Watch Knowles' smile wipe off when Dr. Hart states that he does not have a warm memory of a christian america in which christians would go to church on Sunday and then case a vote for George Wallace.
I like Mr Hart's ideas but I really wish he had more grace. It concerns me that this is quite a common issue among those of us who favour the Orthodox religion 😞
as much as I love seeing some of the beauty of Orthodoxy that has always been one of the things that's always kept me away from it. I will say Solovyov and Gregory of Nyssa have a beautiful humility about both of them and Solovyov even had an immense respect for Catholics and Lutherans and Nyssa was a universalist like Hart (just without and antagonism)
@@_StDunstansCorner_ you lost me at JP is a genius. Even his thoughts on Nietzsche alone (which I think Hart was alluding to) demonstrate that JP is way out of his depths most of the time. He keeps saying how Nietzsche thought the loss of Christianity was terrible which is simply false. A real observation of Nietzsche was offered by MacIntyre when he noted on Nietzsche saying "I fear we're not killing God fast enough because we still believe in grammar." which MacIntyre noted as meaning, " for Nietzsche it's not just that theism is false because it requires the truth of realism, but that realism is inherently theistic."
@@_StDunstansCorner_ oh please anyone with half a brain can notice the prejudice against men. That hardly makes him a genius especially considering he's pushing the very ideological nonsense that brought it on in the first place. Have some higher standards.
@@bradleymarshall5489 Yes and no. Neitzche is an ambiguous figure. Did he genuinely dislike Christianity? By all appearances yes. But did he, in an odd way, recognize its beauty? I think certainly. “Dionysus versus the “Crucified” there you have the antithesis. It is not a difference in regard to their martyrdom-it is a difference in the meaning of it. Life itself, its eternal fruitfulness and recurrence, creates torment, destruction, the will to annihilation. In the other case, suffering-the “Crucified as the innocent one”-counts as an objection to this life, as a formula for its condemnation.-One will see that the problem is that of the meaning of suffering: whether a Christian meaning or a tragic meaning. In the former case, it is supposed to be the path to a holy being; in the latter case, being is counted as holy enough to justify even a monstrous amount of suffering.” - Neitzche, The Will to Power Neitzche saw Christianity as fundamentally unique among all other religions in the way it interprets suffering to the extent that out of humility, people take account of and repent for their participation in the crucifixion of their Lord by their sins. So, Neitzche did in a sense understand Christianity, but ultimately came to reject it. You should read Giuseppe Fornari’s book “A God Torn to Pieces” for more in this. It might be the case that Neitzche’s rejection of Christianity partly stemmed from a rivalry he had with Richard Wagner. Interesting stuff. Check it out. Peace, my friend.
@@bradleymarshall5489 anyone who thinks Nietzsche was Christian has never read a word. He held Christianity in contempt as a “religion for slaves” for people who cannot actually ascend to true morality but rather wanted to follow a set of arbitrary laws for selfish gain (reaching heaven)
I much prefer Jonathan Pageau's approach of friendship and patience with Peterson to Hart's approach of name-calling and dismisal of him. We can all see the problems in Jordan Peterson's thinking, we can see his flaws. But, there is something in Jordan Peterson's pursuit of knowledge that is still clearly genuine and even at times humble. He at least tries to understand reality. And through all his faults and his own agnosticism, Jordan Peterson ended up bringing thousands people to Christ and even into holy Orthodoxy. So Mr. Hart, perhaps you should have been a bit more charitable and less bitter.
And how do you figure? Absent any relevance in a breach in Christian precepts (boasting in works righteousness, or hypocrisy by sanctimonious religious mantras belying one's lifestyle), what's left here? Rhetorical style of delivery that's just too personally disagreeable? That a genuinely erudite, rigorously contemplative soul cannot direct criticism at someone despite being precisely the type from whom one would be properly criticized? Or is it now a sin to become a scholar because to swipe at one's interlocutors becomes too unfair? Such a sign of the times, when cultivating (and esp. utilizing) an intellect capable of legitimate critique is dismissed as "arrogance", because big words, or muh feelings, or whatever...
Jordan Peterson is in some ways considerably more arrogant. DBH definitely says and writes brash and often comes off as extremely arrogant but JBP criticizes the works of scholars he has barely read. He criticizes postmodernists and Marxists and has barely read a word of Marx or any of the great postmodernist philosophers (ex. Foucault, Baudrillard and Derrida). I mean he probably has to some extant but clearly not enough to actually be able to criticize these philosophers. I saw that debate with him and Zizek. I mean those two have no business debating at all. Zizek has written countless of books on the topic of Marx and culture, whereas JBP is a psychology proffessor who became an anti-sjw warrior after talking down some liberal college students and going on JRE. He didn't actually criticize anything Marx or Zizek wrote. He probably hasn't even skimmed the first chapter of Capital.
@@philip8802 I appreciate jbp on some things but your dead on. Not that I agree with Marx in the slightest, but I heard somewhere he read the manifesto in college and that was the end of his personal reading.
You have to understand, in addition to spending the last half decade (probably more) dedicating his studies to consciousness, DBH has rigorously studied every conception of God under the sun. He is extremely well read, not only historically but scientifically as well. I can understand his frustration when a clinical psychologist simply namedrops Carl Jung, speaks about the truths of metaphors and suddenly has the world heaping praise upon him. His lectures on the Bible are done from the vantage point of a novice in the field with zero (zero!) academic work done in that particular field. Really, it's the equivalent of a clinical psychologist walking into his general practitioners office and telling him what medicines he should prescribe for strept throat. For a guy like me, or a Dave Rubin, Peterson's insight into theology is interesting and cool. For a guy like DBH, it's little kid shit that he already dismissed by his second semester of his freshman undergrad year. Could DBH be more generous? Sure, he could. It would be nice. But do I fault him for this attitude? Not at all. He's done too much incredible work in the field to have some rando come in and suck all the air out of the room.
Eh…That’s still coming from a point of ego. If Jordan functionally is an agnostic while otherwise being a doctor within the realm of clinical psychology, then his perspectives are merely his own. Limited, but his own. To judge a man based in his finite abilities while disregarding his earnestness, just because many people freely choose to give him an audience, is some sort of odd jealousy. And I agree with Hart’s views theologically on universalism. But there’s something to be said critically about character. Why value status and fame, over having the patience to discuss with a man who knows only about the things he’s currently studied? As far as Christian example, that’s being hypocritical in practice.
@@tonyoliver2750 Christian socialists are odd, but I get the sentiment if it’s some sort of communal voluntary arrangement a person is arguing for. I wouldn’t find myself agreeing with them or wanting to be in that arrangement, but so long as they’re not for forcing others to associate with them then I have no issues. As for Hart he’s expressed his cultural views before, and I would guess that maybe he conflates being libertarian with libertinism. It’s a common misconception.
I wonder if there's any Good News in DBH s gospel. Just like John MacArthur and Paul Washer and their ilk...no Joy. They all seem to be in an endless search for correctness or heresy. No smiles, no assurance or kindness, just strident correction. They seem to think they are God's bodyguards.
I’m a big fan of DBH, and have followed him for a while now. But I’ve come to see him be biased and dismissive towards individuals to the point of being flat out wrong on multiple occasions. He’s very intelligent, but he lacks humility and openness to certain views he finds distasteful, which leads him away from reaching understanding.
@@GriefHeals Hart has so much overlap with Peterson that he completely ignores. Watch Peterson's interview with Iain McGhilchrist, and then watch David Bentley Hart's interview with Iain McGhilchrist.
I like and respect Jordan Peterson and his approach a lot, but DBH’s description of his work as “a pastiche of risibly bad scholarship by a second-rate mind” is one of the best burns I have ever heard in my life.
@@neb999because it's funny, we're allowed to laugh at well put together insults if we find them funny and still respect the individual it was throw out to 😂
@@daMillenialTrucker I get that and I’m with you, but the usual theology nerd or JP simp, can’t seem to do both. It’s usually a very black and white scenario and with little to no humor at all!
I wish they would have gotten into politics. While I don't agree with DBH on all of his political positions I am weary of hearing that a Randian Capitalist political identity is somehow the obvious position one would take after reading the New Testament. That is patently absurd.
I enjoy Mr. Harts' insightful comments and his obvious intelligence, but I am baffled by his dismissive attitude. He is a first-rate scholar and his new translation of the New Testament is superb. I do not understand the cheap shot at Jordan, as he obviously cares for the truth and is respectful towards others. I am not sure that a condescending attitude helps. Mr. Hart is quick on his feet and obviously enjoys rhetorical flourishes. Can one be a masterful rhetorician without sounding condescending towards less intelligent seekers?
Absolutely, but I think it is just a character flaw of Hart. I am a bit of the same way and I have to check myself sometimes. Just because he is a theologian doesn't mean he is immune to a bit of arrogance. I do think he is unfairly dismissive of Peterson. I don't think Peterson is as bad or as good as people say. I have seen him speak live and he seemed a genuine guy. His hardcore followers make him into a messiah figure which he probably doesn't like.
a number of people have described the flaws in Peterson's approach and scholarship in more depth. It isn't surprising that DBH sees this and it isn't surprising that DBH doesn't care for him, since DBH has generally approached right wing personalities with what could be cautiously described as suspicion and would be more accurately described as hostility and contempt.
I was surprised by Harts comment about Peterson but not shocked. Hart has always struck me as a bit arrogant. Whether you like him or not, whether you agree with him or not Peterson strikes me as a humble man. Anyone who watches his lectures for more than a cursory amount of time will see that he tries to be thoughtful. Sadly in today's "Gets Owned" culture there is little room for someone's personal growth. Peterson has said numerous times he is learning and thinking things out. Mr. Hart, perhaps you should engage the second rate mind with your knowledge and have a conversation instead of merely belittling. That might be the more Christian thing to do
I have watched Hart criticizing Peterson on another interview as well but he has yet to elaborate why Jordan Peterson is a "bad scholar". He has focused more on insults, which is rather strange for a man whose works have a beautiful, structure of reasoning and rhetoric.
It is rather surprising to hear him speak this way. I would imagine that they share much in common, which I think they actually do - DBH just wants to be a contrarian, I think.
@@Brian-gw5hg His criticisms of JP may not be invalid, but his dismissal of his work as "bad scholarship" just sounds like snobbery, not to mention quite an extreme claim. Has he read Maps of Meaning? I doubt it. Nevertheless I'd like to hear them have a discussion. I bet they would find they have more common ground than he realizes.
