Jordan Peterson On God

a reply to: Barcs

Fair enough, but if you're going to go from religious right to alt right that doesn't make you any more correct.
Just going off wikipedia...

The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely connected and somewhat ill-defined grouping of American white supremacists/white nationalists, white separatists, anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists and other far-right fringe hate groups.

Where exactly does he fit on that list?

But just to be clear, you agree with some of his views but were alienated by his comments on religion.
You also think these comments were meant not to alienate.

Am I wrong to think that's inconsistent?

I think his views on religion are more powerful and thought out than Hitchens and Dawkins combined.
As someone who was initially alienated by his views due to my atheism I went down the rabbit hole and I'm a much better atheist for it.

I do disagree that a true atheist would rape and pillage, however the want for god is a universal thing. Have atheists abandoned this want completely or just covered it up? If we've just covered it up with our own rationalisations then he may have a point.

I think humans have a biological desire for the spiritual or metaphysical. I personally believe that's a mixture of duality of mind (the ability to imagine ourselves conversing with another imaginary person) and our obedience to parental figures. At no point do I believe there's a god but to claim I don't have the same biology as others would imply that I'm more evolved and that's an impossibility.

To try an analogy, deep down in your heart you know the sun rises every morning. You live your life as if you are living in a geocentric worldview. I don't believe for a second that you think Earth is in the center but if you try and tell me that you don't live your life as it does then I wouldn't believe you.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
Where exactly does he fit on that list?

Like I said, I don't think HE is alt right. I think that he is popular within that "group" in the US. His anti-SJW views are what made his popularity skyrocket because the alt right is generally against SJW positions, new wave radical feminism, and LGBTQ community in general. Those aren't the only people that support him, obviously, he has views that can appeal to almost any demographic if taken by itself.

But just to be clear, you agree with some of his views but were alienated by his comments on religion.
You also think these comments were meant not to alienate.

Okay, that's not what I said. You specifically asked about his position on the Resurrection, and I said that he doesn't give a clear answer to avoid potentially alienating the bulk of his followers. I didn't say that applies to every view he has. Atheists probably make up less than 5% of his followers, so he doesn't care as much when he misrepresents them. It's about the money.

I think his views on religion are more powerful and thought out than Hitchens and Dawkins combined.

I don't agree in the slightest. I would have loved to see Hitchens debate this guy because Dillahunty did a superb job exposing the "word pasta." He seems more like Deepak Chopra, he says deep philosophical things, but often fails to get to the point and overuses metaphorical jargon to make his answers more cloudy than they need to be and people think that because he uses big words, that he's right.

I do disagree that a true atheist would rape and pillage, however the want for god is a universal thing. Have atheists abandoned this want completely or just covered it up? If we've just covered it up with our own rationalisations then he may have a point.

The "want" for god is universal? How? If that was the case, I don't think 1/3 of the population would be non religious or non theist.

I think humans have a biological desire for the spiritual or metaphysical. I personally believe that's a mixture of duality of mind (the ability to imagine ourselves conversing with another imaginary person) and our obedience to parental figures. At no point do I believe there's a god but to claim I don't have the same biology as others would imply that I'm more evolved and that's an impossibility.

It's not about more evolved. We all have our lives and our positions and our influences on those positions. Being an individual with unique thought, does not make somebody more or less evolved. I also don't agree that humans have that desire. Some do, but a lot of it is very often a result of childhood indoctrination creating that desire. It's not there inherently. Humans just like having answers that are comforting to them. The idea of god is comforting, but that doesn't make it true, as you already know.

To try an analogy, deep down in your heart you know the sun rises every morning. You live your life as if you are living in a geocentric worldview. I don't believe for a second that you think Earth is in the center but if you try and tell me that you don't live your life as it does then I wouldn't believe you.

I don't understand. I don't live my life based on any of that. The shape of earth / disposition of our planet in the solar system is a scientific position that gives us knowledge, but it doesn't affect my actual life in the slightest, just like the idea of god. I don't buy it, and don't live as if god exists.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Dr. Peterson leaves out a very critical fact: there is no objective evidence for a god or gods. It would be more honest to say if there is a god, that's fine; if there isn't a god, that's okay too. That would take everyone off the hook for their personal beliefs and free people from this constant, absolutely go nowhere, debate.

At the end of all these debates and discussions, Dr. Peterson and everyone else is right back where they started - you don't know if there's a god, you will never know if there's a god and you should be content with your beliefs and live your life accordingly.

