrannical government were to develop who denied the existence of chairs; you, as a carpenter, might just be willing to die.
Jordan didn’t seem happy to be asked what he actually means coz a lot of what he says is vague
I always had that mentality. People like to ask.. "would you kill someone". I say we probably all would if it meant we would live instead of dying. Any person with a gun to their head would probably kill someone else
@@Anonymous_Whisper There are a lot of people that would just die and not fight back. Demoralized people often won't defend themselves out of disbelief for what is happening in the moment.
I love how well put together Alex stays while being very respectful towards Jordan. He really tries to listen and follow Jordan's thinking process which is an admirable way of approaching a conversation. Well done to both.
I was made aware of Alex years ago when I was delving into Christian philosophy, I'm glad he's become such a big figure. In most philosophical debates/conversations, the participants tend to continually talk past each other in a way that makes you want to step in yourself, but I never feel this way when Alex is there. He's very perceptive.
I tend to agree with Petersons worldview more, but Alex is extremeley good faith, extremely intelligent, and very percise in his language. This should be a great discussion.
Spot on. Same goes for me. I disagree with Alex here and there (I agree with him on certain topics) but I feel he is intellectually honest (super scarce stuff nowadays) and always running himself with the best intentions.
The interesting question is what is "good faith" really? ;) I think Alex unpacks that within the interview he does of Jordan, which was really interesting to watch because it was supposed to be Jordan interviewing Alex.
Peterson’s flowery word salads serve to obfuscate more than elucidate the points he’s trying to make. He often jumps back and forth between literal truth and literary/ metaphorical truth, and blurs the line in a misleading way. He seems to conflate them or use them interchangeably, and it’s very disorienting at times. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that people often feel even more confused after hearing JP on certain issues (or dismiss it as too “profound” for us stupid peasants), but understand the clear and succinct argumentation of someone like Alex. Someone should always strive to explain complex issues with simplicity and clarity, not complicate it to an excessive degree.
Keep in mind, JP also said you can only induce smoking cessation through mystical experiences on mushrooms, and also encouraged young and immature women to have children because they don’t know what they want or who they are yet. Just demonstrably wrong and asinine.
@@matthewzang6688 Materialists who don't know they're materialists are often confused.
@@matthewzang6688 the immaturity is subjective; statistically it's better for women to have children if they are in a stable relation, and it's better to have them younger; and better for the children too; not to mention the consequences for society and the fact that we are in the middle of a demographic catastrophe;
calling a common sense advice "demonstrably wrong and asinine" only shows how confused and demoralized the western world has become
A clash between two top tier representatives of their respective world views. Love it.
@@twilekcustodian You have just responded negatively to an innocent and positive statement. That says something about you
@@twilekcustodian you think recognizing that two people are good at what they do and are both highly respected public figures from different backgrounds means I must idolize them as gods? What an interesting psychology you must have.
@@twilekcustodian what does gods even mean?
i wouldn’t call it a clash
Framing it as a "clash" says more about your (conflicted?) state of mind than it does about the mutually-respectful dialogue.
I work with people who have communication difficulties, Alex was doing what i aim to do in order to get any specific person's view communicated effectively. It isn't easy, and it takes a considerably amount of energy.
I think Alex is one of the few who created an environment where JP didn't have to fear miscommunication.
Peterson is a hack sophist.
Oh, so I can't leave?💀💀💀💀
I am a Christian, but since the time I saw Alex,I have been enjoy listen to him, his very intelligent, No human get to believe one thing that will that could qualify him for a stand in religion,, religious beliefs is spiritual,, most of this biblical writing were revelation through faith,, you can't just understand them properly unless you have faith
Alex is the quintessential "interrogator" of other people's thoughts. I find it refreshing how calm and clear he is in his questioning. I have to believe he has worked through his own thinking w the same scrutiny.
"I'm not sure you even know what club you're in" 😂 As an atheist/skeptic I'm thoroughly enjoying this conversation. Peterson and O'Connor bring out the best in each other.
well, what do you mean by the "best"? What do you mean you "enjoy" a conversion as profound such as this? You surely operate on a metaphysical substrate that are fundamentally unskeptical. Whatever the hell that means!!!!!
That was one of the best lines! As an atheist/skeptic that was studying authoritarian thought reform tactics when "atheism plus" infected the community... I've been saying atheism is an unacknowledged denomination of Protestantism.
I argue atheism has their club and purity test members, same as any Christian denomination purity tests all the others.
I think that by half of their conversation Alex really gets Peterson out of his identity-politics obsession. Which is remarkable.