@@drewcoope I think you're right about finding that common ground, were they to interact. My impression from hearing many of DBH criticisms of others is that he is willing to dismiss or devalue their claims based on the pedigree or discipline of the individual who is making the claim rather than the substance or value of the claim itself. For example, DBH describes Sam Harris as 'a refugee from an all boys school who is essentially nothing more than an undergrad that got lucky in writing a best seller'. I can't quite understand why he would do this other than to appeal to a crowd that already has disregard for his targets. The result, for me at least, is that it becomes more difficult consider his position as valuable (although I am certain there is value to be found). Anyway, it strikes me that these are just some of the behaviors/traits that have ensured DBH and his message are to remain obscure relative to the messages of those he would try to undermine with ad hominem.
@Arturo Belano Keep in mind that Hart has written whole books on why he regards the new atheist movement and Naturalism as nonsense. I would certainly like for Hart to branch out more into internet platforms his knowledge and reasoning is an oasis in the abyss of modern misinformation about theology and philosophy. Perhaps as another commentatorr wrote earlier, we will get to see a talk with Peterson and Hart one day.
Peterson as an academic is bad, this is true. But he did a great job on two fronts: he argued with the new atheists following their own grammar, something that allowed many people who, for better or worse, espoused this grammar to see something else, a new way of approaching Christianity. Secondly, he is very articulate, not afraid to put himself out there and willing to take our situation into account. This is something a lot of theologians, who live inside their own bubbles and talk to each other, don't do. To sum up, Peterson as an academic is really bad. But as a person I think he is more courageous and sincere than most philosophers and theologians. And it's a shame to see DBH treat him like that, it's just validates to me my insight that a lot of American orthodox converts retain a Protestant narcissism.
@@Entererofthethreshold Hi there friend. I would certainly expect someone to have at least as good academic qualifications as another to pass judgment on their ability as an academic in their field. An opinion on Peterson as a presenter, or a personality is fine but this is rather a specific criteria to give way to the "anonymous bloke on the internet" wouldn't you say? If someone tells me that some scientist is a rubbish scientist, I'm going to ask a question. I bet you can guess what that might be 😀
@@Entererofthethreshold No. Anyway his disputes with the authorities was nothing to do with his academic capabilities. It was due to his refusal to bow to political pressure. My gripe here is that we should not let the casual ( and frankly, ridiculous) dismissal of his academic capabilities, above, remain unchallenged.
"A second-rate mind" he says of Peterson. Nearly everyone's will be this when compared to Hart. Poor form to criticize Peterson's ability. How about just criticize the specifics of his argument(s) that you happen to disagree with.
Dr. Hart, a staggeringly brilliant man, is unwise and uncharitable in referring to Peterson as a second-rate mind, which is a self-evident falsehood. One can legitimately accuse Peterson of a host of intellectual, analytical and communicative faults, but having a second-rate mind isn't one of them.
@@hunivan7672 Nah, you're just mouthing off, now. I take issue with a number of Peterson's objections to biblical historicity, but he's no loser. In terms of ethics he's catching on to a lot of biblical things that the church tends to largely ignore.
@@AndresMbernal That's rubbish. He has his faults and blind spots, like everyone, but he's far more perceptive and honest than the hoards of zeitgeist worshipping useful idiots that drive the narrative these days. And as far as the church is concerned, he approaches many matters with a sense of awe and depth that we could learn from.
Hart is ridiculously arrogant lol. Not a fan of Peterson but calling him a second rate mind or calling the books by the New Atheists unsophisticated and “stupid” is just pure snark and egoity. It’s funny because to me, it seems like Sam Harris particularly among the New Atheists and perhaps Daniel Dennet as well have far more grace than the Christian Hart. It makes it hard to take him seriously and care to delve deep into his work because he just comes across as adolescent and arrogant and not motivated by the right things at all.
DBH is brilliant of course...I have three of his books im working through....with an emphasis on work, and that great to have to read a page twice to comprehend it....but he does always seem to be in a foul sort of pissed off mood. Being a bold realist is ok...but hes not invited to my cocktail party...he would suck all the oxygen out of the room. He should try to right a book that the common man can understand....but I think that is not possible. So it is true...there is much sorrow in the reading of many books. A chasing after the wind . I'm tempted to stop but somehow I cannot. As for Peterson...he does not claim nor want to be a prophet. He does bring value so take it for what it is. DBH appears to me to be jealous of the success of Peterson....much like a vastly superior artist who's paintings do not sell and then comes long Jeff Koons or Damien Hurst. Not fair....but the way it is.
@@emmashalliker6862 Peterson does not necessarily do either. He tries to unify desperate fields of science and build them upward towards what the West used to regard as true. He references history often as well, so maybe he’s wrong about a great many things and a second rate scholar but he’s not making stuff up.
David Bentley Hart writes beautifully and has unique insights into Neoplatonist thought within the Christian tradition. Or rather, he explains it better than any other writer I can think of. But he is a fascist on the left, an elitist who enjoys historically unprecedented privileges and wealth taking pot shots at the culture that makes it possible for him to write books and reach a large public, not to mention the fact that the same division of labor we enjoy since the Bronze Age, and especially the Axial Age, which he excoriates using Marxist language for "creating desires" is also what made vocations like philosophy possible, indeed created a taste for philosophy. His vulgar ingratitude is incongruent with the wisdom you find in his writing, but it is not incongruent with his tone, because he pours scorn on everyone, with the exception of a few Neoplatonist mentors like Nicholas of Cusa & Gregory of Nyssa. The same moral failing that leads him to make sweeping condemnations of "capitalism" lead him to make sweeping condemnations of other thinkers, writers and popularizers (of which he is one, despite his attempt to excuse his arrogance as just the occupational hazard of an academic). C. S. Lewis said in retrospect of his book Pilgrim's Regress that it embarrassed him, because it committed several (for him) unpardonable sins, one of which was a tone of unremitting peevishness, and that's Hart down to the deepest corners of his soul. He is not a Christian academic, like Lewis, who praised Billy Graham as a "modest man" whom he "liked very much indeed" but a vile elitist who wants everyone to be a subsistence farmer except himself and feels the most intense resentment toward anyone who would disrupt his own notion of power hierarchies where he is conveniently perched on the top. He is an advocate of fascist hierarchy claiming to be the pacifist egalitarian. He claims to be a man of prayer. How could anyone with such a pathetic lack of self-knowledge be a person with a commitment to prayer & self-examination. Your Christianity is all in your head, Mr. Hart.
This guy have any debates? I have always find best to have debates/discussions when ideas can be challenged. Some times a person sounds like they are making a lot of sense until they have to actively engaged... It's kinda like martial arts.
David Bentley Hart (DBH) tends not, so far as I can see, go in for debates, at least in the sense in which such things seem nowadays to exist, preferring instead civilised armchair conversation. In this I am entirely at one with him. Debate tends to thrive on acrimony, merely pretend politeness (which the audience, often resembling little more than football fans, wants to descend to sheer pleasant instant cleverness). Debate, at least understood this way, is often just point-scoring field battle that requires skill not much beyond the level of the intellectual equivalent of ping-pong, and achieves about as much. The fastest on the draw with the bullets, containing little more depth than fireworks, is often deemed the winner. Civilised conversation on the other hand is gentle, yet still strong, insistent while remaining in touch with the 'other side', and can be bitingly humorous but in a somewhat teasing way. Most of all the two (or more) sides can in some sense remain accommodating of each other even in the wake of severe disagreement - though sometimes DBH can be a bit too airily dismissive of those his capacious mind deems as overly limited, especially as regards the level of scholarship required to do a good job in the conversation. Since my own mind has hardly the capaciousness of Jordan Peterson I felt for that man at one point in the conversation above.
DBH’s arrogance makes him very hard to tolerate despite his better and somewhat rare insights. His comments on Peterson are ignorant and seem to be fueled by jealously as well.
E Michael Jones is like Peterson in his charismatic manner of putting himself forward. But I Jones sticks to Catholicism like a boss.. Jordan Peterson is clearly mixing Jungian Gnosticism, psychology and his ego. I find Jordan Peterson a mixed back and not at all the Christian is claims to be. I think Hart is meaning this in his criticisms. Thats my 2 cents anyway.
Yeah anyone who listens to JP for five minutes can tell whatever motivates him it isn’t mere “profit.” DBH calls him a hack but that’s the kind of cheap insult a hack would make.
The most intelligent line by DBH here: "That since I've abstained so long now from voting for one of the major political parties, I don't know if I have a right now to complain about the state of affairs."
From a purely political point of view, at least he’s not voting for the initiation of aggression on peaceful people in the affirmative. Whether one would choose to cast a vote or not, I doubt a person would say that a politician actually or legally really represents them as an individual.
@@pathocrat Peterson? Of course he can or anyone he chooses. I welcome critique from intelligent people. Logic not emotions like jealously is what most viewers want.
Ooff, he didn't like him, huh? Jordan truly doesn't have a good grasp of good scholarship when it comes to the Bible. I read his book thinking "gosh, he has a very bad view of God the Father" I couldn't figure out how he could read the Biblical stories without taking into context the historical and cultural setting they took place in. He sees everything through the Jungian lens and that lens while helpful to the infancy of psychology, has been largely debunked.
I use to listen and love Peterson in my youth, but once I really started reading the great thinkers like Voegelin, Aquinas, Nisbet, and many others I began to realize how superficial Peterson really is and he's more of a testament for how starved for genuine wisdom we are
@@_StDunstansCorner_ I can say it because I listened to him for years (even met him earlier this year) but then grew up from learning from the greatest minds of Christendom. All Peterson offers is one of those fad synthetic religions based on a modern bias that C.S. Lewis explicitly warns against. It's through reading the ancient books by Christians and given the stamp of approval by Christians that mere Christianity reveals itself and what Peterson talks about does not resemble mere Christianity
As you grow in life, you will outgrow certain people. They are a stepping stone in your growth, and that's perfectly okay. I love Peterson but it took him to get me into Jonathan Pageau, and now I am reading ancient church fathers like Athanasius and Maximus. I probably wouldn't have been "ready" without him. Peterson is genuine, even if he seems surface-level in comparison to what you and I know now, but you are right... we are definitely starved these days.
