Jordan Peterson Podcast | Dr. John Lennox | Conversation About God | Podcast Summary | The Pod Slice
The discussion between Dr. Jordan Peterson and guest Dr. John Lennox revolves around the interplay between science, faith, reason, and morality. Dr. Peterson challenges the oft-repeated notion of an unbridgeable gap between scientific and religious perspectives, suggesting that they share closer ties than commonly acknowledged. He attributes this misconception to a kind of propaganda stemming from the French Enlightenment and furthers his argument by highlighting the historical development of universities from monastic traditions.
Peterson puts forth the idea that the Christian belief in a logical and beneficial natural world laid the groundwork for scientific exploration. Based on his research and reflections over several years, he finds no evidence contradicting the emergence of universities from religious traditions and the necessity of faith in the intelligibility and beneficial consequences of understanding the world for initiating scientific pursuits.
Dr. Lennox agrees with Peterson, adding that he never perceived a tension between Christianity and science. Referencing Alfred North Whitehead and C.S. Lewis, Lennox notes that early scientific advancements were often made due to an expectation of laws being present in nature, an expectation born from belief in a lawgiver – God. He controversially suggests that the clash might be between science and atheism rather than science and Christianity.
Peterson further builds on this argument by discussing Richard Dawkins’ idea that an organism functioning within an environment must reflect that environment in a microcosmic way. He combines this with the ancient Christian doctrine that the human soul is a microcosm reflecting the structure of reality. This leads to a hypothesis that the cosmos might best be understood as an entity that can be entered into a relationship with, personality to personality.
In response, Dr. Lennox argues that the biblical concept of the human being created in the image of God dovetails perfectly with Dawkins’ proposal. He suggests we live in a ‘word-based’ universe, the intelligibility of which stems from its creation by a rational, intelligent, and personal Creator. Lennox states that this not only applies to mathematics and its capacity to provide insights into the universe but also to biology, given the presence of the genetic code in all living cells. Such a viewpoint inevitably leads back to the biblical worldview, reinforcing Dr. Peterson’s assertion that the schism between religion and science may not be as wide as it seems.
Adding another layer to the conversation, Peterson introduces the moral implications of these ideas. He emphasises the biblical notion of an ordered universe being fundamentally ‘good’ – a necessary axiom for the scientific endeavour and a potential counter to ‘Frankenstein-like’ fears of knowledge and understanding leading to human harm. All of these points suggest that the essence of the ‘logos’, or divine reason and creative order, demands continual exploration, investigation, and honest communication about every aspect of existence.
Dr. Peterson explores a nuanced aspect of the debate, focusing on the ethical conduct that underpins scientific research. He presents his graduate supervisor, Robert Pihl, as an exemplification of such conduct. According to Peterson, his mentor was generous in sharing ideas, ensuring credit was properly attributed in published research papers, and conducting statistical analysis with an unparalleled ethical commitment. This conduct upheld a commitment to the truth, a desire not to misrepresent findings for personal gain, and a readiness to shed presuppositions when they are at odds with the research data.
The physicist Richard Feynman is cited as an arbiter of this ethical commitment, withhis reminder that scientists must relentlessly critique themselves because they are the easiest person to fool. Dr. Lennox extends this point, arguing that ethical precepts transcend mere methodologies, linking with Einstein’s comment that you can discuss the ethical foundations of science, but not the scientific foundations of ethics. Thus, the universe is both rationally intelligible and moral.
Dr. Peterson raises another interesting point about the concept of truth in science. He argues that it emerges from the interaction between the intrinsic logic of the objective world and the inquisitive human mind. This interaction prioritizes an infinite number of facts in a manner guided by an ethic, introducing a hierarchical arrangement that makes communication and study possible. This, Peterson believes, obviates the idea that the world of facts speaks for itself.
Dr. Lennox introduces a profound challenge to atheism, noting it ultimately undermines the rationality used in science. He explains that if we attribute the human brain – the instrument used to conduct scientific research – to a mindless, unguided process, then it becomes problematic to rely on it for rigorous scientific exploration or the construction of any argument. He likens it to not trusting a computer known to be the product of a mindless, unguided process.
Dr. Peterson shifts the contours of the conversation by exploring the process of hypothesis generation. Studying individual thought, he offers an intriguing perspective about how problems get identified and how solutions come to the fore. According to him, a problem usually manifests autonomously, gripping the individual who then actively engages with it. Peterson likens this experience to opening oneself to a humbling revelation – an insight that arrives unexpectedly but appears probable or likely. This he describes as the first two elements of the thought process – the admission of insufficiency and a longing for knowledge. According to him, the next stage is revelation, where insight springs from seemingly nowhere.
