A provocative title, I know, and your click-bait senses are likely tingling, but please hear
me out, because I will deliver.
First and foremost, however, I want to make abundantly clear that the purpose of this
video isn't to criticise Jordan Peterson's views.
Rather, it's to demonstrate that according to many of the most popular definitions of
a "Christian", Peterson is not one… and that therefore, many of his Christian
followers ought to cease asserting that he's championing their beliefs.
If you think, for example, that Peterson is a theist (that is, that he believes that a
literal supernatural conscious being called god exists), then I've got news for bucko…
"When someone says do you believe in god, you know, there's three parts to that question.
The first question is who is the 'you' to which they are referring?
[…] The second is what do you mean by belief?
The third is what do you mean by god?
It's like, you can't just leap to the assumption that the person asking the question
and the person answering the question have the same views on those."
"People might say that I don't believe in god, and it's like - it depends on what you
mean […] The Greeks thought we were the play things of the gods because we serve lust...
we serve thirst, we serve hunger, we serve rage... you know, and those things all transcend
us.
So that's why they were gods.
You know, rage - that's the war god.
Well, why is it a god?
Well, it exists forever.
It exists in all people.
It takes them over and directs their behaviour.
It's a god.
Well, you can quibble about the details – no it's not a god.
Okay, fine, it's a psychological force."
Now I feel pretty dirty making this video, because who am I to say what people are and
are not?
It honestly feels aggressive… but it's not.
Simply explaining why someone does or does not fit a definition is not inherently aggressive
- and even it was, then it's not like Peterson is dirt-free.
Indeed, one of the reasons for his prominence is precisely due to him telling people (rightfully,
in my opinion) that they're male or female according to the biological definition of
sex.
What's more (and not so right, in my opinion), is that he's stated that Richard Dawkins
isn't a Darwinian (according to a definition that Peterson has essentially made up): "So
I don't think Dawkins is a Darwinian...
I think he's a Newtonian, because he believes there is truth!"
And that Sam Harris is a Christian… which is just perfect, considering the title of
this video: "You can't be a non-believer in your action - you see, because, Harris'
metaphysics is fundamentally Christian.
So he acts out of Christian metaphysics and says well I don't believe it... it's like,
yeah, you do!
Because you're acting it out.
You just say you don't believe it."
Anyhow, let's get on with it… this is Jordan Peterson is NOT a Christian.
In 1953, Bertrand Russell, in reply to being asked "Can an agnostic be a Christian"
remarked that "If you mean by a Christian a man who loves his neighbour, who has wide
sympathy with suffering, and who ardently desires a world freed from the cruelties and
abominations which at present disfigure it, then, certainly, you will be justified in
calling me a Christian."
He then, however, among many other objections, went on to say that "I think also that all
who called themselves Christians in an earlier time, and a great majority of those who do
so at the present day, would consider that belief in God and immortality is essential
to a Christian, [and that] on these grounds, I should not call myself a Christian, and
I should say that an agnostic cannot be a Christian."
His point being, of course, that if one defines a Christian to be merely "Someone who is
kind and decent" then most people are arguably Christians, including many Hindus, Buddhists,
Muslims, and irreligious people like myself and Dawkins… people who, as Russell noted,
don't necessarily believe in a god or an afterlife, let alone the supposed divinity
of the bible and the alleged resurrection of Jesus Christ.
But needless to say, Russell wasn't the first to recognise the problem with such a
loose-weave definition.
Christians have long debated what constitutes a Christian, some citing scripture and others
action, but outside of the nasty disputes between specific denominations, ("The system
of religion that is Protestantism is not Christianity!), there seems to be around six prominent definitions,
and one of them is indeed the aforementioned "Someone who is kind and decent."
Now I'm sure you'd agree with me when I say that Peterson fits this definition – he's
seems to be a pretty decent guy... but, again, so was Russell…
To be blunt, this definition tends to be employed by insincere people who want to create the
illusion that there are more Christians than there actually are… you know, the same kind
of people who assert that so long as you've been baptised you're a Christian…
Moving on, let's go to the other side of the spectrum.
Many define a Christian as "Someone who believes that the Bible is factually and historically
accurate".