As one of DHB's favorite theologians would say, Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of [elocution], and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge... and have not love, I am nothing. Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly...
Maybe a good theologian but an arrogant human being. I am not a fan of JP but I did not appreciate this guy contempt and critics. If I will ever call myself fan of somebody maybe Pageau could be the elected one but it was Peterson who pushed Pageau in the front line (and not only Pageau) and opened the door to a renewal of interest in religion and search for meaning.
I was really looking forward to a fair well thought critique of JP , but nope he just insults and is sarcastic which is the exact same thing the new atheists do. Which makes me think he has nothing to offer but his petty jealousy. I don’t care if you have an IQ of 500 if supposedly you profess Christ and then act the opposite of that profession then I ask him what are you are you really? I have deleted his book off of Amazon to buy list. Enjoy your relative obscurity DPH, you are very disappointing as a person and because of that any insight you may have is mute.
Matt Mayuiers Not at all. The Hx of Catholicism is ridiculous, the Papacy has been divided before (the gates of Hell prevailed against that church), the current pope is a Freemason Jesuit and a globalist. They change their theology with the culture and the world.
@@Ironpirate18 And yet still the Magisterium remains. Not that I can be called a fan of Francis; nor a defender in Catholicism's development of doctrine concerning certain particulars. Yet you seem to describe Protestantism far better, what with all its theological and doctrinal balkanization here at the far end of the post-Reformation.
What an uncharitable, flat-footed reading of Peterson; his syncretic, ruminative style is beside the point - the man is trying to breathe new life into these ancient, half-forgotten motifs of our amnesiac of a culture. Give the guy a break for God’s sake.
When DBH criticizes Peterson's bad scholarship, is that uncharitable, or his learned opinion? Perhaps there's some motivated reasoning behind your baseless assumption there.
That's the same thing the Daodejing was attempting, yet you rational skeptic types tend to say Eastern philosophy isn't philosophy and forget Peterson has the morality of a mystic Jungian.
Have you read his book reviews, or essays on patristics -- say Gregory of Nyssa -- or classic writers -- say Nabokov -- or various theologians -- say Bulgakov -- or seen his endorsement of contemporary works -- say Dale Allison Jr's _Night Comes?_ DBH, though he may relish in the oblique for the sake of expressing his own thoughts in the moment, is hardly forbiddingly opaque.
Love it when they mention Nagel. Reading his work is actually what helped me transition from atheism to back to being a Christian, lol. Never has there been someone that can so fully outline the problems with materialism while simultaneously being a die hard materialist, lol. I feel very bad for him, he must be in some serious existential despair. Really hope he converts someday.
Jordan Peterson views belief in God through a psychological, symbolic, and pragmatic lens, emphasizing the importance of such belief for individual meaning and societal ethics rather than committing to a traditional theistic stance and no religion accountability.
I thought this was terribly cruel and uncharitable response to the question of Jordan Peterson, who has at best been an ally for Christianity as opposed to an opponent. You could have shared a similar opinion of him much more politely.
It's true. Harris and Dawkins are kind of excused from their awful writings. Dennett, however, is supposed to be a trained philosopher, so his writing is inexcusable at this point.
Why, then, is he a much more influential and respected philosopher than Hart? I don't agree with many of Dennett's ideas, but to dismiss him as merely an ideologue is just silly.
@@k-3402 Kim Kardashian is more influential than both of them. Trans gender ideology is very influential. And no thinking person could take either of them serious. I think much of his success comes from piggy backing on the popular new atheist movement. He has simply joined the right team at the right time in my view. He gives the people what they want. Dennett is a proponent of extreme reductive materialism (originally understood as merely a working model for scientists by Galileo, Descartes, and Newton - not as an actual complete literal ontology). An extreme oversimplification of a nebulous reality that science is ever more demonstrating. Our most cutting edge science is more and more theoretical and less empirical. And we have Dennet making grand (and exceptionally confident) metaphysical pronouncements about reality. His claims run way ahead of his thinking. For example, he claims consciousness does not exist. And to this day has not offered anything even approaching an explanation. How can he make such an asinine claim? The answer, he needs to or his oversimplified ideology falls apart. So he keeps thumping the table and repeating his mantras. The hallmarks of an ideologue, oversimplification (reductive materialism) and overconfidence without warrant (no argument just "everyone else is stupid"), a drive to convert rather than explore ( a member of the crusading new atheist "Four Horsemen"). At a certain point you need to decide if a philosopher is worth reading anymore. I've given up on Dennett. Our time is limited.
Hmmm.......🤔You don't have to be a Genius, Theologian or FIRST rate mind to see his envy of Petersons climb in popularity. His self hatred (or maybe loneliness) shines strongly through his arrogance. Very Sad. Waste of a "good" mind. I hope he learns about Grace and Kindness in his studies.
People know that in life, they need more power. Today, they can get a lot of it through science and technology, government and capitalism, education and professionalism. But, the real reason for living is still spiritual. For me, Jesus shone a bright light on the spiritual path. As a Jew, he couldn't say there was no God, but he did say that love was the supreme value. I just substitute Love everytime I read "God." See Brit writer Don Cuppitt on the "mystery of the everyday."
It’s important to recognize that Jordan isn’t actually Christian but rather recognizes the importance, or rather the psychological utility, of it and is trying to puzzle that out by building from the ground up via science, history, literature. I’m not familiar with David but from his Closer to the Truth interview, it seems he gives more leeway to hard scientists when it comes to agnosticism than soft scientists (social sciences, psychology, etc.), and Peterson is the latter. It seems to me that Peterson is closer to the truth than many hard scientists and especially the new atheists, so I wonder if this is a prejudice of some sort towards soft scientists or a reaction to a new quasi-Christianity/Protestantism. Needless to say, David is closer to the truth than Peterson is.
It seems to me he (JP) figured out christians are suckers for celebs endorsing Christianity and figured there was an extra buck to be made from us. And in fact he did several.
How is Jordan Peterson not closer to the truth? Admire that his wife and daughter are practicing Christians. In the religion I imagine at least the mother. But both do have in that sense a relationship with God . And only the mother practices Religiously.
David is one of my favourite Christian theologians probably top of my list,along with Rowan Williams,ex-Archbishop of Canterbury.Glad he's sussed out Peterson,that polished fascist.
Dr Hart and David Gornoski, a Christian libertarian journalist. It's an interview on politics he gave after the interview on Knowles' show. At one point, Gornoski brought Peterson up because he thought that Peterson's talk about Jesus and his 'Bible lectures' might be an indicator that young people are interested in Christ and his teachings. ua-cam.com/video/_6kXKgddZYM/v-deo.html
DBH was right when he said "The archetype of Christ is not Christ", which basically sums up the deficiency in Jordan Peterson's understanding of Christianity. His interview with Mohammed Hijab (it was bad enough to platform him) also proves that he's a rather lousy advocate for Christianity in general; he cedes way too much ground to Hijab on the nature of God and ignores the centuries of apologia for the Trinity precisely because he's not Christian enough to have studied it. Christians risk making fools out of themselves if their chief online advocate prefers Jung to the Church Fathers...
DBH is a brilliant mind with a ton of insight. I don’t care for his political views though. Taking a cheap shot a Peterson is a weak move. Peterson is far more successful and has a more practical message than DBH. Both are very valuable
I agree with Hart here 100%. Peterson rising in popularity and being touted as an intellectual shows the unfortunate collapse of critical thinking in our culture.
Peterson's call to conservative conformity I don't believe is a practical message anymore. Appeal to popularity is also not an argument. Hylics cannot understand DBH but Peterson is easily accessible for anyone. That being said, at his best and most real, jordan peterson is a master at commentating on the human condition/tragedy and the anecdotals he pulls from his psychology practice are invaluable. even if bullshit, his ability to allude to the transcendental (while not being able to define it) mystifies people. he's clearly deeply (in a Christian sense) concerned with suffering. but on a more technical level, his theology, philosophy, exegesis... yeah David is on another level
This guy doesn’t provide any actual reasons as to why he dislikes Peterson’s work. Guarantee you he has not read any of his books, including Maps or Meaning. As far as I can tell, Peterson has been an advocate of the Christian message.
If he cares for the broken-hearted that is Christ like. Though Peterson burdens his own mind in his relentless search for truth, which really isn’t having a spirit of peace. Hart comes off as a pharisee or sadducee in being quick to pass judgment on another man’s character. Knowledge is not the substance of faith, nor the heart.
One thing I don't understand is why David Bentley Hart seems to attempt to convert Peterson. Hart is a universalist. All people will be saved in the end, according to him, as far as I understand, so why does he care? Whether Peterson is right or wrong might matter to him, and I completely understand that, but ultimately, that distinction between right and wrong seems irrelevant if everyone will be saved. Also if you look at the view counts Peterson's videos get and the sales numbers of his books, I don't see how you could say that he's simply appealing to a niche market. I guess he's using a different definition than the one I'm thinking of? I don't know. I'm also very curious as to whether Hart has actually read Peterson's books or listened to his lectures. I can't tell. I also find it highly ironic that the interviewer attempted to pressure (maybe jokingly) Peterson into admitting something false (i.e. that he was going to get baptized) so he could follow the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Doesn't make much sense to me. If the interviewer's position is really correct, and Peterson is really looking for the truth, then, with enough discussion, Peterson should be able to recognize that for himself. This is doubly true of Hart, because all people have to be able to understand the truth in order to be saved, and all people will be saved, according to him, so it logically follows from his position that Peterson will recognize God sooner or later regardless of what anyone does to try to convert him.
you say "All people will be saved in the end, according to him, as far as I understand, so why does he care? " --- because without God as the center of your heart you are lost, have no peace, have not the joy of the Lord, are living a drained shades of gray existence comparatively speaking, and will face fiery judgement in the age to come and many sorrows in this life. Just because universalism teaches people EVENTUALLY deep into the ages all end up saved does NOT mean we just don't give a crap about anyone in the meantime. What a foolish notion you put forth here. Just idiotic really.
I don’t understand the comments criticizing Hart’s swipe at Peterson. As is clear, Hart sees Peterson, correctly, as a contemptible knowing fraud, and such people should be swiped at. Peterson’s schtick is just that transparent to anyone who doesn’t drink his Kool-aid, and especially transparent to someone as intelligent as Hart.
David Bentley Hart, philosopher, theologian and biblical scholar. His most recent work is a new translation of the New Testament, but he has written extensively on philosophy and theology as well.
