Jordan Peterson appreciates CS Lewis' Trilemma

Donations may be tax deductible for taxpayers of the United States

[alastairroberts]

Encouraging to hear that Peterson has been reading Lewis, as Lewis really seems to speak to someone in Peterson's position at points: "A man who disbelieved the Christian story as fact but continually fed on it as myth would, perhaps, be more spiritually alive than one who assented and did not think much about it."

[talbotwesthoff]

My day is complete. Now I just have to find something of equal significance tomorrow...




Oh-dear.

[nodeinanetwork]

Great clip! I think seeing how his daughter responded to non-traditional methods of treating her diseases/disorders plus all the dreams he's had over the years (king of kings etc) is pulling him in the direction C.S. Lewis outlines re: Jesus + resurrection.

[antonioperez]

Attack each of these evasions—Jesus as the good man, Jesus as the lunatic, Jesus as the liar, Jesus as the man who never claimed divinity, Jesus as the mystic—take away these flight squares, and there is only one square left for the unbeliever's king to move to. And on that square waits checkmate. And a joyous mating it is. The whole argument is really a wedding invitation.
Peter Kreeft

[Gruuvin]

I find it interesting, that there is such a strong logical argument for the existence of the Creator (the kalam cosmological argument), and yet Peterson may come to Faith through the Son! Although the rise of Christianity in that eye-witness generation is also extremely good evidence of a resurrection!

[j.harris]

What??? So where is he going to church then?? Ya ya I know it’s a process.

[Shelli]

If Jesus is not who He said He was, he would be either a lier or a lunatic. His life and fruits have proven Him to be healthy and honest.

[askingafriend]

Sorry if I'm the party pooper but does JP mean Jesus the myth or Jesus the actual divine person; and does he believe Jesus is the son of "That which eternally dies and is reborn in the pursuit of higher being and truth, the highest value in the hierarchy of values, what calls and responds to the eternal call to adventure, the voice of conscience, the source of judgment and mercy, the future to which we make sacrifices, akin to the transcendental repository of reputation, that which selects among men in the eternal hierarchy of men?" But what about the God of Abraham? The mindful agent? The creator of the world? The answerer of prayers? I like most of what Jordan has to say but he's using God in a different sense of the concept than Christians and atheists alike; which is why Sam Harris sensed that Jordan was at some point going to smuggle in Jesus. I'm tempted to say that I don't have a dog in the fight as a non believer. But I buy into Jesus the psychologically and culturally relevant metaphor. And I want to know if Jordan believes in that sense or if all along he's been telling me that I should believe in the actual, personal sense but if I can't get there then at least don't throw the baby Jesus out with the bath water.

[Orthodoxi]

More likely than not seems less than likely to get one to the city of God but at least it seems more likely than not to face you in the right direction. 😊

[greatmomentsofopera]

Posted this on the other video, but the comment is specifically about this bit so will repost here (though edited and expanded)

Who did Jesus say he was? As far as I know he only called himself the son of man, and never actually the son of god which is one of the central Christian claims. I’ve never understood this claim from Christians since I’ve never located it in the gospel and seems like such a clumsy glossing over what is actually written. Other people in the New Testament call him son of god or god and he merely acknowledges that they have said so (E.g. Matthew 26:63-64). I see precisely the same behaviour in other sages in other ages - they allow their followers to project the god image onto them if the follower wants to because they recognise that that is an extremely useful way for many human psyches to experience the divine. But it can only be a stepping stone to the fullest realisation of God.

Once you’re aware of the eastern traditions it’s so obvious that Jesus is presenting the same fundamental reality but is doing so in a very different and very potent narrative form, heavily drawing on the Jewish tradition. But he never claimed to be god himself or the son of god though did say he was a messenger, or that through him one would find the father. This is just as the other sages and mystics behave.

I do think Christians in general often get a bit too caught up in the metaphors of the religion and teachings and don’t see what the metaphors point to - they are the beginning of the exploration, not the end. Maybe for some people they immediately get the divine insight from the metaphor and experience the non dual imminence of reality/godhead immediately, but for most people I don’t think that happens unless a lot of thought, discussion and prayer/meditation occurs first. Even the word God and the doctrine around what he is and his characteristics, is only a pointing towards the actual experience of God in each moment which requires the dissolving of the ego and seeing it for the illusory spell that the ego is. The Christian tradition very rarely talks in this way about things and I think is much more rooted in worldly matters than the east which is why the Christian West is so materially successful, but it has meant that the divine has been projected outwards in the form of the trinity and holy family, at the cost of its inward recognition. You do see it pop up in various places along the last 2000 years (e.g. Meister Eckhart and a few other saints) but his message hasn’t filtered down to the mainstream teachings except in very shrouded form.

[andyvinstra]

All of this either/or - biblical inerrantist or materialistic atheist stuff is such an absolute fucking bore. Nobody seems to have the ability to look at this stuff from the perspective of a creative artist where things can have much more of a both/and quality. I thought maybe deep down Peterson was such a person. Turns out I was wrong. Bummer.

[andyvinstra]

I have never understood the entire madman "dilemna" Lewis sets up anyway. A person can be "mad" in many different ways. Let's assume for a moment that Jesus was "mad" and not "divine". I suppose we are supposing a type of madness where the insane person has nothing of value to say. Why suppose that though? If Jesus was not "divine" then nothing he had to say about the obligations of society towards the poor have any value? Most scholars today think Nietzsche was in some ways mad but most agree he had A LOT of valuable things to say. I would've been much happier if Peterson had answered "well, it depends on what you mean by mad". So what's next? Peterson starts preaching eternal damnation and predestination? HOW ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL FOR THE WORLD! I THINK NOT!

[andyvinstra]

If Christ was "mad" he could be who he said he was and not be who he said he was at the same time. I thought Peterson was going more in that direction. One positive thing though. If Peterson has firmly joined your camp you can stop talking about him so much as the "will he or won't he" suspense is over and he has now officially become just another bore. SNOOZE. I'M OUT OF HERE.

[andyvinstra]

The most interesting thing C.S. Lewis ever did was make a brew pub map of England. All of his writings as Lieutenant Dan says in Forrest Gump are just "Jesus this and Jesus that". Now Peterson has just become one more evangelical snooze machine.

[andyvinstra]

Christopher Hitchens hated C.S. Lewis. I think he hated Lewis because Hitchens was always a G.K. Chesterton fan and he just saw Lewis ripping Chesterton off. I think Hitchens was right. Every one of Lewis's paradoxes is just watered down Chesterton who is infinitely more interesting. So now Peterson has become a C.S. Lewis devotee. WAY TO BE YOUR OWN MAN THERE JORDY!!