So, is Peterson a Christian according to this definition?
No, absolutely not…
He not only accepts scientific facts and theories that contradict biblical literalism (such
as that the earth is 4.6 billion years old rather than a measly 10,000, and that the
diversity of life is due to evolution by natural selection rather than divine creation), but
his religious beliefs actually depends on such facts.
His affection for Jungian archetypes, for example, is effectively the description of
our psychological evolution.
"You've got the scientific atheists on the one side, and you've got the religious
fundamentalists on the other, and what they both agree on, whether they like it or not,
is that there's so much power in the scientific method that it's difficult to dispute the
validity of scientific facts.
And they seem to exist in contradiction to the older, archaic stories, if you also accept
them as fact-based accounts.
So what do we do about that?
Well, if you're on the scientific atheist end of things you say, well, those old stories
are just superstitious science, second-rate, barbaric, archaic, form of science, you just
dispense with them, they are nothing but trouble.
And if you're on the fundamentalist side you say well we'll try to shoehorn science
into this framework, and really that doesn't work very well.
It doesn't work very well with the claims of evolution, for example – in fact, it
works very badly.
And that's a problem, because evolutionary theory is like… it's a killer theory!
And it's… it's really really hard, and it's not a complete theory and there's
lots of things we don't know about evolution, but… you know, trying to hand wave that
away, that's not going to work without dispensing with most of biology."
A third definition is "Someone who professes belief in the existence of Christ".
Now, as to whether or not Peterson fits this definition depends on how we define "belief",
"existence", and "Christ".
"What do you mean by Christ?"
If we define "belief" as "Approval of something", "existence" as "Having
subjective or objective form" and "Christ" as "A humanoid called Jesus Christ" then
yes, Peterson is a Christian… but, again, so was Russell…
But if we define "belief" as "Acceptance that something is true", then it depends
on what we mean by "true"... yeah, that rabbit hole again.
"Well… what do you mean be true?"
To avoid drowning in minutia, if we define "existence" as "Having objective form"
and "Christ" as "God in the flesh", then no, Peterson is not, according to this
definition, a Christian – because he doesn't believe that a literal god exists, let alone
that it literally embodied a human being.
"Well, you can quibble about the details – no it's not a god.
Okay, fine, it's a psychological force."
A fourth definition is "Someone who professes belief in the teachings of Christ", and,
again, as to whether Peterson fits this definition depends on the meaning of critical words – which
in this case is "belief", "teachings", and "Christ".
Now since we've already covered two of these words, let's focus on the one that we haven't.
If by "teachings" we mean "Ideas and/or principles taught be someone" then yes,
it's fair to say that Peterson is a Christian according to this definition (in so long as
we're using the aforementioned definitions of "belief" and "Christ").
But if by "teachings" we mean "Ideas, principles and facts taught by someone"
then no, Peterson is not a Christian according to this definition, because, for example,
he isn't convinced by Jesus' claim that he literally resurrected: "Do you believe
Jesus rose again from the dead…
literally?
[…] A historical human being that existed--" "In a body?
In a body?"
"Yes."
"And it was a physical body and it was on earth?"
"Yes.
That it was on earth, and that was literally, eh… was literally, eh… it came back to
life… after death."
"I would say that at the moment I'm agnostic about that issue."
A fifth definition, as sourced from Acts 11:26, is "Someone who's behaviour, activity
and speech are like Christ".
Now I personally think it's fair to say that Peterson is indeed a Christian according
to this definition, because he has, on multiple occasions, expressed his admiration for Christ,
and that he tries to emulate him.
However, personally, I would call such a person a "Cultural Christian", because, like
Russell, I think that at the very least one must believe in a literal god and an afterlife
to be a Christian…
And this actually brings us perfectly to a sixth definition – and what I would argue
is perhaps the most accurate – "Someone who believes in the teachings of Christ, his
death on the cross, and his resurrection."
"A true Christian is a person who has put faith and trust in the person and work of
Jesus Christ, including his death on the cross as payment for sins, and his resurrection
on the third day."
"Christianity is a relationship based upon the merits of Jesus Christ, who died on the
cross for our sins, rose again from the grave, and he invites you to know him personally."