Wow, a Theologian that has written HIS interpretation of the Bible trash talking someone else's interpretation of the bible (Peterson) how novel LOL What little I have seen of Jordan's interpretation of the parables of the Bible are a valuable contribution, but then, I am merely an atheist that thinks there are a lot of valuable lessons in parables created for an illiterate age, one, two & three thousand years ago. Nothing wrong with Jordan's Scholarship it is just different the theologic scholarship. But Psychology (Jordan's Scholarship) plays into everything doesn't it! :) Just to be clear, I'm not an atheist that hates those of faith, it are the preaching atheists I find detestable as every I believe can believe or not as they please.
I have no doubt this man is a genius within the field of theology but he comes off as very arrogant. It's very telling that, instead of appreciating the fact that Peterson has been a powerful catalyst for bringing former materialists to Christ, he makes it into intellectual contest.
Whatever Hart may say about Peterson's "mind", you can bet his real beef with Peterson is over the fact that he has courted a more diverse readership. Hart is always an egomaniac before he's a scholar. This is how you understand Hart.
It was not a baseless assertion, but rather a self-suspending emotional outburst. Still, DBH is too good a scholar to allow his jealousy to get the better of him like that.
I wish I had your insight into DBH's motivations. Tell me, how would he go about criticizing someone he views as a bit of a charlatan and intellectual lightweight, but is not obviously jealous of?
I mean if he's going to write off the new atheists as a cultural force (in America) I don't see how you can get mad about he writing off Jordan Peterson.
@@pathocrat 'You're just jealous' is the standard school-girl response when someone says they don't like them. 'People don't dislike me because I actually might suck: it's because they're so jealous of how great I am!' Hart, along with many others, dislikes Peterson because Peterson is, in fact, a complete charlatan. He's just yet one more reactionary conservative peddling a stale ideology of resentment and personal insecurity (especially around questions of 'masculinity') wrapped up in adult male astrology (Jungian archetypes), pseudo-science (evo-psyche, IQ), fake philosophical sophistication, and lots of manly brow furrowing and intense stares (to show how serenely logical and totally-not-always-choking-on-his-own-rage he is). I got involved for a brief period when I was in my early twenties in the new atheist movement, and this is pretty much the same phenomenon. They also thought that their movement was the start of something big: it lasted no more than a couple of years, and now they're largely a joke. They too put on a pretence of being concerned with 'logical' argument; but what the movement was really about was enjoying a sense of (unearned) intellectual and moral superiority over groups of people you considered culturally inferior or personally annoying. Movements like that--new atheists, Peterson--for all their verbiage and pseudo-sophistication, have very little substance. They're largely hysterical reactions to a certain historical moment, and are no more enduring. For the new atheists it was 9/11, for the Petersonians it seems to be a perceived threat to masculinity brought about by relatively modest (and by and large positive) changes in relations between the sexes. They're confused and resentful, searching around desperately for an identity and a cause. Enter Jordan Peterson, claiming that feminists and 'cultural marxists' are out to destroy the natural hierarchy (which, somewhat oddly, has somehow become destabilised or even inverted by the very beings for whom that hierarchy is supposed to be a natural imperative), and flattering their intellectual vanity with superficial appeals to philosophy, the classical tradition, and junk science. Western civilisation teeters on the brink. It's hysterical nonsense, of course, often bordering on a kind of fascist mysticism. It certainly turned my brother into a sexist idiot (or gave him the confidence to be upfront about the fact that he blames all his failures on the women in his life 'feminising' him). In a few years, as I did with my new atheist phase, the more reasonable Petersonians will look back and cringe. Maybe the best part about Petersonians is the forced, pompous, hyperbolic prose they use because they think that that's how intellectuals speak: 'syncretic, ruminative style', 'ancient, half-forgotten motifs of our amnesiac culture'. Hahahahaha.
Are you really gonna sit there and pretend Jordan himself doesn't wreak of arrogance about topics he doenst even understand. Jordan's one of the most arrogant people I've seen on the internet.
I've always that that nonsensical and dangerous con men like Peterson,and there have been many through history, are best taken down by serious religious thinkers and theologians. For some reason Scientists and Materialists seem to be unable to do that.
It’s just all sour grapes that Peterson has succeeded in reaching an important young (non-specialist) audience that highfaluting theologians could never hope to reach, and have consistently failed to persuade despite all their technical mumbo jumbo. By the way, Hart was dead wrong with his never-Trumpism. He has been proven a clown on that by events over the last 6 years or so.
Thorn 438 doing a little bit more research on the topic I’ll concede that point. However I would say that the crusades definitely had a Christian motivation.
Thorn 438 I was just arguing that religion can drive people to violence, hence why I tried to make both a Muslim and Christian example at the beginning. My ultimate point is that people can be drove to do terrible things by all kinds of factors. I don’t believe that pointing fingers at different belief systems is going to fix the problem of humans killing each other. Basically don’t point fingers at secularism because religion does it too.
@@thorn4383 what does communism have to do with atheism? There is no definitive connection between the two. You can very well be religious and a communist at the same time. Ayn Rand, who created one of the most capitalistic ideologies around, objectivism, was a strident atheist. Most secular people are also religious. All that is required is that the government not get involved in religion, which includes not promoting or opposing any religion, and includes not using tax dollars to promote any one religion.
AJ You are stupid and here’s why; you sacrifice your individuality and are obedient to authority and call it morality. It’s not it’s conformity. The next reason that you’re stupid is that integrity is a human metric. Perfection is a religious metric and doesn’t exist. When you disagree with someone you point out that that they are imperfect, like that’s a crime. When you agree with some fraud like Trump you’ll say “Oh well, nobody’s perfect”, like a dumb ass. The religious will settle for less and less as long as you can point to someone doing worse than you. If we can pull together to make life better for everyone you can’t even wrap your head around not having someone to look down on. You are stupid on an insane level.
Watch Knowles' smile wipe off when Dr. Hart states that he does not have a warm memory of a christian america in which christians would go to church on Sunday and then case a vote for George Wallace.
I watched, and that didn't happen.
I like Mr Hart's ideas but I really wish he had more grace. It concerns me that this is quite a common issue among those of us who favour the Orthodox religion 😞
as much as I love seeing some of the beauty of Orthodoxy that has always been one of the things that's always kept me away from it. I will say Solovyov and Gregory of Nyssa have a beautiful humility about both of them and Solovyov even had an immense respect for Catholics and Lutherans and Nyssa was a universalist like Hart (just without and antagonism)
@@_StDunstansCorner_ you lost me at JP is a genius. Even his thoughts on Nietzsche alone (which I think Hart was alluding to) demonstrate that JP is way out of his depths most of the time. He keeps saying how Nietzsche thought the loss of Christianity was terrible which is simply false. A real observation of Nietzsche was offered by MacIntyre when he noted on Nietzsche saying "I fear we're not killing God fast enough because we still believe in grammar." which MacIntyre noted as meaning, " for Nietzsche it's not just that theism is false because it requires the truth of realism, but that realism is inherently theistic."
@@_StDunstansCorner_ oh please anyone with half a brain can notice the prejudice against men. That hardly makes him a genius especially considering he's pushing the very ideological nonsense that brought it on in the first place. Have some higher standards.
@@bradleymarshall5489 Yes and no. Neitzche is an ambiguous figure. Did he genuinely dislike Christianity? By all appearances yes. But did he, in an odd way, recognize its beauty? I think certainly.
“Dionysus versus the “Crucified” there you have the antithesis. It is not a difference in regard to their martyrdom-it is a difference in the meaning of it. Life itself, its eternal fruitfulness and recurrence, creates torment, destruction, the will to annihilation. In the other case, suffering-the “Crucified as the innocent one”-counts as an objection to this life, as a formula for its condemnation.-One will see that the problem is that of the meaning of suffering: whether a Christian meaning or a tragic meaning. In the former case, it is supposed to be the path to a holy being; in the latter case, being is counted as holy enough to justify even a monstrous amount of suffering.” - Neitzche, The Will to Power
Neitzche saw Christianity as fundamentally unique among all other religions in the way it interprets suffering to the extent that out of humility, people take account of and repent for their participation in the crucifixion of their Lord by their sins. So, Neitzche did in a sense understand Christianity, but ultimately came to reject it.
You should read Giuseppe Fornari’s book “A God Torn to Pieces” for more in this. It might be the case that Neitzche’s rejection of Christianity partly stemmed from a rivalry he had with Richard Wagner.
Interesting stuff. Check it out. Peace, my friend.
@@bradleymarshall5489 anyone who thinks Nietzsche was Christian has never read a word. He held Christianity in contempt as a “religion for slaves” for people who cannot actually ascend to true morality but rather wanted to follow a set of arbitrary laws for selfish gain (reaching heaven)
Watching Hart talk to Michael Knowles is like seeing Socrates try to hold a conversation with a toddler
A mentally ill toddler.
@@wordscapes5690 they shadow banned your mild comment 🙄
who's who
Hart is the toddler? Because Michael Knowles Is definitely up there buddy
Horrible take
I much prefer Jonathan Pageau's approach of friendship and patience with Peterson to Hart's approach of name-calling and dismisal of him. We can all see the problems in Jordan Peterson's thinking, we can see his flaws. But, there is something in Jordan Peterson's pursuit of knowledge that is still clearly genuine and even at times humble. He at least tries to understand reality. And through all his faults and his own agnosticism, Jordan Peterson ended up bringing thousands people to Christ and even into holy Orthodoxy. So Mr. Hart, perhaps you should have been a bit more charitable and less bitter.
Nah Peterson can't get enough criticism
Peterson has shown himself to be a dangerous idiot with a worrying cult following. He doesn't deserve anyone's "patience".
Christianity shouldnt be arrogant. I appreciate Hart but he is arrogant.
Agreed. Hart's message would benefit with a dash of humility.
And how do you figure? Absent any relevance in a breach in Christian precepts (boasting in works righteousness, or hypocrisy by sanctimonious religious mantras belying one's lifestyle), what's left here? Rhetorical style of delivery that's just too personally disagreeable? That a genuinely erudite, rigorously contemplative soul cannot direct criticism at someone despite being precisely the type from whom one would be properly criticized? Or is it now a sin to become a scholar because to swipe at one's interlocutors becomes too unfair? Such a sign of the times, when cultivating (and esp. utilizing) an intellect capable of legitimate critique is dismissed as "arrogance", because big words, or muh feelings, or whatever...
