Transcript

This week, the Jubilee Channel released an episode that was originally called Christian versus 20 Atheists Featuring Jordan Peterson.

But Peterson wouldn't even use the label Christian to describe himself, so they changed the title to simply Jordan Peterson versus 20 Atheists.

But for many people who do call themselves Christians, this was a missed opportunity to show the truth of the Christian faith to inquiring skeptics.

So, in today's episode, I'm gonna discuss what's wrong with Jordan Peterson's apologetics, if you can call it that, but also what Peterson gets right as a sincere truth seeker.

And if you wanna help us keep making great content like this, don't sit around asking, What does it mean to subscribe?

Just hit the subscribe button and visit us at trenthornpodcast.com to keep our channel sponsor-free.

Now, the Jordan Peterson Christian phenomena is an odd one, because he is famously ambiguous about his religious beliefs.

But many people also see Peterson as a kind of Christian figure.

There have even been entire books written about him and his relationship to the Christian faith.

I think Jordan Peterson is popular with, and extremely frustrating for, Christians for this reason.

Peterson is very good at explaining the bad news of the secular life, but he is not able to explain the good news of Christianity.

When it comes to the bad news, Peterson initially rose to prominence as a critic of Canadian transgender laws that threatened free speech by compelling people to use certain pronouns.

In this iconic interview from 2018, Peterson shuts down a Canadian broadcaster who floats the silly idea that people have the right to not be offended.

You cited freedom of speech in that.

Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person's right not to be offended?

Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive.

I mean, look at the conversation we're having right now.

You know, like you're certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth.

Why should you have the right to do that?

It's been rather uncomfortable.

Well, I'm- I'm very glad I put you on this pod.

I'm very glad that I've exercised my freedom of speech.

But you get my point.

You get my point.

It's like, you're- you're doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell's going on.

So do you-

And that is what you should do, but you're exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me, and that's fine.

I think you More power to you, as far as I'm concerned.

So, you haven't sat there and I'm just trying, I'm just trying to work that out.

I mean

Peterson's online lectures have garnered millions of views, and many young men have been attracted to his message about masculinity and opposing political correctness in favor of what is actually true about reality.

One of the Jubilee non-theists in this recent discussion even praised Peterson for this.

You and I agree on a lot.

I mean, when it comes to talking about how men should be masculine and things of that nature, you and I are 100% in agreement.

Through his books and lectures, Jordan Peterson has done a good job in exposing how modern secular liberalism contradicts what we know about reality and how it fails to fully explain the human person.

Peterson has also shown how our identity can only be fully explained in a religious context.

And his wife has gone one step further in formally embracing the Catholic faith, though as you'll see, Jordan Peterson remains fairly ambiguous about it.

So, this background helps us to understand the good and the bad in Peterson's recent Jubilee appearance.

Let's start with the good.

Peterson begins his appearance by saying

Atheists reject God, but they don't understand what they're rejecting.

And I've seen this countless times.

For example, many atheists think the following question is a kind of kill shot against arguments for God.

If God created everything, then what created God?

However, the question assumes that God is just one super-powered thing among other things.

And so saying God caused the universe doesn't answer the question, because God is just one more thing that also has to be explained.

But God isn't one thing or one being among many.

God just is infinite being itself.

God is the ultimate foundation of reality, the ground of being.

Asking what created God is like asking what pulls the locomotive of a train.

A locomotive is not like a box car or other cars on the train, because it gives motion to all the other cars without receiving motion itself.

Likewise, God, the uncreated creator of all, is not like a creature, because God gives existence to all creatures without receiving existence from anything.

Philosophers say God's essence, or what God is, just is existence, or that he is.

That's why God told Moses in the burning bush that his name is I Am That I Am.

Now watch as these two atheists who engaged Jordan Peterson, in spite of their individual claims to being well-informed on religion, treat God as just one being among many, and if you don't believe in certain gods, then you should reject the Christian God as well.

There are as many gods out there as there are believers, because everybody has mutually exclusive and different views of what god is.

I don't know anything about the Polynesian deity Lono.

So, you're rejecting something without knowledge of what you're rejecting.

I'm not rejecting it

Do you bel-

no more than I'm rejecting anything that I don't know anything about.

Do you believe in Lono?

I fail to see the relevance of that.

Do you believe that he is a deity that exists in the world, exists in the universe, exists in the existence of everything?

But the reason I don't believe in Lono or Zeus or Thor isn't because they are other gods I arbitrarily reject because I prefer my own god.

It's because those things are not god at all.

They fail the definition, because God, as Saint Anselm said, is that which no greater can be thought.

God is a maximally great being.