@@CazznPower Couldn't agree more!
It really was awesome. After seeing the past clips on Alex’s channel sort of disparaging JP, I thought this would be more of a “gotcha” debate, but it was the farthest thing from that, as far as I can tell. I have a lot more respect for Alex because of that.
“You but not me” - said at around 45:24 was hilarious. I love Alex’s sense of humor. Dr. Peterson also seemed appreciative of it haha.
I read this comment exactly as this moment happened. lovely synchronicities
I actually read this as a double entenderé. In that, you can know you are real and know and not know the things around you are real depending on your epistomology.
I wonder if Jordan has watched the video that Alex did about him
@@user-ki4xw2rb8q If you’re talking about the video essay Alex made, Jordan said towards the beginning of the video that he watched it “this morning”. So I would assume yes.
@@shreyaathalye2069 I just kept watching and ended up seeing that part. Yeah, he did watch it. I wish he talked about his opinion on Alex calling him an atheist lol
I feel like Mr Peterson finally met someone who could ask the right questions, and ask questions the right way. 👏
No words can fully capture the anticipation behind this conversation. Here's hoping that this is the first of many conversations between these two.
Dr Peterson has definitely moved forward with his thinking. It’s now a Biblical Library rather than a corpus.
😂😂😂
I understood that reference 😂
But thinking is exactly Jordan’s problem. He’s stuck. He’s trying to think himself into believing.
@johnsterman77 Brother, there's so much about Christianity that is right and much of it that is wrong, so as he says he believes some of it.
I've also somehow came to Tolstoys position while also becoming an atheist, and that's something I never ever would have ever imagined ever doing as a young LDS kid. So somehow I think Jesus was right politically but not supernaturally.
Its refreshing to listen to JP discuss religion with someone who isn't intent on recruiting him to their 'team'. Props to Alex, well done. - A Christian
Yes!
Didn't you watch the video???? Peterson said and Alex confirmed his intentions to prove his point about Jordan, that he didn't believe in God. And he failed miserable in 22:00 When Jordan clearly and loud said: I believe in the resurrection of Jesus. End.
1:36:00💀
"The more I seek, the more is present".
The fundamental problem with JP's analysis of the information is that he cannot distinguish between his own thoughts about a thing and the thing. The more he seeks, the more he adds his own mind to the topic, the further he travels from the information.
He is very much like a hallucinating LLM.
I kinda agree with that
I can agree with this but a defense:
I think Jordan's goal is to avoid reducing truth along his way to understanding it. He refuses to compress it into an edible pill, easy for us to swallow. And why should he? It would satisfy us momentarily, but then the pursuit would be over. And it wouldn't be the full truth, just a projection of part of it.
High-minded, self-appointed intellectuals.
Great comment@@gitarherow
“The information”, “The thing”, maybe most people are just approaching the nature of reality too rigidly, out of a desire for clarity and sense of safety.
I have no words after watching this podcast. The best way I can describe this exchange is as a transcendent and redemptive uphill stumble toward what is most meaningful, on display for the rest of us not gifted enough to come to this level of understanding ourselves. This is certainly one of the best JP podcasts out there, and I hope the two of you meet again to continue this process.
This is very true because we can feel the big issues but generally are unable to articulate the big issue. Leaders like Jordan do us the service of articulating the things we can feel but cannot articulate.
Holy smokes, it seems Jordan has met his match, and he realizes it. He's speaking with a rare openness and level of respect towards Alex. I suspect this will be the first of many conversations!
Alex, an atheist brought out civility and respect from William Lane Craig for crying out loud lmao. That's how you know his oratory and ability is at a high level.
If anyone can pierce through the famous JP word salad armour, it's Alex.
Alex lets him off the hook more than most.
I felt this exact same thing as well.
I came into this conversation very casually, obviously being interested and excited, but nothing too special.
But as I started listening I began noticing this one was unique, precisely because of how you described it. "Met his match".
And I'm here for it.
My hope is that this conversation and hopefully future conversations between them, will generate cross-pollination and stimulation, which will grow to enhance and inspire both intellectually.
This genuine "picking of the brain" state of discussion can really act as a true fertile ground for the growth of new ideas.
@@MemfysI noticed that JP did not retreat inside his word salad armour and used normal speech.
1hr 55min - The silence produced by the question of what it means to be lying or wrong, as it relates to a persons subjective belief, is a profound moment and wonderful to watch JP grapple with its complexity.
Do you mind clarifying what the question means? I have tried but have not managed to understand it. Thanks!