So, is Peterson a Christian according to this definition?
Well, it depends on what you mean by "death" and "resurrection".
If by "death" you mean "The end of something" and by "resurrection" you mean "The
revitalization of something" then yes, Peterson is, according to this definition, a Christian…
but then again, so is Russell… and so too is anyone who "believes" in the "teachings"
of "Christ".
"When you make an error some part of you has to go.
That's a sacrifice; you have to let it go.
Sometimes it's a big part of you.
Sometimes it can be such a big part of you that you actually die – right?
Instead of dying and being reborn."
But if by "death" you mean "The cessation of all biological functions", by "resurrection"
you mean "The reactivation of all biological functions", and by "three days" you
mean "Literally 72 hours", then no, Peterson is not a Christian according to this definition
- because while he's convinced that a human called Jesus probably existed, again, he's
not convinced that this human literally resurrected… he's agnostic: "Is his resurrection real?
Did his body resurrect?
I don't know...
I don't know..."
Now I'm sure that by now you get my point, and hopefully you appreciate the reason I
find it of such importance, but to make it all the more clearer, here are just a few
traditional Christian views that Peterson does not evidently hold (views that most Christians
would consider to be of absolute necessity to be even considered a Christian): 1).
That a god (as defined as a literal supernatural conscious being) literally exists; 2).
That this god consciously and literally created the universe; 3).
That this god literally created humans in their current form; 4).
That original sin (as described in Genesis) literally exists; 5).
That a literal man called Jesus literally resurrected after literally three days; 6).
That our consciousness literally continues to exist after our death, and; 7).
That we will (as conscious agents) receive punishment or reward after our literal death.
Now if by any chance you're irritated by how many times I've just used the word "literal",
then know that I am too… but I had to!
It's simply the case that when it comes to Peterson's religious beliefs, unless
one is extremely precise with their words, Peterson answers as if they're speaking
metaphorically, and it seems like he's counting on them not realising this – because when
people do realise it, and sufficiently press him, he shuts the conversation down: "So
people often ask me 'do you believe in god?', which I don't...
I don't like that question.
First of all, it's an attempt to... to... it's an attempt to box me in, in a sense – and
the reason that it's an attempt to box me in is because the question is asked so that
I can be firmly placed on one side of a binary argument.
No, Peterson, people are not trying to box you in - they…
(I) just want to know what you literally believe rather than the vague, metaphorical, contradicting
nonsense that you tend to spew.
I've said this before and I'll say it again – you're incredibly precise and
in fact brilliant in many areas, but when it comes to religion you're the opposite…
you're vague and arguably deceptive (and those of us who're paying attention can
indeed see it).
When I ask someone if they believe in a god and they answer "yes", the only box I
put them in is the theist box… because that's all I can ascertain from the question.
From there, I can, and do, ask them what they mean be "god", "belief", "faith",
and, need be, "truth" and "reality"...
Look, to get back on track, this video isn't meant as a dig at Peterson and his views – it's
meant as a dig at Christians not paying attention to what Peterson is saying; the primary point
I want to convey is that for all intent and purposes, Peterson is an atheist who just
so happens to personally find immense value in Christian myths / archetypes.
He, like Dawkins, doesn't believe in the literal existence of a god, the literal resurrection
of a humanoid called Jesus Christ, or that our consciousness will continue to exist after
our literal death.
If you can still call such a person a Christian, then yes, Peterson is one, but arguably, so
is Russell…
Anyhow, as always, thank you kindly for the view, and an extra special thank you to my
wonderful patrons and those of you who've donated via PayPal.
Thank you!
Oh, and on the note of patron, in celebration of hitting a milestone (thank you, by the
way!)
I will be presenting several potential video-series for you all to vote on soon – and whichever
gets the highest votes will become a reality – and so be sure to stay tuned!
Until next time my fellow apes, until next time...
For more infomation >> Study Reveals Great Pacific Garbage Patch is Expanding - Duration: 0:54. 
For more infomation >> Bee Gees How Deep is Your Love Instrumental | Casamento no Sitio Portal da Serra - Duration: 2:14. 
For more infomation >> Duson is voting on 1 cent sales tax to fix roads - Duration: 1:29. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét