Dr. Jordan Petersen and I Are Not Twin Brothers of Different Mothers

Could the ideas of Dr. Jordan Petersen be leading us down a treacherous path? Join me as I scrutinize the philosophies of a figure who has captivated millions with his interpretations of the Bible, the question of God's existence, and the application of Darwinian evolution to human development. In our latest episode, we dissect the 'Introduction to the Idea of God', where I outline my reservations about the coherence of Petersen's thought and the risks his teachings may pose. As we tread through these intellectually charged waters, you'll gain a fresh perspective on the undercurrents that may be shaping modern thought in ways that are not immediately apparent.

ParentGuru: Better Parenting Starts Here
Thousands of stressed parents are finding their way to better parenting with the help of ParentGuru.

Parenting With Love and Leadership
Weekly Substack newsletter by Parenting Expert John Rosemond.

Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:41

Well, hello out there in listener land. Welcome back to, because I Said so with your host, john Rosemond. This is the only one and only podcast on the entire World Wide Web where you will hear the truth, the whole truth, the entire truth and only the truth about psychology in America's mental health professions, by a guy who, paradoxically and ironically, both holds a license to practice psychology issued by the North Carolina Psychology Board in 1978. So this episode of this ongoing podcast series is titled Dr Jordan Peterson and I are not twin brothers of different mothers, dr Jordan Peterson, I am not not twin brothers of different mothers. Okay, this podcast idea occurred to me when a fine, very fine, sincere, very sincere fellow told me recently that I remind him of Dr Jordan Peterson, who, if you don't know this already, is a Canadian psychologist, a university professor, a university at Toronto and Harvard I think he was adjunct at Harvard, but anyway, harvard bestselling author three bestselling books, I believe at this point and prominent social media influencer who is so much the rage these days. The fine and sincere fellow in question was not the first, by the way, to draw such a comparison, more like one of a few dozen who have prodded me thereby to an investigation of my supposed philosophical twin. Still, the prodding in question. I was only superficially familiar with Dr Peterson. Having consumed a few of his videos. I mean you can't help but run across the guy on the internet these days, which is okay. I mean I wish I had such prominence. Maybe I'm getting there. One can only hope I had, to that point, consumed a few of Dr Peterson's videos, a few snippets of his writings and some commentaries on his work. Anyway, my curiosity thus kindled, I set myself to consuming even more of his videos, etc. I haven't completed my reconnaissance to date, but I've read and seen enough to conclude that Peterson is a fascinating phenomenon, for sure, but concerning fundamental issues, he and I don't agree very much at all. I'm fascinated with his popularity, how he's become a household name, an avatar of wisdom, a man of all seasons, a renaissance man, while at the same time being wrong about so much. Well, which I will get to In a sec. Hold your horses.

Speaker 1: 4:45

Peterson is intelligent, obviously, and he never fails to speak with unequivocal authority and compelling enthusiasm. But I find his thought processes to be at times abstract to the point of incoherency. He obviously thinks a lot about big things, but I often find myself asking what in the world does this fellow mean? And given that he is the current fashion among the intelligentsia, what am I missing? Peterson and I can't agree on much, because he A believes the Bible is largely allegorical, if not entirely so. B does not believe in the God of my worldview. Therefore, needless to say, he does not believe Jesus is who he clearly says he is. And, c Peterson believes human beings evolved a la Darwin's theory.

Speaker 1: 6:08

Where Peterson and I, to have a sit-down, I would spend my time telling him in no uncertain terms but good natured layer. So I would intend that he is dead wrong about the most essential of things, and why. Peterson's mind, or so it seems to me at times, is like a trampoline, with thousands of idea balls constantly bouncing rather randomly, around and off it. Thus, albeit he is correct about some issues, issues that lie outside the realm of theology and creation, his thoughts don't always hold together. It isn't surprising, therefore, that his intellectual idol, or one of them, his Swiss psychologist Carl Jung, who lived from 1875 to 1961, a contemporary of Sigmund Freud's and arguably the most unintelligible of all the largely unintelligible psychological theorists of all time.

Speaker 1: 7:23

So here's a minute or so from Peterson's first lecture on the book of Genesis, titled quote Introduction to the Idea of God, end quote. Just before I get into this, folks, I want you to grasp the implications of that title introduction to the idea of God. Okay, not reality of God, not presence of God, but the idea, the concept of God. Okay. So here is Peterson talking, and I won't try and mimic his obviously refined Canadian accent, but nonetheless, this is Peterson. We have all sorts of ways that we understand before we understand in a fully articulated manner, and so we have this articulated space that we can all discuss.

Speaker 1: 8:42

And then, outside of that, we have something that is more akin to a dream we're embedded in. It's an emotional dream that we're embedded in that's based, at least in part, on our actions I'll describe that later and then, outside of that is what we don't know anything about at all. And in that dream, that's where the mystics live and that's where the artists live, and they are the mediators between the absolute unknown and the things we know for sure. You see, what that means in some sense is what we know is established on a form of knowledge that we don't really understand. Okay, so, having listened to that, typed it out and then read it over several times, I think I think I know what Peterson is trying to say, and if that is in fact true, I don't agree with him at all.

Speaker 1: 9:45

His assertions concerning knowledge are based, in my estimation, on false premises. As such, I think Peterson is leading people astray, but certainly not purposefully. Someone who is astray, by the way, can do nothing other than lead other people in the same direction. Take, for example, peterson's first and last sentences that I just quoted. Okay, I'll read them to you again. We have all sorts of ways that we understand before we understand in a fully articulated manner. You see, what that means, in some sense, is what we know is established on a form of knowledge that we don't really understand. Those two sentences, which lie about a paragraph apart. They contradict one another. The question becomes how does Peterson know that quote what we know is established on a form of knowledge that we don't really understand and quote unless he understands. And if that's the case, which seems logical, you know, logical based on his own statements then Peterson is effectively telling his audience that he is the mystic to whom he refers.