Jordan Peterson is in some ways considerably more arrogant. DBH definitely says and writes brash and often comes off as extremely arrogant but JBP criticizes the works of scholars he has barely read. He criticizes postmodernists and Marxists and has barely read a word of Marx or any of the great postmodernist philosophers (ex. Foucault, Baudrillard and Derrida). I mean he probably has to some extant but clearly not enough to actually be able to criticize these philosophers. I saw that debate with him and Zizek. I mean those two have no business debating at all. Zizek has written countless of books on the topic of Marx and culture, whereas JBP is a psychology proffessor who became an anti-sjw warrior after talking down some liberal college students and going on JRE. He didn't actually criticize anything Marx or Zizek wrote. He probably hasn't even skimmed the first chapter of Capital.
@@philip8802 I appreciate jbp on some things but your dead on. Not that I agree with Marx in the slightest, but I heard somewhere he read the manifesto in college and that was the end of his personal reading.
@@joshuaphilip7601 "Heard somewhere" - he admitted it during the Zizek debates last year.
You have to understand, in addition to spending the last half decade (probably more) dedicating his studies to consciousness, DBH has rigorously studied every conception of God under the sun. He is extremely well read, not only historically but scientifically as well. I can understand his frustration when a clinical psychologist simply namedrops Carl Jung, speaks about the truths of metaphors and suddenly has the world heaping praise upon him. His lectures on the Bible are done from the vantage point of a novice in the field with zero (zero!) academic work done in that particular field.
Really, it's the equivalent of a clinical psychologist walking into his general practitioners office and telling him what medicines he should prescribe for strept throat. For a guy like me, or a Dave Rubin, Peterson's insight into theology is interesting and cool. For a guy like DBH, it's little kid shit that he already dismissed by his second semester of his freshman undergrad year.
Could DBH be more generous? Sure, he could. It would be nice. But do I fault him for this attitude? Not at all. He's done too much incredible work in the field to have some rando come in and suck all the air out of the room.
Eh…That’s still coming from a point of ego. If Jordan functionally is an agnostic while otherwise being a doctor within the realm of clinical psychology, then his perspectives are merely his own. Limited, but his own. To judge a man based in his finite abilities while disregarding his earnestness, just because many people freely choose to give him an audience, is some sort of odd jealousy. And I agree with Hart’s views theologically on universalism. But there’s something to be said critically about character. Why value status and fame, over having the patience to discuss with a man who knows only about the things he’s currently studied? As far as Christian example, that’s being hypocritical in practice.
@@Hibernial Because being an intellectual and being a Christian are not the same thing...
Most agreeable, for me, assessment of why DBH responded the way he did.
And yet he's a socialist.
@@tonyoliver2750 Christian socialists are odd, but I get the sentiment if it’s some sort of communal voluntary arrangement a person is arguing for. I wouldn’t find myself agreeing with them or wanting to be in that arrangement, but so long as they’re not for forcing others to associate with them then I have no issues.
As for Hart he’s expressed his cultural views before, and I would guess that maybe he conflates being libertarian with libertinism. It’s a common misconception.
I wonder if there's any Good News in DBH s gospel. Just like John MacArthur and Paul Washer and their ilk...no Joy. They all seem to be in an endless search for correctness or heresy. No smiles, no assurance or kindness, just strident correction. They seem to think they are God's bodyguards.
It seems that Hart believes Jesus came to save creation as a whole. If that is true. Why would we have a Hell dimension in a perfected creation.
I’m a big fan of DBH, and have followed him for a while now. But I’ve come to see him be biased and dismissive towards individuals to the point of being flat out wrong on multiple occasions.
He’s very intelligent, but he lacks humility and openness to certain views he finds distasteful, which leads him away from reaching understanding.
Except he is right about Peterson
@@GriefHeals Hart has so much overlap with Peterson that he completely ignores.
Watch Peterson's interview with Iain McGhilchrist, and then watch David Bentley Hart's interview with Iain McGhilchrist.
David might be more popular if he didn’t feel so damn arrogant when he speaks
He only feels arrogant for people who disagre with him xd
It’s a big turn off. Yikes.
I like and respect Jordan Peterson and his approach a lot, but DBH’s description of his work as “a pastiche of risibly bad scholarship by a second-rate mind” is one of the best burns I have ever heard in my life.
How can you like and respect if you agree with that description? I’m really interested in how you can hold both things
@@neb999because it's funny, we're allowed to laugh at well put together insults if we find them funny and still respect the individual it was throw out to 😂
@@neb999do some of you even think, like at all?
@@daMillenialTrucker i don’t know what you mean by this dude!
@@daMillenialTrucker I get that and I’m with you, but the usual theology nerd or JP simp, can’t seem to do both. It’s usually a very black and white scenario and with little to no humor at all!
I wish they would have gotten into politics. While I don't agree with DBH on all of his political positions I am weary of hearing that a Randian Capitalist political identity is somehow the obvious position one would take after reading the New Testament. That is patently absurd.
It is equally as absurd to be a democratic socialist though you must agree. He has articles on the Jacobin, just think about that.
I know Hart personally. He's full of himself, and probably a heretic.
A heritic? 😂 You're an absolute clown
I enjoy Mr. Harts' insightful comments and his obvious intelligence, but I am baffled by his dismissive attitude. He is a first-rate scholar and his new translation of the New Testament is superb. I do not understand the cheap shot at Jordan, as he obviously cares for the truth and is respectful towards others. I am not sure that a condescending attitude helps. Mr. Hart is quick on his feet and obviously enjoys rhetorical flourishes. Can one be a masterful rhetorician without sounding condescending towards less intelligent seekers?
Absolutely, but I think it is just a character flaw of Hart. I am a bit of the same way and I have to check myself sometimes. Just because he is a theologian doesn't mean he is immune to a bit of arrogance. I do think he is unfairly dismissive of Peterson. I don't think Peterson is as bad or as good as people say. I have seen him speak live and he seemed a genuine guy. His hardcore followers make him into a messiah figure which he probably doesn't like.
He can be dismissive exactly because he is a top grade scholar. Thats how he knows that Peterson is a charlatan.
@@lordkorval7474 he doesn’t like Jung and Peterson is a jung
Maybe it is because Peterson is a hack, and academics, especially philosophers, know this?
Look at JP replied to Pankaj Mishra, he is anything but respectful.
Peterson has really evolved a lot since this interview. I wonder if DBH would feel the same. I’d like to see the two talk.
🎯🎯🎯
a number of people have described the flaws in Peterson's approach and scholarship in more depth. It isn't surprising that DBH sees this and it isn't surprising that DBH doesn't care for him, since DBH has generally approached right wing personalities with what could be cautiously described as suspicion and would be more accurately described as hostility and contempt.
@@RevdCalebTabor Jordan is a conservative personality not the leftist's narrative that everything that leans right of center is a fascist.
Hart is obnoxious toward anyone he disagrees with so the odds of him saying anything positive about JP approach zero.
@@alantysingerlaw6528 He is too eaten up with envy at Peterson's fame anyhow.
I was surprised by Harts comment about Peterson but not shocked. Hart has always struck me as a bit arrogant. Whether you like him or not, whether you agree with him or not Peterson strikes me as a humble man. Anyone who watches his lectures for more than a cursory amount of time will see that he tries to be thoughtful. Sadly in today's "Gets Owned" culture there is little room for someone's personal growth. Peterson has said numerous times he is learning and thinking things out. Mr. Hart, perhaps you should engage the second rate mind with your knowledge and have a conversation instead of merely belittling. That might be the more Christian thing to do
WhyCatholic .....VERY WELL PUT!Awesome breakdown of how Hart presents himself.👊❗️
@@bjones5791 Thnk you, that was very kind of you to say
I have watched Hart criticizing Peterson on another interview as well but he has yet to elaborate why Jordan Peterson is a "bad scholar". He has focused more on insults, which is rather strange for a man whose works have a beautiful, structure of reasoning and rhetoric.
It is rather surprising to hear him speak this way. I would imagine that they share much in common, which I think they actually do - DBH just wants to be a contrarian, I think.
@@drewcoope perhaps it's profitable for him to be so.
@@Brian-gw5hg His criticisms of JP may not be invalid, but his dismissal of his work as "bad scholarship" just sounds like snobbery, not to mention quite an extreme claim. Has he read Maps of Meaning? I doubt it. Nevertheless I'd like to hear them have a discussion. I bet they would find they have more common ground than he realizes.
@@drewcoope I think you're right about finding that common ground, were they to interact. My impression from hearing many of DBH criticisms of others is that he is willing to dismiss or devalue their claims based on the pedigree or discipline of the individual who is making the claim rather than the substance or value of the claim itself. For example, DBH describes Sam Harris as 'a refugee from an all boys school who is essentially nothing more than an undergrad that got lucky in writing a best seller'. I can't quite understand why he would do this other than to appeal to a crowd that already has disregard for his targets. The result, for me at least, is that it becomes more difficult consider his position as valuable (although I am certain there is value to be found). Anyway, it strikes me that these are just some of the behaviors/traits that have ensured DBH and his message are to remain obscure relative to the messages of those he would try to undermine with ad hominem.
@Arturo Belano Keep in mind that Hart has written whole books on why he regards the new atheist movement and Naturalism as nonsense. I would certainly like for Hart to branch out more into internet platforms his knowledge and reasoning is an oasis in the abyss of modern misinformation about theology and philosophy. Perhaps as another commentatorr wrote earlier, we will get to see a talk with Peterson and Hart one day.
Peterson as an academic is bad, this is true. But he did a great job on two fronts: he argued with the new atheists following their own grammar, something that allowed many people who, for better or worse, espoused this grammar to see something else, a new way of approaching Christianity. Secondly, he is very articulate, not afraid to put himself out there and willing to take our situation into account. This is something a lot of theologians, who live inside their own bubbles and talk to each other, don't do.
To sum up, Peterson as an academic is really bad. But as a person I think he is more courageous and sincere than most philosophers and theologians. And it's a shame to see DBH treat him like that, it's just validates to me my insight that a lot of American orthodox converts retain a Protestant narcissism.
Do you mind stating your qualifications for judging Peterson? I'm not trying to be salty but I'm genuinely interested. Thanks
@@woozyjoe4703what sort of qualification would you expect a person to have in order to offer an opinion on Peterson?