So if Lono or Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster had some limit in being finite or bound by time or space or being contingent, then they just aren't capital G-O-D.

They're not God, full stop.That's why I don't believe in them as God.

Now, I might believe in them through other frameworks.

For example, there could be a powerful creature, like a demon, that calls itself Lono, or some other name of a deity that is worshiped by people falsely, but is not actually God.

But these things are not God in the proper, full sense of that term.

God just is the infinite explanation of all there is.

Either the universe explains itself, has no explanation, is the product of an infinite chain of explanations, or the universe is explained by something which explains itself.

And theistic philosophers have argued for thousands of years that only the last option makes logical sense.

And we can then narrow down the faiths that believe in an infinite God, like Islam or Bahá'í or Judaism, and realize Christianity is true among them, because the Christian God revealed himself through Jesus Christ, specifically his resurrection from the dead.

Next, Jordan Peterson does a good job of showing that secular morality isn't all it's cracked up to be when he engages critics on the claim that-

Morality and purpose cannot be found within science.

And here, he does a good job of showing that while science can describe behaviors and provide evolutionary explanations for why humans and chimpanzees and other social animals engage in certain behaviors, science cannot explain why we have a moral duty to engage in those moral behaviors.

We have examples of chimpanzees who actually have a basic understanding of fairness, right?

If you give a chimpanzee two grapes, right?

And, uh, his buddy gets three, right?

Yeah.

He actually freaks out.

Um, but we have similar examples, uh, where we do animal tests, right?

And-

So morality is intrinsic?

I think-

So it precedes science?

I think that, actually-

Is that right?

a better way to define it would be that social animals, which we are, right?

Yeah.

Require some level of morality, or, uh-

Into what?

Into-

I'm not disagreeing.

Sure.

Why do they require that?

Because it's the only way that social groups can actually survive, right?

I mean-

That's my point-

Sure.

with regards to science.

Thank you very much.

Science can't do this, because science just tells us what the world is, not what the world ought to be.

For more on this, see my previous episode where I critique atheists Sam Harris's attempts to ground morality in science.

In this exchange, many of the atheists make it sound like morality is easy to have without God, because it's just obvious you should act in a way that benefits the most people.

Social animals, which we are, right?

Yeah.

Require some level of morality.

My conscience is my sense of, you know, um-

Right and wrong.

right and wrong.

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, yeah.

Yes.

Where does that come from?

I would say that comes from an evolved capacity to empathize and a recognition of the benefits of engaging with and nurturing that capacity.

Sam Harris, in his book The Moral Landscape, seems to endorse a kind of utilitarianism that matches a similar definition of morality being the science of improving the well-being of conscious creatures.

But later in this episode, Jordan Peterson says

Atheists accept Christian morality, but deny the religion's foundational stories.

And he's correct.

For example, let's say you're an atheist who believes morality is just the self-evident fact that you should do what you can to improve the well-being of conscious creatures.

The 1973 short story The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas describes a utopian society where life is perfect, but that perfection depends on one small child being kept starving and abused in a tiny cellar.

It can't be perfect unless this child suffers.

And the narrator says this, To exchange all the goodness and grace of every life in Omelas for that single small improvement, to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of happiness of one, that would be to let guilt within the walls indeed.

Now, in the story, some people can accept this as the price of utopia, but others are disgusted, and they walk away from this supposed paradise.

And most of us consider that those who walk away are the heroes of the story who did the right thing.

Now, granted, that's a science fiction example, but throughout human history, slavery was justified on the grounds that people do not have equal rights, and it was in the best way to promote everyone's interests through an institution like slavery.

Now, Jordan Peterson is good at pointing out that slavery was universal in human history, but it was distinctly Christian principles that eventually brought about its global abolition.

We're talking about slavery.

It, so many people bolstered it based on the Bible.

Everyone ex- Uh, that's, that's much less true-

Based on the Bible.

They looked at it and they justified it in the United States and with the South.

They justified slavery based on the Bible.

Yeah, but the main thrust, the main thrust of Protestant thought in particular was stringently against slavery.

Yes, which-

And it was about the only movement in the history-

Yes.

of the human race-

Yes.

that had an anti-slavery direction.

Which, which if, if-

All human societies-

If-

were slave owning.

Yes.

So you can't blame that on the Bible.

If humanity decided-

Oh, wait, address that first.

What, about slavery?

All human societies were slavers, so you can't blame that on the Bible.

Well, you can say it bolstered it.

It, it-

Well, not if you look at the broad sweep of history.

So whether it's a hypothetical, like The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, or horrifying real life examples, secularism has a difficult time explaining in a non-arbitrary way why we should treat everyone as having equal rights, even though we are all unequal in our abilities.