Speaker 1: 11:31

According to Peterson, and as reflected in the title of his first lecture on Genesis, god is an idea period. God represents man striving for goodness. One may say God is real, but to what God is he referring? It can't be the God of the Book of Genesis, because that God, yahweh, is described as creating the heavens, the earth, every species of animal and plant and human beings, fully formed. Peterson, on the other hand, believes in Darwin's theory of evolution. He believes, for example, that humans quote as he puts it, quote broke off end quote from chimpanzees some 50,000 years ago. We broke off from chimpanzees. That is not what is described in the Book of Genesis, chapters one and two. We did not break off from chimpanzees or any other species some 50,000 years ago.

Speaker 1: 12:50

Okay, so intelligent, generally well-informed people, whom I believe Peterson qualifies as being, who believe in Darwin's theory of macroevolution are a curiosity to me, in large part because full disclosure I believed in Darwin's theory of macroevolution until my early 40s. I believed in Darwinism because I was ignorant of the evidence pointing convincingly towards supernatural creation. People arrogance caused me to believe that even looking at what the intelligent design slash creationist people were calling evidence would be a waste of my time. And then, behold, one day, while browsing a bookstore, I came across Philip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial. I read it and I began my big adventure. Nearly everything of lasting value I have ever learned I've learned since then. That was around 1990.

Speaker 1: 14:09

The first three and one-half chapters of the Book of Genesis have fascinated me since I first read them in my early 20s, long before I became a believer, actually concerning authentic believers in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, he who holds all things together, I actually prefer the term knowers over the term believers because I don't believe. I absolutely know. I don't maintain that everything can be properly understood by properly understanding the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis, but I believe that the Book of Genesis holds the keys to a proper understanding of anything. You might have to listen to that over again. I worked on it for a while. That's the best I was able to do with that sentence.

Speaker 1: 15:04

Anyway, back to Dr Peterson. Peterson believes humans evolve from a speck of primordial muck, real muck that was magically brought to life by a magical thunderbolt that struck the muck during the mother of all thunderstorms. Allah, frankenstein's monster. In some ways it's a fitting metaphor, but it's a metaphor only at best. Because I once believed in Darwin's theory of evolution, I tend to think that such persons just aren't doing a good job of examining the evidence pro and con. I certainly wasn't. When I began examining the evidence, I realized that, despite his intentions and his genius, darwin's theory survives not because it makes sense, but because it denies God, and that has been its purpose from the beginning.

Speaker 1: 16:10

Peterson was an atheist until his wife was cured of a form of cancer that has never been verifiably cured, but then modern medicine did not cure Tammy Peterson. She claims at least to have used a rosary to contact a dead Catholic saint who intervened with God on her behalf. She subsequently became a believer Catholic, apparently, albeit she does not attend church and seeing the profound change that had come over, his wife, jordan, soon followed, and he doesn't attend church either. By the way, peterson claims to believe in God, but I see no evidence that he has renounced his belief in Darwinian evolution. So he can't claim to believe in the God of the Book of Genesis, because that God, my God, created all that is and ever will be. And after perusing several of his more recent videos, in which he invariably begins choking up when he talks about his newfound faith, I still don't think he believes.

Speaker 1: 17:32

Jesus was God incarnate, who came to earth to restore truth, invite people out of darkness and provide a means of eternal life in heaven with him. About as close as Peterson came to talking about the divinity of Jesus was to say that Jesus was a link to truth. That is not a characterization common to authentic believers in the Lordship of Christ Jesus. When Peterson talks of his religious epiphany, it should be evident to anyone who truly listens that he is promoting a works-based theology that demeans the crucifixion and renders the resurrection unessential. According to Peterson, salvation is all about love, getting rid of negative thinking and striving to be a force for good in the world.

Speaker 1: 18:41

One video I watched asked at its outset it wasn't one of Peterson's videos. It was a video about him. It was people talking about him, and I watched this video. A 30-minute song, 40-minute song and across the screen, the intro screen, where the words is Jordan Peterson, a prophet or a false teacher, and no conclusion was drawn during. The video was left up to the viewer to reach his or her own conclusion. I conclude he is the latter. He is a false teacher. A full disclosure. I searched the internet high and low and only found a handful of folks who agree with me, which doesn't surprise or bother me in the least.

Speaker 1: 19:35

Peterson's following of true believers is consistent with the popularity of a false teacher, one who the Bible says will lead many astray. By the way, I think Peterson is sincere. I merely think he is mistaken. And despite his sincerity, he's dangerous. He says he does not possess a naturalistic worldview. But I mean Jordan, come on. Believing in evolution is naturalistic, period. He also believes that some people's mental and emotional issues, slash dysfunctions, have something to do with chemicals in their nervous systems, as in the mythological biochemical imbalance. Well, that's also naturalistic. So either Peterson doesn't know what naturalism is, which isn't likely, or he's being disingenuous, which I doubt, or he's a highly conflicted guy.

Speaker 1: 20:49

I'll go with door number three, for the time being at least. Folks, thanks for joining me. This has been your host, john Roseman, with because I said so once again the only podcast on the entire worldwide web where you will hear the truth, the whole truth, about America's mental health, professions, children and child rearing. Folks, I hope you enjoyed the podcast and I hope you continue to join us, and I hope you continue to enjoy. And in closing, I will say what I always say keep on rocking in the free world, because if we don't rock it, we're going to lose it and that's a wrap.