Dr. Peterson focuses on one of the most puzzling aspects of human cognition: the genesis of thought, particularly in relation to problem-solving. He proposes that a problem usually arises autonomously, capturing the individual, who then actively engages with it. Dr. Peterson likens this experience to a humbling revelation; insight that arrives unexpectedly and without conscious effort. He suggests that this process consists of two elements: the admission of insufficiency and a yearning for knowledge.
Dr. Peterson then brings the concept of revelation to center-stage, arguing that it is a fundamental part of the thought process. He suggests that revelation springs from a lack of understanding and is filled by probing the unknown. However, he further probes this concept of revelation, questioning its origin, and whether it’s fueled solely by our subconscious minds or if it leans into a separate category of divine revelation.
Speaking of levels of revelation, Dr. Peterson and Dr. Lennox touch upon human connections. They establish that truly understanding another person requires revelation from the other party, typically in the form of communication. They suggest that this very act of sharing through communication could reflect, on a smaller scale, the concept of divine revelation. They tie this back to the biblical book of Genesis, noting how intellectual pursuits like taxonomy were encouraged as a reflection of the creator.
The conversation then delves into a discussion about human arrogance and the risks presented by self-deification. Dr. Peterson refers to this as a luciferian crime due to its embedded invitation to position oneself in the place of God. He comments on current societal trends where individuals claim the right to self-define and he attributes a part of this trend as an extension of the self-centered focus in today’s world.
Dr. Lennox warns against the dangerous idea of transhumanism and the arrogance that underlies the quest for human individuals to turn into Gods. He labels it as destructive and reinforces that humans cannot derive their values independently. He instead emphasizes the embedded structures of morality that have been developed over generations.
The conversation interweaves narrative from the book of Genesis, where initial humans were encouraged to go against God’s word by being promised Godhood and delves into how this connects to current societal trends. Both Dr. Peterson and Dr. Lennox warn against the dangers of attempting to redefine human nature through practices like genetic experimentation, asserting that this would lead to the abolition of humans as they wouldn’t be humans anymore but artifacts. Dr. Lennox points to this continuing trend as an indication that Western society is rejecting the idea of a transcendent God and instead holding up individuals as gods.
As Dr. Peterson and Dr. Lennox delve deeper into transhumanism, they explore intriguing ideas and perspectives about human limitations and the consequences of transcending them.
Dr. Peterson discusses the significance of ethical disposition in deciding which scientific frontiers to explore and which to avoid. He draws a parallel to the issue of truthfulness, suggesting attaining wisdom through an ethical orientation could guide us when faced with questionable scientific pursuits.
To illustrate, he brings up a situation where a KGB agent reported Soviet Union’s chemical weapons research program aiming to create a hybrid of Ebola and Smallpox. From a purely factual scientific standpoint, there are no valid reasons not to pursue such knowledge acquisition. However, as Peterson argues, if one applies wisdom borne of ethical grounding, it’s evident such pursuits would be detrimental to humanity.
This sparks a discourse about the importance of wisdom in making ethically viable scientific decisions. Dr. Lennox expresses how this wisdom is rooted in a transcendent reference point, such as the concept of God. He cites the aphorism coined by Fyodor Dostoevsky, “If God does not exist, then everything is permissible,” underscoring the necessity for a moral compass for making such pivotal decisions.
Dr. Lennox advances that the rise of modern issues stems from the primordial lie stated in the Book of Genesis: “you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.” When individuals justify lying, they fail to recognize their inherent need for truth when wrongly accused, thereby revealing an inconsistent belief system.
Simultaneously, the conversation dwells on the emerging doubts about Darwinian Evolution in the field of biology, dubbed as the “third wave.” Experts like Dennis Noble and James Shapiro question whether this principle accounts for more than just variation. This skepticism is further grounded in whether random processes can increase information rather than just variants.
The discussions reveal a skeptical view of the likely outcomes of the transhumanist aim to redesign humans towards a superhuman goal. Both Dr. Peterson and Dr. Lennox express the notion that this path, marked by potential human arrogance, poses immense danger. They concur there’s a risk of creating not gods, but ‘transcendent entities’ tainted with human imperfections. They emphasize the importance of becoming ethically oriented beings to ensure that humankind can safely navigate through technological advances without making catastrophic miscalculations.
Entering further into the conversation, Dr. Peterson underlines the Genesis narrative, arguing that the moral axioms transcendent and axiomatic, and are embedded in God’s prohibition on humanity to not partake the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. This alludes to the idea that the knowledge of good and evil should not be at humanity’s discretion, echoing that moral decisions require wisdom rooted in ethics and transcendence.