And it can't explain why we should not exploit the minority if that will end up helping the majority.

As Commander Spock would say

Were I to invoke logic, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

But another problem is that this does not mean you should never cause a single creature to suffer in order to improve the well-being of others.

When we incarcerate a murderer for life, we harm his well-being, but we also improve many other people's well-being by making them feel safer.

Of course, you'll say that's different, because the murderer deserves to suffer, but the child in Omelas does not deserve to suffer, which adds a new equation into the moral calculus science cannot discern .

the idea that human beings deserve to be treated in certain ways based on their actions or even their intrinsic moral worth.

For example, you could improve the wellbeing of conscious creatures overall by painlessly euthanizing disabled children after birth, even mildly disabled children, but almost everyone agrees that this would be murder, not morality.

So once again, Peterson is good at showing why the bad news is bad, but because he has not fully embraced a correct understanding of the Christian faith, he cannot explain why the good news is so good about how Christ redeems us and the whole world.

For example, consider Peterson's answer to the question, if there is a God, what's the purpose of life?

If there is a God, what is the purpose of life?

Well, in- in the Christian tradition, the purpose of life is to engage in voluntary upward self-sacrifice so that the kingdom of Heaven can be established on Earth.

So you're trying to make it to Heaven and avoid Hell?

Yes, that's a good way-

Okay.

that's a good way of thinking about it.

What is the purpose of Heaven?

Do you understand-

Well-

So- so here's the deal.

At minimum-

We- we can- we can get into an infinite-

At minimum, it's the opposite of endless suffering.

Like with many of Peterson's answers, there are glimpses of the truth here, but not the main point.

In contrast to Peterson's answer, the Baltimore Catechism says this, Question: Why did God make you?

Answer: God made me to know him, to love him, and to serve him in this world and to be happy with him forever in Heaven.

But it seems that for Jordan Peterson what matters is not so much what you believe or even your relationship with God, but what you do.

The purpose of life is to inaugurate the kingdom of God.

Heaven is, at minimum, a life without suffering.

Or consider his other answers about what it means to believe being rooted in what you do rather than what you say.

Optimally, what you say and what you do would be brought into harmony, but I would say if you had to prioritize, it should be what you attend to and what you act first, and that's what Christ actually says in the Gospels because he points to the Pharisees, for example, who say all the right things but don't do any of the right things and points out very clearly that that's not acceptable.

So it seems like Jordan Peterson is not interested in identifying as a Christian as much as he's interested in living like a Christian, and that has some merit because the Bible routinely condemns people who claim to be religious but don't live that way.

But this kind of anonymous Christian or Christian in deed but not creed, that can only take you so far.

It's not the kind of faith you should have if you're advertised as someone who is publicly defending Christianity against atheists out to attack it.

The part of the Jubilee episode that got played the most online is this exchange where Peterson says everybody, including atheists, worship something, and one of the atheists, Danny, tries to trap Peterson by linking him to the Catholic faith.

What's your definition of worship?

Attend to?

Attend to.

Do-

Prioritize.

Do Catholics-

And sacrifice for.

What do Catholics attend to?

Um, do they prioritize Mary over all other human beings?

No, I didn't say over all, did I? I didn't add that to my definition.

You under- you understand-

I said there was a hierarchy as well.

Y- you attend to Cath-

So you can attend to something trivially or you can attend to it deeply and there's no-

But now you're adding stuff to the definition, but your original definition-

I added the hierarchy part at the beginning.

What's making this exchange problematic is that we have to define the word worship.

What does worship mean?

Now, I know Jordan Peterson gets grief about over-defining words, but a lot of people, atheists and even many Christians, think worship is a binary category.

Worship is something you either give to God or to no one else, you give it to God alone, but traditionally the word worship has a range of meanings based on the idea of giving someone his or her worths-ship, giving him or her what she is worth.

It's why we call a judge your honor, or in Canada, some mayors are called Your Worship.

That's why Catholics give the saints what they are worth, the respect that they are due in what God has done in their lives.

And Catholics give even more respect and worth to the Blessed Virgin Mary who said that all generations would call her blessed, but Catholics only give the highest worship, sacrifice, to God because God is the foundation of all reality and deserves our highest worship.

But this whole part of this exchange, it just seemed odd to me, like it was a Protestant trying to trip up an apostolic Christian, but then it gets thrown for a loop with Jordan Peterson's response.

Are you familiar with the Immaculate Conception?

Why is that relevant?

Because you go to a Catholic church, don't you?

Or you've attended recently.

You're interested in Catholicism, aren't you?

Sure.

All right.

Are you familiar with their doctrines?

Somewhat.

Okay.