Great reminder. Like, hey we're not in Nazi Germany tho🤷🏽
JP: "Be clear in your speech"
Alex: "People don't understand what you mean"
JP: "Not my problem"
The Old Sage versus The Young Prodigy. Love to see it.
This is how you bridge the generational gap: an elder filled with wisdom and understanding conversing with a humble and sincere young wo/man. No competition, just a desire to learn and investigate the truth(s) about life.
Jordan caught himself a few times (not every time) not letting Alex finish the sentence (because of his love of speaking and explaining) - well done, Jordan, that's personal progress ,)
And Alex is quite literally a personification of Peterson's ideal of concise, clear speaking... he's a master of wording.
Very nice conversation... I especially liked the agreement on the futility of 'winning a debate' and the recognition of usefulness of fruitful exchange of ideas - and putting that to practice. Well done, both, I enjoyed.
Alex is only concise in his speech in sofar as he's willing to critique another person's beliefs. When you have no belief, you are almost immune to scrutiny.
@@aaroninglI think Alex has belief in evidence based reality just not in unknowable supposition.
@jeremytine wow, that conversation really was wasted on you. Hey ho.
Such a belief simply means:
The belief that reality is comprised of that which you can gather evidence for.
Well, that's just a non rational belief, as we know that human perception has limits, as well as human understanding and human ability to gather evidence. From that follows that there will actually be some phenomena which is infact real, however, humans will not be able to explain or find evidence for it.
This type of phenomena, by definition, is actually expected to then be classified as mystery, magic or miracle.
@@jeremytine
@@wtfgrooves3268 it is the opposite of non rational as it is working within the limits of human perception. Belief in explanations of what is inherently unknowable and supernatural is what is irrational. The reasonable conclusion then is to simply say, I don't know rather than to invent fantasy that can never be proved.
Wow. Alex almost has as much insight and analysis into JP's thoughts as JP does. Incredible episode.
Nope, he probably has more.
Maybe he has more knowledge on Jordans philosophy given that Alex is an expert on that matter. But if it were the psychology of an individual, Peterson would run circles around him. Such is the beauty of individuals. We all know things others do not, and so we can learn, learn, and learn.@Memfys
@@chillociraptor5007 Too bad Peterson doesn't stick to his expertise, then.
@Memfys I don't think it's worth much giving him grief for venturing into new territory. He's been a clinical psychologist for some 40 years by now. Maybe a switch up is what he needs.
Amazing, rivetiing, wow....Alex tried to hold Jordan feet to the fire in a poite and professional way....Jordan's responses were actually very enlightening....I want to listen to this again....I thank you both profoundly....This was such a treat....Thank you, thank you, thank you.
What a brilliant discussion. Alex O'Connor must only be about 24 or 25 but he held his own with Dr Peterson and clearly has a mind as sharp as his interviewer. Alex's generation get a lot of stick so it is great to hear from such an articulate, intelligent man in his mid-20s. Such an interesting discussion, very thought-provoking and will keep me awake thinking about all the ideas exchanged. Dr Peterson sporting his Christian-themed jacket and a living room in LA with a white grand piano, would love to know who that belonged to. I look forward to the publication of "We Who Wrestle With God" and I will definitely try to order "Maps Of Meaning" at some point too. Good to know that Dr Peterson was able to visit his father this week. One of the best interviews you have done, Dr Peterson, much appreciated here in the UK.👍
YOU'RE HIGH ON COCCAINE.
Brain is much sharper in young people than older people. Older people have the advantage of experience.
What an incredible conversation. It almost brings me to tears seeing two brilliantly intelligent people having a discussion where they disagree, and yet approach it with a willingness to put their ego aside, truly listen and learn from each other. Alex, you held your own incredibly here, expressing yourself clearly and probing JBP to do the same. Jordan, you are truly inspirational, and I've been really appreciating these more transparent conversations you've been having about God
Seriously?
@@tennicksalvarez9079 😂😓
Alex is pretty stoopid.
He thinks our mind tricks itself that we have free will.
Nonsense.
@@alexanderTheVegan Incredible how much insight and thought you put into that comment. Dogma is a hell of a drug
I’d argue Jordan held his own. Alex, in my opinion, is able to see right through Peterson, and pose the right questions to probe for an answer. The best analogy I can think of for this is, imagine you are trying to corner a dog in order to trap him. You can outright run and close corners on him and be aggressive ( the dog will understand you mean danger), or you can bait him, offer some treats, a pat on the head, a few belly rubs, and he’ll think twice about biting you when you trap him. Jordan is the dog. If you are too obvious with your questions, he’ll avoid them. Run you through a series of abstractions and tangents you will not be able to keep up with until he’s dodged the main question. If you establish some kind of comforting understanding, and then probe with subtlety, you’re more likely to force a much more genuine answer.