@@Entererofthethreshold Hi there friend. I would certainly expect someone to have at least as good academic qualifications as another to pass judgment on their ability as an academic in their field. An opinion on Peterson as a presenter, or a personality is fine but this is rather a specific criteria to give way to the "anonymous bloke on the internet" wouldn't you say? If someone tells me that some scientist is a rubbish scientist, I'm going to ask a question. I bet you can guess what that might be 😀
@@woozyjoe4703 was he not removed from his university position?
@@Entererofthethreshold No. Anyway his disputes with the authorities was nothing to do with his academic capabilities. It was due to his refusal to bow to political pressure.
My gripe here is that we should not let the casual ( and frankly, ridiculous) dismissal of his academic capabilities, above, remain unchallenged.
"A second-rate mind" he says of Peterson. Nearly everyone's will be this when compared to Hart. Poor form to criticize Peterson's ability. How about just criticize the specifics of his argument(s) that you happen to disagree with.
Dr. Hart, a staggeringly brilliant man, is unwise and uncharitable in referring to Peterson as a second-rate mind, which is a self-evident falsehood. One can legitimately accuse Peterson of a host of intellectual, analytical and communicative faults, but having a second-rate mind isn't one of them.
Yes it is. He is a junkie loser.
@@hunivan7672 Nah, you're just mouthing off, now. I take issue with a number of Peterson's objections to biblical historicity, but he's no loser. In terms of ethics he's catching on to a lot of biblical things that the church tends to largely ignore.
I have never heard JP make anything other than second sensationalist arguments
@@AndresMbernal That's rubbish. He has his faults and blind spots, like everyone, but he's far more perceptive and honest than the hoards of zeitgeist worshipping useful idiots that drive the narrative these days. And as far as the church is concerned, he approaches many matters with a sense of awe and depth that we could learn from.
@@smgale7689 Agreed.
Hart is ridiculously arrogant lol. Not a fan of Peterson but calling him a second rate mind or calling the books by the New Atheists unsophisticated and “stupid” is just pure snark and egoity. It’s funny because to me, it seems like Sam Harris particularly among the New Atheists and perhaps Daniel Dennet as well have far more grace than the Christian Hart. It makes it hard to take him seriously and care to delve deep into his work because he just comes across as adolescent and arrogant and not motivated by the right things at all.
Sounds like you're just sensitive. When you grow up you'll get over it.
David Bentley hart is a marvellous writer and convinced he is more loving than everyone around him. His ego shows nearly all the time.
DBH is brilliant of course...I have three of his books im working through....with an emphasis on work, and that great to have to read a page twice to comprehend it....but he does always seem to be in a foul sort of pissed off mood. Being a bold realist is ok...but hes not invited to my cocktail party...he would suck all the oxygen out of the room.
He should try to right a book that the common man can understand....but I think that is not possible. So it is true...there is much sorrow in the reading of many books. A chasing after the wind . I'm tempted to stop but somehow I cannot. As for Peterson...he does not claim nor want to be a prophet. He does bring value so take it for what it is. DBH appears to me to be jealous of the success of Peterson....much like a vastly superior artist who's paintings do not sell and then comes long Jeff Koons or Damien Hurst. Not fair....but the way it is.
How is he jealous that's pure conjecture and projection.
@@emmashalliker6862 Peterson does not necessarily do either. He tries to unify desperate fields of science and build them upward towards what the West used to regard as true. He references history often as well, so maybe he’s wrong about a great many things and a second rate scholar but he’s not making stuff up.
.. more like Peterson is a proto jung and he’s been pretty clear on his feelings for jung
@@tysmith9309 yes, but he has much more respect for religion than Jung. He probably even believes it but cannot shake his modern worldview.
@@1walkerw he’s still a “pupil” of jung. So still believes a philosophy that hart isn’t a fan of and sees as pedantic.
David Bentley Hart writes beautifully and has unique insights into Neoplatonist thought within the Christian tradition. Or rather, he explains it better than any other writer I can think of. But he is a fascist on the left, an elitist who enjoys historically unprecedented privileges and wealth taking pot shots at the culture that makes it possible for him to write books and reach a large public, not to mention the fact that the same division of labor we enjoy since the Bronze Age, and especially the Axial Age, which he excoriates using Marxist language for "creating desires" is also what made vocations like philosophy possible, indeed created a taste for philosophy. His vulgar ingratitude is incongruent with the wisdom you find in his writing, but it is not incongruent with his tone, because he pours scorn on everyone, with the exception of a few Neoplatonist mentors like Nicholas of Cusa & Gregory of Nyssa. The same moral failing that leads him to make sweeping condemnations of "capitalism" lead him to make sweeping condemnations of other thinkers, writers and popularizers (of which he is one, despite his attempt to excuse his arrogance as just the occupational hazard of an academic). C. S. Lewis said in retrospect of his book Pilgrim's Regress that it embarrassed him, because it committed several (for him) unpardonable sins, one of which was a tone of unremitting peevishness, and that's Hart down to the deepest corners of his soul. He is not a Christian academic, like Lewis, who praised Billy Graham as a "modest man" whom he "liked very much indeed" but a vile elitist who wants everyone to be a subsistence farmer except himself and feels the most intense resentment toward anyone who would disrupt his own notion of power hierarchies where he is conveniently perched on the top. He is an advocate of fascist hierarchy claiming to be the pacifist egalitarian. He claims to be a man of prayer. How could anyone with such a pathetic lack of self-knowledge be a person with a commitment to prayer & self-examination. Your Christianity is all in your head, Mr. Hart.
This guy have any debates? I have always find best to have debates/discussions when ideas can be challenged. Some times a person sounds like they are making a lot of sense until they have to actively engaged... It's kinda like martial arts.
David Bentley Hart (DBH) tends not, so far as I can see, go in for debates, at least in the sense in which such things seem nowadays to exist, preferring instead civilised armchair conversation. In this I am entirely at one with him. Debate tends to thrive on acrimony, merely pretend politeness (which the audience, often resembling little more than football fans, wants to descend to sheer pleasant instant cleverness). Debate, at least understood this way, is often just point-scoring field battle that requires skill not much beyond the level of the intellectual equivalent of ping-pong, and achieves about as much. The fastest on the draw with the bullets, containing little more depth than fireworks, is often deemed the winner. Civilised conversation on the other hand is gentle, yet still strong, insistent while remaining in touch with the 'other side', and can be bitingly humorous but in a somewhat teasing way. Most of all the two (or more) sides can in some sense remain accommodating of each other even in the wake of severe disagreement - though sometimes DBH can be a bit too airily dismissive of those his capacious mind deems as overly limited, especially as regards the level of scholarship required to do a good job in the conversation. Since my own mind has hardly the capaciousness of Jordan Peterson I felt for that man at one point in the conversation above.
Debates are overrated as hell, mainly because they do nothing for the audience, who show up to be cheerleaders.
DBH’s arrogance makes him very hard to tolerate despite his better and somewhat rare insights. His comments on Peterson are ignorant and seem to be fueled by jealously as well.
E Michael Jones is like Peterson in his charismatic manner of putting himself forward. But I Jones sticks to Catholicism like a boss.. Jordan Peterson is clearly mixing Jungian Gnosticism, psychology and his ego. I find Jordan Peterson a mixed back and not at all the Christian is claims to be. I think Hart is meaning this in his criticisms. Thats my 2 cents anyway.
I don't think I could agree more
Chalking it up to jealousy is more arrogant than anything he's said
Yeah anyone who listens to JP for five minutes can tell whatever motivates him it isn’t mere “profit.” DBH calls him a hack but that’s the kind of cheap insult a hack would make.
The most intelligent line by DBH here: "That since I've abstained so long now from voting for one of the major political parties, I don't know if I have a right now to complain about the state of affairs."
From a purely political point of view, at least he’s not voting for the initiation of aggression on peaceful people in the affirmative. Whether one would choose to cast a vote or not, I doubt a person would say that a politician actually or legally really represents them as an individual.
@@Hibernial yes. Politicians in both parties represents banks and big corporations.
You have a right to complain if you don't vote. If you voted you say you consent to the system and the outcome.
Wow a religious man who can see though that man's huckster bullshit. Good on him.
Oh Mr Hart, please stop insulting others. You are called to something higher. That behavior is not worthy of you, and not worthy of God.
Watching Hart is an embarrassing experience. To see an obviously intelligent man that is also a jealous man with feelings of grandeur.
Is there any way he could criticize Peterson that you wouldn't presume was motivated by jealousy?
@@pathocrat Peterson? Of course he can or anyone he chooses. I welcome critique from intelligent people. Logic not emotions like jealously is what most viewers want.
@@pathocrat where is the body of the argument which he presented against Peterson? other than shaming?
Practically the first word out of his mouth here is "unpack", which is always a very bad sign.
More lobster tears. Hahaha seriously man, grow up.
Ooff, he didn't like him, huh? Jordan truly doesn't have a good grasp of good scholarship when it comes to the Bible. I read his book thinking "gosh, he has a very bad view of God the Father" I couldn't figure out how he could read the Biblical stories without taking into context the historical and cultural setting they took place in. He sees everything through the Jungian lens and that lens while helpful to the infancy of psychology, has been largely debunked.
"second-rate mind"?
This is sad. It is better not to say such even if you think so.
Yes, JBP is garbage.
I love that even though these two have very opposing worldviews that they’re still able to hold a cordial conversation.
David has a great sense of humour.
I use to listen and love Peterson in my youth, but once I really started reading the great thinkers like Voegelin, Aquinas, Nisbet, and many others I began to realize how superficial Peterson really is and he's more of a testament for how starved for genuine wisdom we are
You had to read philosophers to realize that Peterson is a self-serving douchebag who found a way to monetize dissatisfied men?
Calling him superficial is practically flattery. He doesn't rise to the level of superficiality.
@@_StDunstansCorner_ I can say it because I listened to him for years (even met him earlier this year) but then grew up from learning from the greatest minds of Christendom. All Peterson offers is one of those fad synthetic religions based on a modern bias that C.S. Lewis explicitly warns against. It's through reading the ancient books by Christians and given the stamp of approval by Christians that mere Christianity reveals itself and what Peterson talks about does not resemble mere Christianity
@@bradleymarshall5489 Oh god CS Lewis? 🤣
As you grow in life, you will outgrow certain people. They are a stepping stone in your growth, and that's perfectly okay. I love Peterson but it took him to get me into Jonathan Pageau, and now I am reading ancient church fathers like Athanasius and Maximus. I probably wouldn't have been "ready" without him.