You're- you're familiar-

Their doctrines are very deep.

How do they regard- how do they regard Mary?

Why are you asking me that?

Because you're a Christian.

You say that.

I haven't claimed that.

Oh, what is this?

Is this Christians versus atheists?

I don't know.

You don't know where you are right now?

Don't be a smart ass, and I mean it-

Well, either you're a Christian or you're not.

because I won't talk to you if you're a smart ass.

Oh, th- either you're a Christian or you're not.

Which one is it?

I- I could be either of them, but I don't have to tell you.

It could be- You- you don't have to tell me?

I was under the impression-

It's private.

I was invited to talk to a Christian.

Am I not talking to a Christian?

No.

No, you were invited to- I think everyone should look at the title of the YouTube channel.

You're probably in the wrong YouTube video.

You're really quite something, you are.

Aren't I? But you're really quite nothing.

Right?

You're not a Christian.

Okay, I'm done with him.

I agree this was really frustrating because this round table was advertised, at least initially to the atheists who were invited, as a chance to debate a Christian.

Jordan Peterson can't just say his beliefs on the matter are private when he publicly puts himself out there on these important issues, though the atheist debating him doesn't seem to have the most charming demeanor either.

And while it's good to show the flaws of a secular worldview, you need to do so in a way that steel mans the other side.

Consider what Jordan Peterson said on a recent interview on Pints with Aquinas.

What do you think-

Right?

the best argument for atheism is?

Right?

I don't think there is a good argument for atheism.

What's the-

I think it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the world.

So, it's just-

Okay.

it's, it's, uh, it's What would you say?

It's an illegal chess move.

But even Saint Thomas Aquinas said that the problem of evil and the possibility of a natural explanation for existence, these represented arguments for atheism that were at least worth engaging, and so Aquinas offers a response to them.

The kind of dismissive rhetoric Jordan Peterson puts forward isn't helpful when you're trying to engage people who disagree with you.

Now, we also need to remember that Jordan Peterson is a psychologist, not a philosopher.

He has some good insights on the human condition, but when it gets into deeper metaphysical questions, I think he ends up over his skis.

But the biggest frustration is that Jordan Peterson will get really, really close to affirming the Christian faith, and then he'll retreat again when it seems like he's basically there.

Consider what Peterson said to Alex O'Connor about Christ's resurrection.

If I went back in time with a Panasonic video camera and put that camera in front of the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, would the little LCD screen show a man walk out of that tomb?

I would sus- suspect yes.

So that, that is, that to me s- seems like a belief in the historical event of the resurrection, or at least of Jesus leaving the tomb.

Which means that when somebody says, you know, Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?

it doesn't seem clear to me why you're not able to just say, It would seem to me, yes.

Because I have no idea what that means, and neither did the people who saw it.

It's just sad to see someone who is clearly thoughtful on important questions be unable to fully embrace the truth God has revealed.

I think part of this comes from Jordan Peterson's self-doubt and thinking that in order to be a free-thinker who questions paradigms and seeks out the truth, that he himself cannot be put in any neat and tidy boxes.

Consider what Jordan Peterson said about whether he'd ever follow his wife's example and become Catholic.

What is stopping you from embracing the faith of your wife?

You mean all those pesky Catholics?

I don't know if anything is stopping me.

What's holding you back?

I, I don't think anything's holding me back.

Everybody's got their own destiny, and so

Is it in yours?

Um, is it in mine?

I would say it's unlikely, but

Why do you say unlikely?

I exist on the borders of things, so Why is that?

I don't know, but that's how it is.

I'll close with what I said previously in my episode on political Christianity, which I'll link to below, because there are other figures in that movement who have issues similar to Jordan Peterson.

It would be tragic if Peterson felt like he could not be Catholic because his identity rests in being the kind of person who doesn't settle for easy answers or lives on the margin.

But I would tell Jordan Peterson that one can be a Catholic and spend a thousand lifetimes contemplating questions about God and the world for which there are no easy answers, and many of the saints are people that do not fit into neat and tidy boxes.

And also, it's okay to sometimes just have an easy answer.

In the interviews that he gives, it's clear that Jordan Peterson loves his wife, Tammy, and the meaning of those words, he loves his wife, are patently obvious to him.

No qualification is needed.

Now, we shouldn't have an immature, childish faith, but we should have the faith of a child and trust God in the same way that a toddler trusts his parent in the midst of a baffling world.

That's why our Lord said, Unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

So while it's fair to offer criticism of Jordan Peterson's recent appearance on Jubilee, that should not overshadow our duty to respond to him with charity and pray for his continual conversion to Christ and to His church.

Thank you all so much for watching, and I hope you have a very blessed day.