I think it’s the job of an intellectual to distill ideas into its essentials. I really respect Alex’s ability to cut to the heart of a matter with as few words as possible.
My favorite part is their ability and willingness to say “I don’t know”.
THAT Panasonic Video Cam LCD screen moment Alex posited REALLY helped me, as it politely MADE Jordan drill down into eye-sight vs belief, perception & the 🤷🏼♂️ "it's what I feel" believer. Nebulous descriptions MAKE us believers. I still know next to nothing & appreciate ALL of this... stuff. 🙏🏽
And Peterson's further explanations regarding 'hierarchy of meaning' or the level of resolution in perception of an issue, helped showcase better how he approaches the question of whether he "believes" or not in something.
This was….easily the unbelievable, articulate, logical, and intelligent conversation I’ve ever had the honor of listening to - I am truly just blown away. I wish there was more conversation like this happening in everyday life. Just, WOW.
It's absolutely brilliant.
A lot of the naysayers in this comment section really just didn't get a handle on this conversation. I really, really enjoyed it! I am a big fan of Alex O'Connor, increasingly so since I discovered him for his anti-monarchy views during the coronation of King Charles II, and I was a long-time fan of Jordan Peterson since I discovered his videos in 2017, though I've become increasingly less interested over the years.
This conversation made me realise Peterson is still very lucid, awake, and reasonable in conversation, and it soothed my fears that he was not really able to engage with objections. It also made me realise just how formidable Alex O'Connor really is; he really stood his ground in this conversation and presented a very strong series of objections and critiques to Peterson in a way that forced him to confront some issues and clarify some points he had previously been unclear on.
Thank you extremely much for making this publicly available! It was a joy to watch and a real learning experience; I feel much better from having watched it!
i'm in the same boat, roughly speaking
Classic Peterson cocksucker response. Any criticism is net by 'oh you didn't understand' despite Benzo Jordans super clear cowardice when it comes to answering difficult questions. He just keeps obfuscating by deconstructing questions where everyone knows what is being asked. 'depends what your definition of 'is' is' -level of intellectual dishonesty
Peterson has been about this clear already. His interview with Tom Bilyeu was very much the same. He's lost in a false modesty along the lines of 'I'm to unknowledgeable to answer these questions' when the questions are about what he believes (which as O'Connor points out he could just say 'I am unsure') but rather Peterson claims to be one of the best and most faithful interpreters of the Bible! What an extraordinary claim and proof that his modesty is quite shallow. How many more people are there that can answer these very simple questions and yet wrestle with even deeper ones.
All that said, I do not completely disagree with Peterson's views, some are very helpful. But he is certainly still in this interview evasive and unclear. I don't think it is out of I'll intent, I think he's just a little unused to saying 'I don't know' and saying it properly without the fake modestly and lengthy defences.
This is much my positionality as well. Also, you and Alex must be very old to have been around for the coronation of 1661!
@@benjaminread5287 Lmfao what are you on about bro
"Peterson claims to be one of the best and most faithful interpreters of the Bible!"
Please show me where Peterson has made the claim "I am one of the best and most faithful interpreters of the Bible"
Guys like you are so ridiculous, you just make stuff up out of thin and then believe it
Jordan has an unmatched mastery of using emotion-free logic while still maintaining a human level of personability.
I think Alex would be a much more deserving recipient of that praise
One of the best podcasts I've heard. I've been a Christian since I was little and listening to you made me grow intellectually in my faith (as contradictory as it may be). As Alex said, being skeptical is a tool. I can't say I agree with everything, but I certainly grew up with this podcast .
Had to sit down for the full 2 hours.
As a Christian I really appreciate the way Alex posed his questions. This was an amazing dialogue.
Thank you for posting.
I find it difficult to see how a believer can listen to Alex's arguments and still hold on to their belief in the same way day did before.. he decomposes the arguments for God to a point where I'd become a nonbeliever if I wasn't already. Hbu?
@@browsedrops really?
Idk how to reply to this properly rn, but I appreciated the fact that he was just honestly asking a question.
I also appreciate JP pressing Alex to explain what he meant whenever he would ask a question i.e. he asked him to define what he meant by belief.
It was one of the closest convos in terms of two people talking about the Bible and Christ as if there were no cameras and lights.