Peterson is genuine, even if he seems surface-level in comparison to what you and I know now, but you are right... we are definitely starved these days.
As one of DHB's favorite theologians would say,
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of [elocution], and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge... and have not love, I am nothing. Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly...
Maybe a good theologian but an arrogant human being. I am not a fan of JP but I did not appreciate this guy contempt and critics. If I will ever call myself fan of somebody maybe Pageau could be the elected one but it was Peterson who pushed Pageau in the front line (and not only Pageau) and opened the door to a renewal of interest in religion and search for meaning.
I was really looking forward to a fair well thought critique of JP , but nope he just insults and is sarcastic which is the exact same thing the new atheists do. Which makes me think he has nothing to offer but his petty jealousy. I don’t care if you have an IQ of 500 if supposedly you profess Christ and then act the opposite of that profession then I ask him what are you are you really? I have deleted his book off of Amazon to buy list. Enjoy your relative obscurity DPH, you are very disappointing as a person and because of that any insight you may have is mute.
agreed, deep thinker...but lacks love
I'm sure he really cares about your amazon wishlist clown 😂
How do we get DBH and JBP together in conversation??
DBH doesn’t do conversation. He just monologues in the same room.
His smug dismissal reeks of jealousy and and a lack of humility.
Arrogance and envy. Bad traits in a theologian.
Another UA-cam thread another bunch of Peterson cult members.
This is seriously pathetic.
right?
Jordan Peterson is the acceptable way to be right wing. He is a toothless snake, that's why he is being pushed by youtube.
Although DBH can be a real prig, he's spot on with Peterson. One of the most overrated of all time... fugghedaboudit!
This guy almost makes me want to be Orthodox Christian again
Rootin For Lenin Catholicism is better
It's all fake
Matt Mayuiers Not at all. The Hx of Catholicism is ridiculous, the Papacy has been divided before (the gates of Hell prevailed against that church), the current pope is a Freemason Jesuit and a globalist. They change their theology with the culture and the world.
You should try it
@@Ironpirate18 And yet still the Magisterium remains. Not that I can be called a fan of Francis; nor a defender in Catholicism's development of doctrine concerning certain particulars. Yet you seem to describe Protestantism far better, what with all its theological and doctrinal balkanization here at the far end of the post-Reformation.
What an uncharitable, flat-footed reading of Peterson; his syncretic, ruminative style is beside the point - the man is trying to breathe new life into these ancient, half-forgotten motifs of our amnesiac of a culture. Give the guy a break for God’s sake.
When DBH criticizes Peterson's bad scholarship, is that uncharitable, or his learned opinion? Perhaps there's some motivated reasoning behind your baseless assumption there.
Alienated TV: Perhaps you’re right.
That's the same thing the Daodejing was attempting, yet you rational skeptic types tend to say Eastern philosophy isn't philosophy and forget Peterson has the morality of a mystic Jungian.
I wonder what DBH does like , does approve of and would commend ........or would that be too revealing?
Have you read his book reviews, or essays on patristics -- say Gregory of Nyssa -- or classic writers -- say Nabokov -- or various theologians -- say Bulgakov -- or seen his endorsement of contemporary works -- say Dale Allison Jr's _Night Comes?_ DBH, though he may relish in the oblique for the sake of expressing his own thoughts in the moment, is hardly forbiddingly opaque.
The Church Fathers? That would be a good place to start, especially St. Gregory of Nyssa.
He talks about that all the time, you'd have to be blind and deaf not to tell
This is not Christian. Shame on you all for crushing our hope. DBH should know better. DBH, please be who you are but please also restrain your pride.
Love it when they mention Nagel. Reading his work is actually what helped me transition from atheism to back to being a Christian, lol. Never has there been someone that can so fully outline the problems with materialism while simultaneously being a die hard materialist, lol. I feel very bad for him, he must be in some serious existential despair. Really hope he converts someday.
Jordan Peterson views belief in God through a psychological, symbolic, and pragmatic lens, emphasizing the importance of such belief for individual meaning and societal ethics rather than committing to a traditional theistic stance and no religion accountability.
I thought this was terribly cruel and uncharitable response to the question of Jordan Peterson, who has at best been an ally for Christianity as opposed to an opponent.
You could have shared a similar opinion of him much more politely.
IF you think that's Christianity you don't know The Gospel. Repent!
@@einarabelc5 think what is Christianity?
@@einarabelc5lol
@@einarabelc5you appear never to have answered OP's question. "If you think that is Christianity... repent."
Think _what_ is Christianity?
DBH tells it like it is .
Dennet is genuinely the worst "philosopher" I have ever read. He is a completely non-thinking ideologue.
It's true. Harris and Dawkins are kind of excused from their awful writings. Dennett, however, is supposed to be a trained philosopher, so his writing is inexcusable at this point.
Why, then, is he a much more influential and respected philosopher than Hart? I don't agree with many of Dennett's ideas, but to dismiss him as merely an ideologue is just silly.
@@k-3402 Kim Kardashian is more influential than both of them. Trans gender ideology is very influential. And no thinking person could take either of them serious.
I think much of his success comes from piggy backing on the popular new atheist movement. He has simply joined the right team at the right time in my view. He gives the people what they want.
Dennett is a proponent of extreme reductive materialism (originally understood as merely a working model for scientists by Galileo, Descartes, and Newton - not as an actual complete literal ontology).
An extreme oversimplification of a nebulous reality that science is ever more demonstrating.
Our most cutting edge science is more and more theoretical and less empirical.
And we have Dennet making grand (and exceptionally confident) metaphysical pronouncements about reality.
His claims run way ahead of his thinking. For example, he claims consciousness does not exist. And to this day has not offered anything even approaching an explanation. How can he make such an asinine claim? The answer, he needs to or his oversimplified ideology falls apart. So he keeps thumping the table and repeating his mantras.
The hallmarks of an ideologue, oversimplification (reductive materialism) and overconfidence without warrant (no argument just "everyone else is stupid"), a drive to convert rather than explore ( a member of the crusading new atheist "Four Horsemen").
At a certain point you need to decide if a philosopher is worth reading anymore. I've given up on Dennett. Our time is limited.
@@k-3402"He's more popular, he must be right!" 🤡
Hmmm.......🤔You don't have to be a Genius, Theologian or FIRST rate mind to see his envy of Petersons climb in popularity. His self hatred (or maybe loneliness) shines strongly through his arrogance. Very Sad. Waste of a "good" mind. I hope he learns about Grace and Kindness in his studies.
People know that in life, they need more power. Today, they can get a lot of it through science and technology, government and capitalism, education and professionalism. But, the real reason for living is still spiritual.
For me, Jesus shone a bright light on the spiritual path. As a Jew, he couldn't say there was no God, but he did say that love was the supreme value. I just substitute Love everytime I read "God." See Brit writer Don Cuppitt on the "mystery of the everyday."
Do you also drink Decaf?
@@einarabelc5 only at night
It’s important to recognize that Jordan isn’t actually Christian but rather recognizes the importance, or rather the psychological utility, of it and is trying to puzzle that out by building from the ground up via science, history, literature.
I’m not familiar with David but from his Closer to the Truth interview, it seems he gives more leeway to hard scientists when it comes to agnosticism than soft scientists (social sciences, psychology, etc.), and Peterson is the latter. It seems to me that Peterson is closer to the truth than many hard scientists and especially the new atheists, so I wonder if this is a prejudice of some sort towards soft scientists or a reaction to a new quasi-Christianity/Protestantism.
Needless to say, David is closer to the truth than Peterson is.
It seems to me he (JP) figured out christians are suckers for celebs endorsing Christianity and figured there was an extra buck to be made from us. And in fact he did several.
How is Jordan Peterson not closer to the truth? Admire that his wife and daughter are practicing Christians. In the religion I imagine at least the mother. But both do have in that sense a relationship with God . And only the mother practices Religiously.
David is one of my favourite Christian theologians probably top of my list,along with Rowan Williams,ex-Archbishop of Canterbury.Glad he's sussed out Peterson,that polished fascist.
who are the two at the end? looks like a before and after.
Dr Hart and David Gornoski, a Christian libertarian journalist. It's an interview on politics he gave after the interview on Knowles' show. At one point, Gornoski brought Peterson up because he thought that Peterson's talk about Jesus and his 'Bible lectures' might be an indicator that young people are interested in Christ and his teachings.
ua-cam.com/video/_6kXKgddZYM/v-deo.html
DBH was right when he said "The archetype of Christ is not Christ", which basically sums up the deficiency in Jordan Peterson's understanding of Christianity.
His interview with Mohammed Hijab (it was bad enough to platform him) also proves that he's a rather lousy advocate for Christianity in general; he cedes way too much ground to Hijab on the nature of God and ignores the centuries of apologia for the Trinity precisely because he's not Christian enough to have studied it. Christians risk making fools out of themselves if their chief online advocate prefers Jung to the Church Fathers...
Peterson mixes Jung with his personal New Age take on what he thinks Christianity is. He also has a silver tongue!
Conveniently skips the whole Occultist part of Jung.
DBH is a brilliant mind with a ton of insight. I don’t care for his political views though. Taking a cheap shot a Peterson is a weak move. Peterson is far more successful and has a more practical message than DBH. Both are very valuable
I agree with Hart here 100%. Peterson rising in popularity and being touted as an intellectual shows the unfortunate collapse of critical thinking in our culture.
Peterson's call to conservative conformity I don't believe is a practical message anymore. Appeal to popularity is also not an argument. Hylics cannot understand DBH but Peterson is easily accessible for anyone.
That being said, at his best and most real, jordan peterson is a master at commentating on the human condition/tragedy and the anecdotals he pulls from his psychology practice are invaluable. even if bullshit, his ability to allude to the transcendental (while not being able to define it) mystifies people. he's clearly deeply (in a Christian sense) concerned with suffering. but on a more technical level, his theology, philosophy, exegesis... yeah David is on another level
Calling Peterson "mediocrity" can only be done out of envy or pure ignorance
It can only be done out of pure understanding. JBP is actually trash tier.
This guy doesn’t provide any actual reasons as to why he dislikes Peterson’s work. Guarantee you he has not read any of his books, including Maps or Meaning. As far as I can tell, Peterson has been an advocate of the Christian message.
