Serious Inquiries Only SIO483: Jordan Peterson Debated a Bunch of Atheists. So... How Did That Go? Part 2
Jun 2, 2025
Jordan Peterson, a renowned clinical psychologist and public intellectual, delves into his controversial debate techniques and arguments for God. He claims that atheists often misunderstand what they reject, prompting a lively discussion about empathy's role in moral disputes. The panel critiques his attempts to redefine God as conscience, arguing it dilutes the original meaning. Peterson provocatively states that everyone worships something, leading to an exploration of values and belief as life commitment. The episode tackles heated hypotheticals, especially around morality and truth.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
God As Conscience Reframes The Debate
- Jordan Peterson often reframes 'God' as conscience or a value-hierarchy to shift the debate away from common definitions.
- That move creates semantic fog that can avoid addressing what most people mean by 'God'.
Overbroad Definitions Make Belief Meaningless
- Expanding 'God' to mean anything valuable (like 'rainbows') renders religious labels useless in real conflicts.
- Thomas Smith argues that public debates require the ordinary, specific meaning of 'God', not broad metaphors.
Science Explains How, Not Ultimate Why
- The hosts accept that science explains 'how' but not 'why', referencing Hume's is-ought problem.
- They treat the inability of science to derive 'ought' as philosophically important but practically manageable.