Introducing the subjectivity of morality, they discuss the notion of subjective morality where the individual decides what’s right and wrong, posing the risk of ‘luciferian presumption.’ This conversation opens up to consider consensus as another source of moral knowledge, which is defined by group agreements. However, Dr. Lennox flags issues with this approach mentioning the problem of Nazi Germany as an example. Skepticism is raised about a society agreeing to exterminate another race, showcasing the risk of deriving ethics from a consensus.
Dr. Peterson highlights the limitation of these perspectives – subjective morality and consensus-based ethics – by asking, “what basis have we for valifying humans as unique?” Dr. Lennox refers to Genesis, where humans are made in the ‘image of God’, leading to a sense of dignity and value towards humanity, a moral compass unfound in the contemporary moral fabric of our society.
Switching lanes, Dr. Peterson discusses the two patterns of sacrifice – genuine and half-hearted. He exemplifies this with the story of Cain and Abel, where Abel represents genuine selfless sacrifice, while Cain signifies half-hearted, seemingly self-serving sacrifice. He brings up Barbara McClintock, who, through dedicating her life into researching the color variation of corn, discovered key aspects of genetic structure that impacted cancer treatment. Her story serves as an illustration of sacrifice that involves surrendering other pursuits and dedicating oneself towards a goal.
In the broader context, they explore the necessity of sacrifice in order to evolve and mature, reflecting on the human obligation to prioritize collective interest over personal convenience. You need to keep sacrificing your immediate self for the sake of the future and communal wellbeing. The ultimate sacrifice – one that is most pleasing to God – is said to be sacrificing oneself in the pursuit of truth and life.
Toward the end, they acknowledge Barbara McClintock’s research as the basis of the doubts emerging against Darwinian Evolution, placing her in the “third wave” of biology protagonists who have inquired more profound biological processes beyond simple variations.
Delving deeper, their discussion transitions to the concept of sacrifice and its various forms. While Christianity centers around God’s sacrifice on humanity’s behalf, Dr. Lennox explains that this selfless act calls for human sacrifice as well. He emphasizes how, as a Christian, personal sacrifices become bearable because they’re underpinned by the belief that acceptance by God is reliant on a sacrifice completely outside of oneself i.e. the sacrifice made by Christ.
Further describing examples of sacrifice, Dr. Peterson draws upon the role a mother plays for her child. It’s not presented as a sacrifice to a God, but rather the mother giving up her time and energy for her child. This links back to the model of sacrifice in Genesis where it’s the offerings of oneself to the wellbeing of others that’s most pleasing to God, and thereby considered the highest level of sacrifice.
Touching upon the concept of human relationship with God, Dr. Lennox suggests that it’s been distorted since the events in Genesis 3. Here again, the mother-child relationship serves as an example that contributes to this notion. As Peterson illustrates, a mother must sacrifice herself to her child’s needs but also let the child enter into the world, accepting the world’s trials and tribulations, even death. Arguably, it’s this acceptance of sacrifice, this duality, that contributes to the Divine pattern of eternal salvation.
Addressing Peterson’s assertion about the psychological effects of voluntarily taking on the weight of mortality, Dr. Lennox shares his personal beliefs that his faith has transformed his fear of death to a hopeful prospect of the future. This is rooted in his belief in Christ’s resurrection and the promise of eternal life beyond physical death.
Dr. Peterson correlates this idea back to psychology and the process of exposure therapy. The act of voluntarily facing fear enables people not just to overcome that fear, but also helps them become braver and more competent. This same premise may be applied to the notion of faith where believers, by voluntarily facing their fear of death (the ultimate unknown), transition from fear to hope, and eventually strengthen their faith.
Finally, they reflect on the biblical story of Lazarus from the New Testament as an example of this transformative power of voluntary confrontation with fear and death. The retelling of this story by Dr. Lennox echoes their shared viewpoint that personal transformation and enlightenment can occur when individuals face what they fear most.
Interestingly, this very principle is applied to the disciples of Jesus in the Lazarus story – their voluntary decision to accompany Jesus into possible danger brought them face-to-face with the reality of resurrection, thereby transforming their fear into life-altering faith. They end their deep discussion agreeing that the light of revelation only shines on those ready to move towards it, and are ready to confront their fear and voluntarily undertake personal sacrifice for a higher purpose.
As their discussion delves deeper into profound philosophical and theological concepts, Peterson and Lennox explore the significance and transformative power of sacrifice, mortality, and faith, as well as their interconnected nature.