… in what way has he been?
And to advocate the Christian method , yet to never step into being a part of that message is meaningless
If he cares for the broken-hearted that is Christ like. Though Peterson burdens his own mind in his relentless search for truth, which really isn’t having a spirit of peace. Hart comes off as a pharisee or sadducee in being quick to pass judgment on another man’s character. Knowledge is not the substance of faith, nor the heart.
He is much smarter.
Get.to.the.point.
Who is being Interviewed here? Who is this? Please tell me.
david bentley hart
Thank you Carter. Very good of ya! You a good guy.
DB/JP would make a great debate
I literally clicked because I needed to hear a new Kermit takedown
One thing I don't understand is why David Bentley Hart seems to attempt to convert Peterson. Hart is a universalist. All people will be saved in the end, according to him, as far as I understand, so why does he care? Whether Peterson is right or wrong might matter to him, and I completely understand that, but ultimately, that distinction between right and wrong seems irrelevant if everyone will be saved.
Also if you look at the view counts Peterson's videos get and the sales numbers of his books, I don't see how you could say that he's simply appealing to a niche market. I guess he's using a different definition than the one I'm thinking of? I don't know. I'm also very curious as to whether Hart has actually read Peterson's books or listened to his lectures. I can't tell.
I also find it highly ironic that the interviewer attempted to pressure (maybe jokingly) Peterson into admitting something false (i.e. that he was going to get baptized) so he could follow the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Doesn't make much sense to me. If the interviewer's position is really correct, and Peterson is really looking for the truth, then, with enough discussion, Peterson should be able to recognize that for himself. This is doubly true of Hart, because all people have to be able to understand the truth in order to be saved, and all people will be saved, according to him, so it logically follows from his position that Peterson will recognize God sooner or later regardless of what anyone does to try to convert him.
I don't need my fingers jammed in a door for eternity to learn to be more consientious and careful in the future.
Universalists still believe in hell, and still believe it is absolutely a place to be avoided.
you say "All people will be saved in the end, according to him, as far as I understand, so why does he care? " --- because without God as the center of your heart you are lost, have no peace, have not the joy of the Lord, are living a drained shades of gray existence comparatively speaking, and will face fiery judgement in the age to come and many sorrows in this life. Just because universalism teaches people EVENTUALLY deep into the ages all end up saved does NOT mean we just don't give a crap about anyone in the meantime. What a foolish notion you put forth here. Just idiotic really.
David's idiotic comment about the two parties expresses quite succinctly his utter ignorance of politics.
I don’t understand the comments criticizing Hart’s swipe at Peterson. As is clear, Hart sees Peterson, correctly, as a contemptible knowing fraud, and such people should be swiped at. Peterson’s schtick is just that transparent to anyone who doesn’t drink his Kool-aid, and especially transparent to someone as intelligent as Hart.
Sounds a little jealous to me.
jealousy much.....
that's always the excuse you clowns go for isn't it?
DBH would destroy JBP in a fight on all levels.
I don't find d Mr Hart arrogant at all.
Time for second Nietzsche the best atheist ever
Tell u what JP never once came across this smug
who is this theologian?
David Bentley Hart, philosopher, theologian and biblical scholar. His most recent work is a new translation of the New Testament, but he has written extensively on philosophy and theology as well.
@@srinahar2941 thank you
Rick FakeLastName II and a socialist as well, brilliant on the theology, horrible and self contradictory with politics
Wow, a Theologian that has written HIS interpretation of the Bible trash talking someone else's interpretation of the bible (Peterson) how novel LOL
What little I have seen of Jordan's interpretation of the parables of the Bible are a valuable contribution, but then, I am merely an atheist that thinks there are a lot of valuable lessons in parables created for an illiterate age, one, two & three thousand years ago.
Nothing wrong with Jordan's Scholarship it is just different the theologic scholarship. But Psychology (Jordan's Scholarship) plays into everything doesn't it! :)
Just to be clear, I'm not an atheist that hates those of faith, it are the preaching atheists I find detestable as every I believe can believe or not as they please.
I have no doubt this man is a genius within the field of theology but he comes off as very arrogant. It's very telling that, instead of appreciating the fact that Peterson has been a powerful catalyst for bringing former materialists to Christ, he makes it into intellectual contest.
No contest.
I used to disagree and be mad, now that I've actually become a Christian, I totally agree. Peterson is dangerous.
Whatever Hart may say about Peterson's "mind", you can bet his real beef with Peterson is over the fact that he has courted a more diverse readership. Hart is always an egomaniac before he's a scholar. This is how you understand Hart.
This seems to be the case. It’s not really a rational thing to be so egotistical about an academic position and comparing one’s career to another’s.
It was not a baseless assertion, but rather a self-suspending emotional outburst. Still, DBH is too good a scholar to allow his jealousy to get the better of him like that.
I wish I had your insight into DBH's motivations. Tell me, how would he go about criticizing someone he views as a bit of a charlatan and intellectual lightweight, but is not obviously jealous of?
I'm trying to imagine why Dr. Hart would be jealous of Peterson. I'm failing to think of a reason.
I mean if he's going to write off the new atheists as a cultural force (in America) I don't see how you can get mad about he writing off Jordan Peterson.
@@pathocrat 'You're just jealous' is the standard school-girl response when someone says they don't like them. 'People don't dislike me because I actually might suck: it's because they're so jealous of how great I am!' Hart, along with many others, dislikes Peterson because Peterson is, in fact, a complete charlatan. He's just yet one more reactionary conservative peddling a stale ideology of resentment and personal insecurity (especially around questions of 'masculinity') wrapped up in adult male astrology (Jungian archetypes), pseudo-science (evo-psyche, IQ), fake philosophical sophistication, and lots of manly brow furrowing and intense stares (to show how serenely logical and totally-not-always-choking-on-his-own-rage he is).
I got involved for a brief period when I was in my early twenties in the new atheist movement, and this is pretty much the same phenomenon. They also thought that their movement was the start of something big: it lasted no more than a couple of years, and now they're largely a joke. They too put on a pretence of being concerned with 'logical' argument; but what the movement was really about was enjoying a sense of (unearned) intellectual and moral superiority over groups of people you considered culturally inferior or personally annoying. Movements like that--new atheists, Peterson--for all their verbiage and pseudo-sophistication, have very little substance. They're largely hysterical reactions to a certain historical moment, and are no more enduring. For the new atheists it was 9/11, for the Petersonians it seems to be a perceived threat to masculinity brought about by relatively modest (and by and large positive) changes in relations between the sexes. They're confused and resentful, searching around desperately for an identity and a cause. Enter Jordan Peterson, claiming that feminists and 'cultural marxists' are out to destroy the natural hierarchy (which, somewhat oddly, has somehow become destabilised or even inverted by the very beings for whom that hierarchy is supposed to be a natural imperative), and flattering their intellectual vanity with superficial appeals to philosophy, the classical tradition, and junk science. Western civilisation teeters on the brink. It's hysterical nonsense, of course, often bordering on a kind of fascist mysticism. It certainly turned my brother into a sexist idiot (or gave him the confidence to be upfront about the fact that he blames all his failures on the women in his life 'feminising' him). In a few years, as I did with my new atheist phase, the more reasonable Petersonians will look back and cringe.
Maybe the best part about Petersonians is the forced, pompous, hyperbolic prose they use because they think that that's how intellectuals speak: 'syncretic, ruminative style', 'ancient, half-forgotten motifs of our amnesiac culture'. Hahahahaha.
@@johnsmith5139 Well said. I compare it to the cult of Ayn Rand, centered on a kind of adolescent pseudo-philosophical narcissism.
Yes of course the heaven gatekeeper must do their job, they must tell people to follow them and them only.
What a pompous attitude. Peterson has done more lately to at least get people to consider the bible.
Rather hefty, hateful opinions with no evidence from a self proclaimed man of god. Not a fan of this guy, he wreaks of intellectual arrogance.
Are you really gonna sit there and pretend Jordan himself doesn't wreak of arrogance about topics he doenst even understand. Jordan's one of the most arrogant people I've seen on the internet.
Lmao. You're delusional. Is this an objectively driven opinion or wishful thinking? Facts are the "none" demographic continues to rise.
I've always that that nonsensical and dangerous con men like Peterson,and there have been many through history, are best taken down by serious religious thinkers and theologians. For some reason Scientists and Materialists seem to be unable to do that.
I bet he hasn’t read maps of meaning. It’s better then anything he’s written.
The 'desire for God' is otherwise known as egotism.
It’s just all sour grapes that Peterson has succeeded in reaching an important young (non-specialist) audience that highfaluting theologians could never hope to reach, and have consistently failed to persuade despite all their technical mumbo jumbo. By the way, Hart was dead wrong with his never-Trumpism. He has been proven a clown on that by events over the last 6 years or so.
Religion will eventually be a thing of the past. Secular values will make the future brighter.
Thorn 438 While Hitler and Bin Laden are cursing in their graves.
Thorn 438 doing a little bit more research on the topic I’ll concede that point. However I would say that the crusades definitely had a Christian motivation.
Thorn 438 I was just arguing that religion can drive people to violence, hence why I tried to make both a Muslim and Christian example at the beginning.
My ultimate point is that people can be drove to do terrible things by all kinds of factors. I don’t believe that pointing fingers at different belief systems is going to fix the problem of humans killing each other.
Basically don’t point fingers at secularism because religion does it too.
@@thorn4383 what does communism have to do with atheism?
There is no definitive connection between the two. You can very well be religious and a communist at the same time.
Ayn Rand, who created one of the most capitalistic ideologies around, objectivism, was a strident atheist.
Most secular people are also religious.
All that is required is that the government not get involved in religion, which includes not promoting or opposing any religion, and includes not using tax dollars to promote any one religion.
AJ You are stupid and here’s why; you sacrifice your individuality and are obedient to authority and call it morality. It’s not it’s conformity. The next reason that you’re stupid is that integrity is a human metric. Perfection is a religious metric and doesn’t exist. When you disagree with someone you point out that that they are imperfect, like that’s a crime. When you agree with some fraud like Trump you’ll say “Oh well, nobody’s perfect”, like a dumb ass. The religious will settle for less and less as long as you can point to someone doing worse than you. If we can pull together to make life better for everyone you can’t even wrap your head around not having someone to look down on. You are stupid on an insane level.