@@browsedrops I feel like this conversation had very little to do with the validity of faith; it was almost entirely about clarity of communication. So if this is anyone's first time hearing Alex talk, I doubt their faith will be shaken from this alone 😂
@@kylethescientist I wasn't referring to this convo alone, I assumed he might know Alex
@@browsedrops I figured as much. I assumed most people watching this video will be getting introduced to Alex for the first time since I reckon there's not a huge overlap between JP and Alex's audiences.
All good though 👍🏾
Got to say - Alex/Peterson had great chemistry; Alex did an incredible job holding Peterson to task - and Peterson gave Alex space to ask great questions.
That's actually a very good point on Petersons part, especially as the conversation progresses.
He gave Alex lots of room to talk. I should have expected it really but its still refreshing.
I think Alex made Peterson feel very comfortable that he's willing to show Alex what's behind the curtain. I finally understand where JP is coming from when asked about the existence of god or the accuracy (historically) of Biblical events. If I understand him correctly, he'd rather answer the question by "yes" or "no" if it was asked by an atheist than theist.
It seems like Alex is Jordan's therapist in this conversation
😂
I laughed out loud literally, that's spot on
It seems to me, that Alex was dead right with his deconstruction of Jordan Peterson a year ago. Nothing new to see here.
How can anybody listen to Jordan Peterson? I find him to be insufferable.
@@teresaamanfu7408 I would love to hear whether he thinks man has a soul as I discussed above. Neuroscience seems to challenged that view, even evangelical Philosophers like Nancy Murphy do not believe the Bible says we have a soul . See Murphy ed Whatever Happened to the Soul. There is also an interesting non-religious book The Brain That Changes Itself.
Round and round in circles with words and definitions and everything else but meaning and true insight and honest conversation. Another chapter of Jordan Peterson. Alex, I absolutely love you. You fought the good fight.
True insight into what exactly? Peterson is deliberately elusive, there's simple no point debating such people.
@@adamborowicz7209so you wanted a stranger to tell you what to think in 2 hours about the most complicated human issue. I watched the whole thing and it was very stimulating. Far too many people have an infantile view of what Christianity should answer on demand. Jesus said knock and seek, not wait for another to tell you all about it. And beyond that, most”evasions” made perfect sense; it sometimes required replaying over and over to get the understanding where on first listen it sounded scrambled. These comments just feel very shallow about the whole topic it’s pretty embarrassing.
Alex does a fantastic job here. He has managed to get Peterson to clarify his position on religion better than anyone else has ever before. Already in my top 5 conversations.
Not quite, it seems like the only question he asked in 2 hours is " is it historically real", despite the analogy of Hamlet, mathematics and crime of punishment, he could message back to that same question, I was expecting him to shake up JP to understand the foundational thinking and assumptions which did not really happen😮
@@hundlyI’m so grateful to see in the comment section there exists only one or two of you. . Who either didn’t understand or are just haters. Either way you and the two others in your camp are clearly wrong judging from the hundreds (likely soon to be thousands) who got exactly what the original post here conveyed.
@user-wn1kq8jx5q
Haven't watched the video can't confirm nor deny either of your views yet, but I'd caution you to use better reasoning than consensus for why their idea is wrong. Groups can all believe the same wrong idea.
@@TheHunt-t8o you could simply have pointed me to the part of the discussion where they discuss a point that is not about " is it really factually real?" And I would have felt like an idiot...now we know who the idiot is. This is not called hate if you have argument...and what camp will I be in, I thought those 2 guys are interested in the truth, aren't you?
Two thinkers with different underlying conclusions that can have an actual conversation without wanting to kill each other. Impressive
Different conclusions?
This was the best conversation I've heard with JP. I would love to hear these two talk for many more hours
This is the most detailed and well-explained version of Connor's position on God. Finally, thank you Jordan
I can't tell you how unbelievably perfect the timing of this video is. I find myself wondering more and more what the purpose of life is and where in the world I might find God. I'm reading Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard, and honestly, I've gotten more insight from that book and these 2 gentlemen in such a short span of time than I ever did over the course of several years attending church.
Personally I find Tolstoy reassuring, with the kingdom of God is within you. As for the purpose...... Everyone has a different one, so there's what works for you. Personally for me, it's to spend as many years disease Free, having fun doing good works, and having a good support network so that I don't have to fear becoming destitute or disease ridden. Then, when it's my time to go, going quickly and painlessly. As for what good works to actually do that will have an effective impact, as an environmentalist rewilding seems to have a good return on investment, both for humanity and the world at large. And thats not just backed up emotionally, but empirically as well, as a drawdown of carbon.