Science and Myth Make A Complete Picture, But Don’t Guarantee Humility
Dr. Jordan B. Peterson is a clinical psychologist, author, podcaster, cultural critic and former professor at the University of Toronto. Michelle Butterfield, writing for Global News in December 2024, described Peterson as “a public figure with a huge social media following that people appear to either fully embrace or abhor” [1]. His fame sky-rocketed when he refused to be forced to address other people by gender neutral pronouns, impacting his standing with the College of Psychologists of Ontario and the University of Toronto [2]. Peterson has authored several books, including Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief [3], and has over 8 Million subscribers to his YouTube channel, which features his lecture series, The Psychological Significance of the Bible [4]. In these works, Peterson lays out the role of archetypes, and the interplay between chaos and order, but as one speaking primarily to empiricists on the way ancient mythologies and religious beliefs must become integrated or at least respected to form what he advocates for — a more “complete world-picture” [5].
He builds his argument on the foundation of Piaget, Neitzche, Yung, and Joseph Campbell [6]. In Campbell’s epilogue, there is a strong rebuttal for a modern intellectual negative characterization of mythology. He writes
Mythology has been interpreted by the modern intellect as a primitive, fumbling effort to explain the world of nature (Frazer); as a production of poetical fantasy from prehistoric times, misunderstood by succeeding ages (Müller); as a repository of allegorical instruction, to shape the individual to his group (Durkheim); as a group dream, symptomatic of archetypal urges within the depths of the human psyche (Jung); as the traditional vehicle of man’s profoundest metaphysical insights (Coomaraswamy); and as God’s Revelation to His children (the Church).
He continues
Mythology is all of these. The various judgments are determined by the viewpoints of the judges. For when scrutinized in terms not of what it is but of how it functions, of how it has served mankind in the past, of how it may serve today, mythology shows itself to be as amenable as life itself to the obsessions and requirements of the individual, the race, the age [7].
A complete world-picture coming from both science and mythology/religion has been raised by others. Stephen Hicks, in critiquing postmodernism, references Bertrand Russell’s conclusion about how philosophy “cannot answer its questions and so came to believe that any value which philosophy might have cannot lie in being able to offer truth or wisdom” [8]. We must turn to the great narratives of antiquity, to account for the mysteries of the universe, and awareness of the Divine.
Two Ways to Look at the World?
Peterson’s merging of these threads is clear. “The world can be validly construed as a forum for action (mythological representation of the world), as well as a place of things… using the formal methods of science”. In explaining this forum for action, he uses the metaphor of a cosmic family, composed of 3 elements or personalities:
- Unexplored territory (The Great Mother, nature, creative and destructive forces, source and end of all things),
- Explored territory (The Great Father, culture, protective and tyrannical, accumulated wisdom, and
- The process that mediates between the two (The Divine Son, the archetypal individual, creative Word and vengeful adversary)[9].
As a person of faith, I value the room for mystery here, in what Peterson explores and expounds as “the eternal unknown”, “the eternal known”, and the “eternal knower” who mediates between the unknown and known [10]. In Joseph Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces, we see a very similar framework for this mediative role in ‘the Hero’:
- He/she leaves their familiar home-world
- He/she faces and overcomes a great trial
- He/she returns victorious and with wisdom for all the people [11].
In the Christian faith, the eternal knower is “the Word made flesh” who dwelt among us (John 1:14), fully Divine and human — Jesus, the Promised Redeemer and Everlasting King of the Universe (Revelation 19:16).
Can We Resist Our Own Self-Importance?
Returning to Peterson, the challenge I am left with is to deepen humility in the face of the great Biblical narrative or mono-mythologies of history. If not, the temptation grows to become the hero or saviour of the world, or a demi-god myself. With ever-increasing notoriety comes the call to an ever-increasing diligence to surrender whatever privilege or power I am granted to the Everlasting King, lest I make myself the most important figure. Knowing the greatness of God and the vastness of the Universe is no guarantee that I learn to humble myself before such a God, but surely that is the call.
________
[1] “Jordan Peterson Says He’s Left Canada and Moved to the U.S. – National | Globalnews.Ca.” n.d. Accessed April 10, 2025. https://globalnews.ca/news/10916773/jordan-peterson-moves-to-us-leaves-canada/.
[2] BBC News. 2016. “Toronto Professor Jordan Peterson Takes on Gender-Neutral Pronouns,” November 4, 2016, sec. US & Canada. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37875695.
[3] Jordan B. Peterson, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, (New York: Routledge, 1999).
[4] Jordan Peterson, “The Psychological Significance of the Bible”, 2017.https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22J3VaeABQD_IZs7y60I3lUrrFTzkpat.
[5] Maps of Meaning, 1.
[6] Maps of Meaning, 272, 277.
[7] Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, (3rd ed. Bollingen Series XVII. Novato, Calif: New World Library, 2008), epilogue.
[8] Hicks present’s Russell’s position this way: “In the final chapter of an often-read introductory book, The Problems of Philosophy (1912), Russell summarized the history of philosophy as a repeating series of failures to answer its questions. Can we prove that there is an external world? No. Can we prove that there is cause and effect? No. Can we validate the objectivity of our inductive generalizations? No. Can we find an objective basis for morality? Definitely not. Russell concluded that philosophy cannot answer its questions and so came to believe that any value philosophy might have cannot lie in being able to offer truth or wisdom”. in Stephen Ronald Craig Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, (Expanded Edition, Ockham’s Razor, 2013. Kindle edition), 94.