Centering their dialogue on Christian beliefs, Lennox delineates the grand narrative of sacrifice, from God’s divine act for humanity to the intimate outlines of human sacrifice. He underscores the Christian belief that the acceptance by God hinges not on personal sacrifices but on a sacrificial act much larger – Christ’s sacrifice. The weight of such sacrifice, he argues, becomes more bearable in the light of this belief.
Peterson contributes another perspective to the discourse. He portrays sacrifice not merely as a religious act but as an inevitable part of human relationships, which he illustrates through a mother’s sacrifices for her child. The implication here ties back to the earliest Biblical narratives, such as in Genesis, where God values the sacrifice of oneself for the benefit of others as the highest level of offering.
Shifting their dialogue to the dynamics of a human’s relationship with God, Lennox argues that this relationship has been marred since the events of Genesis 3. Using Peterson’s analogy of mother-child dynamics, Lennox suggests that just as a mother sacrifices and lets their child face world challenges, humans must meet similar trials, even death, to restore their divine relationship.
Complementing the narrative on mortality’s weight and sacrifice, Peterson and Lennox introduce the therapeutic element of voluntarily confronting your fears. Peterson illustrates this with psychological exposure therapy techniques. Similarly, faith asks believers to face their ultimate fear—death— to transition from fear to hope.
This transformative potential of confronting fear is embellished in the New Testament’s Lazarus narrative. It taught Jesus’ disciples the truth of resurrection, transforming their fear into life-changing faith.
They end this part of the discussion by agreeing that this transformative revelation’s light shines on those who are ready to face their fears, and make personal sacrifices for a higher cause. Consequently, Peterson invites Lennox to a future seminar he’s hosting, expressing that Lennox’s intellectual insights would make a valuable contribution.
Check out the full podcast by clicking the link in the description below. Make sure to like, comment, and subscribe for more content like this. Thank you for listening to this podcast summary episode of The Pod Slice.
Review Questions
Elementary Level Questions and Answers:
- Question: Dr. Peterson says that a long time ago, universities came from a religious tradition. What does that mean?
- Answer: It means that the first universities were started by religious groups and they were based on religious ideas.
- Question: Dr. Lennox talked about how early scientists believed in laws of nature because they believed in a lawgiver. Who do they think the lawgiver is?
- Answer: They thought the lawgiver was God, who created the laws of nature.
- Question: What does Dr. Peterson mean when he talks about the ‘good’ ordered universe?
- Answer: He means that the universe is arranged in an orderly way, and that this order is something positive and helpful for us to understand the world better.
High School Level Questions and Answers:
- Question: Dr. Peterson mentions that the Christian belief in a logical world helped start scientific exploration. Can you explain why this belief would be helpful for scientists?
- Answer: If scientists believe that the world is logical and follows certain rules, they will think that they can understand and predict how things work. This belief in a sensible and orderly world encourages them to study it and discover its laws.
- Question: Dr. Lennox refers to the universe as a ‘word-based’ universe. What does he mean by that?
- Answer: Dr. Lennox means that the universe is built on and can be understood through rationality and language, similar to how words and language help us communicate and understand ideas. This concept comes from the belief that the universe was created by a rational, intelligent God who also gave us the ability to use words and understand the world.
- Question: According to Dr. Peterson, how does the concept of truth in science emerge from the interaction between the world and the human mind?
- Answer: Dr. Peterson believes that truth in science comes from the logical structure of the world being investigated by the curious human mind. This interaction helps prioritize facts in a way that allows us to communicate and study the world effectively.
College Level Questions and Answers:
- Question: Discuss the paradox that Dr. Lennox presents between science and atheism based on their conversation.
- Answer: Dr. Lennox suggests that if atheism is true and the human mind is the product of an unguided, mindless process, then it’s problematic to trust this mind for scientific endeavors or constructing rational arguments. This presents a paradox because science relies on the rationality of the human mind, but if atheism undermines that rationality, it also undermines the scientific process.
- Question: How does Peterson’s mentor, Robert Pihl, exemplify the ethical conduct that underpins scientific research according to the transcript?
- Answer: Robert Pihl exemplifies ethical conduct by generously sharing ideas, ensuring proper credit in publications, and conducting statistical analysis with high ethical standards. His actions reflect a commitment to truth, honesty, and an openness to revising beliefs when they conflict with research findings.
- Question: What moral and ethical challenges does Dr. Peterson associate with the concept of transhumanism?
- Answer: Dr. Peterson suggests that transhumanism is associated with moral and ethical challenges because it represents a form of human arrogance where people try to exceed their natural limitations and play God. This could lead to the devaluation of human life as it currently exists and turn humans into something artificial, losing the essence of what it means to be human.