[9] “The techniques of narrative, however—myth, literature and drama—portray the world as a forum for action. The two forms of representation have been unnecessarily set at odds, because we have not yet formed a clear picture of their respective domains. The domain of the former is the objective world—what is, from the perspective of intersubjective perception. The domain of the latter is the world of value—what is and what should be, from the perspective of emotion and action”. Maps of Meaning, xxi.
[10] Chapter 2 develops this in more detail. Maps of Meaning, 20.
[11] The Hero with a Thousand Faces.
About the Author
Joel Zantingh
Joel Zantingh is a catalyst for peacemaking and intercultural teams, speaker, theologian and consultant. He is the Canadian Coordinator of the World Evangelical Alliance's Peace and Reconciliation Network, and the Director of Engagement with Lausanne Movement Canada. He has served in local and national roles within the Evangelical Missionary Church of Canada, and led their global mission arm. He has experience teaching in formal and informal settings with Bible college students and leaders from various cultures and generations. Joel and Christie are parents to adult children, as well as grandparents. They reside in Guelph, Ont., situated on the treaty lands and territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit, and home to many past, present and future First Nations peoples, including the Anishinnabe and Hodinöhsö:ni'.12 responses to “Science and Myth Make A Complete Picture, But Don’t Guarantee Humility”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Joel,
Thanks for the post. Because its been along week, let me ask a fun question in light of your demi-god comment. Something my kids like to ask, If you could have any superpower, what would it be? Then to go along with your idea of deepening your humility, along with the superpower is a fixed weakness. For example, my superpower would be teleportation, but whenever I teleport, I end up a mile away from where I really wanted to be. What would the weaknesses be that comes with the superpower.
Jeff, nice work, using the comic book world to draw this out! The most prevalent weakness for the Demi-gods is loneliness, a deep sadness being separated from others, and the inability to make and keep true friends. This can be characterized as “death” (creating separation from loved ones) — the last enemy of Christ who is defeated on the Cross. Sin’s legacy is separation from God and others, and the remedy is restoration or reconciliation.
Loneliness is a killer. But in surrendering demigod status to Jesus, communion is reestablished.
Hi Joel, It sounds like you want to remain humble in your role as the “eternal knower.” In what ways has mediating between the domains of known and unknown contributed to increased notoriety?
Fighting one’s ego can be in this space of self-importance, or absence of humility. I am perhaps making a leap here, but see that greater notoriety often manifests into a narcissism, an untouchability, or lack of accountability.
I am suggesting the reverse of your question – that increased notoriety promotes oneself into the role of the hero, the knower, the answer, the revealer of the Way.
In the church world, there have been a string leaders who have been sucked into this space where Jesus is no longer at the center, but ‘I am’. And rather than implying that the author has done this in his career, or pointing to leaders who’ve fallen from grace, I recognize that this pitfall is near us all. We each must avoid the temptation to eat of the tree of knowledge and become like god. Does that make sense?
Hi Joel, Thank you for this post. I really appreciate the way you highlight the eternal unknown, the eternal known, and the eternal Knower—it’s a beautiful and thought-provoking framework.
I’m curious—through your engagement with different cultures, have you come to appreciate or even adopt forms of worship that might be difficult for the empiricist to embrace—practices that transcend analysis and invite a more embodied, intuitive response to the eternal Knower?
Elysse, I love this question. For instance, the framework of Integral Mission from the Made-in-African Theological world is “Word and deed and sign.” There is an awareness of the supernatural engagement with the natural… it’s palpable.
This is akin to what Peterson is calling for in the “complete world-picture” that includes both the mythological and the empirical.
Joel, I appreciate how you draw attention to the danger of placing ourselves at the story’s center—a temptation as old as Eden. In light of Peterson’s emphasis on the heroic journey and mythic frameworks, how do you see the call of Jesus—to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Him—reframing our role in the larger narrative of redemption? What helps you resist the myth of self-exaltation and instead embrace the path of cruciform humility, participating in the story without becoming its center?
Chad, see my response to Julie please. I went to this very place.
Hey Joel, I appreciate you sharing this insightful post and your perspective on humility. What specific practices can we adopt to cultivate humility and protect ourselves from the pitfalls of self-exaltation?
Joel, thanks for your post. I appreciate the recognition that humility is foundational to character. In leadership studies it’s widely recognized that the “heroic” model is no longer valued (see Beerel, Hutchinson from this semester’s reading). As we develop leaders, how might we develop essential attributes such as courage without always falling into the “heroic leader” metaphor?
Thanks for this analysis Joel. You talk about an integration between science and mythology. So I wonder, in your view, what are some practical ways that individuals can integrate scientific understanding with mythological or religious narratives to create a more complete worldview? Are there specific examples from your own life or observations that illustrate this integration?
Hi, Joel, thank you for your posting in which you have illustrated the importance of ‘framework’ that can be used to share our stories. Not only that, but you have introduced a constraint that would be important for leaders not to cross. What could be some practical steps that a leader would take to protect himself/herself from crossing the constraint? Thank you again, Joel.