P.S. The operative word here is "beliefs". Throughout history, "beliefs" have been pushed as "facts", creating chaos, wars, atrocities, etc. Religion is just another word for politics as usual.

a reply to: Phantom423

Objectivity is a myth
everything is conscious and everything is subjective

if a Man builds a machine so that it can study an object objectively then it is a paradox, cause a subjective mind has tried to build an objective machine for the sole purpose of it being objective, but the mans work is subjective in nature, humans are conditioned from birth and objectivity is impossible for a human...

now subjectively there are millions of people who claim to be able to communicate with gods through their higher conscious and billions who believe in God and have had there own experiences to confirm their beliefs or biases

originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: Phantom423

Objectivity is a myth
everything is conscious and everything is subjective

if a Man builds a machine so that it can study an object objectively then it is a paradox, cause a subjective mind has tried to build an objective machine for the sole purpose of it being objective, but the mans work is subjective in nature, humans are conditioned from birth and objectivity is impossible for a human...

now subjectively there are millions of people who claim to be able to communicate with gods through their higher conscious and billions who believe in God and have had there own experiences to confirm their beliefs or biases

By "objective evidence", I meant scientific evidence, not psychologically objective. There's a difference. That's why I say that it shouldn't matter whether a person believes in a god or not. As long as their beliefs are not pushed on others, it's their personal beliefs which they are entitled to.

a reply to: Phantom423

I agree with you, nobody should force there beliefs onto others, we all living different life's different experiences, everyone should have been he right to their own belief system.... Although many just want to be led

these guys have an interesting series on petersons book they do a chapter per epiosde www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

He seems to be spreading himself thin, I wonder if he is narcissistic...the signs are there.

That depends on what you mean by "narcissistic."

originally posted by: Barcs
The "want" for god is universal? How? If that was the case, I don't think 1/3 of the population would be non religious or non theist.

Fair enough, using the word god here is probably wrong. Perhaps "spirituality" or something equally vague would be better. I'm not sure if the majority having a belief in god is a good argument against the need for god/spirituality however. People like having answers as you said. Maybe it's more a need for answers than god however there's some things we can't explain without a god. (I'm not suggesting god is "the" answer, just a answer and a bad one)

I don't understand. I don't live my life based on any of that. The shape of earth / disposition of our planet in the solar system is a scientific position that gives us knowledge, but it doesn't affect my actual life in the slightest, just like the idea of god. I don't buy it, and don't live as if god exists.

Do you watch a sunrise or an earthspin?

a reply to: Toothache

Just more of people inclined to see what they want to see seeing what they want to see.

"Nobody should force there beliefs onto others."

Most religious types that proselytize aren't actually *forcing* anyone to change their beliefs. However, they have to make noise to validate their own belief system, and that's the annoying aspect. The practice is built into most religions: go out and recruit--although different faiths have their own word for it, e.g., Christians call it "witnessing."

I hold no grudge against anyone for their beliefs--but I'm just as disinterested in their private religious reality as they are in mine.

We occasionally get Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and others going door to door here, passing out pamphlets and seeking to save souls. Before they begin their shtick, I ask them the following: if I give you 20 minutes of my undivided attention to hear about your savior, will you give me 20 minutes so I can tell you about mine?

In more than 20 years, I've had only one person agree to those terms.

a reply to: TheTruthRocks

"Nobody should force there beliefs onto others."

If you read the gospels you will read that Jesus never forced anybody, he may have compelled those that he healed however. If you had a major aliment for 25 years that not even modern medicine could fix, and Jesus fixed it, that would be extremely powerful. Jesus traveled around talking to people everywhere he went. He gave them a message and moved on, there was never any forcing, any religion that tries to force people has deviated from first century Christianity.
So this tells us the Church was doing it totally wrong for a very long time in their effort to save souls.

If somebody talks to you about God in 2019 at work, school, public places or even visits your home they are still following Jesus final directions to all that would follow him, just before he went back to heaven in the very last verses of the Book of Matthew. But they also need to respect peoples personal choices and move on imitating Jesus when people have no interest in listening or doing anything with that message. Some Christians get pushy because they are trying to help save those around them, those tactics will not work.

They may view it like a fireman rushing into a burning house and pulling the person out, but the person has to come out under their own power. But I view it as being part of a team that is talking to a people in a wooded areas in a houses where a forest fire is coming and these houses need to be evacuated, if they choose to stay that's their free choice, and they will have to deal with the consequences of making that choice.
We live in world where the spiritual evacuation is well under way, and people need decide if they are going to stay or go, and it's totally their free choice.

I enjoy that he chooses his words carefully to avoid committing himself or the ideas he has investigated to a concrete box. I also noticed that he says he "dares not say, because he doesn't know" and that is an honesty you don't see in many theological discussions. He is concerned with the psychology of metaphysics and not the dogma or agenda. I respect that.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
Fair enough, using the word god here is probably wrong. Perhaps "spirituality" or something equally vague would be better. I'm not sure if the majority having a belief in god is a good argument against the need for god/spirituality however. People like having answers as you said. Maybe it's more a need for answers than god however there's some things we can't explain without a god. (I'm not suggesting god is "the" answer, just a answer and a bad one)

Agreed, there are many spiritual people that do not believe in god. I agree it's a need for answers. Humans are very inquisitive, they want to have answers to the big questions, but unfortunately we haven't found them yet, so very often people just believe what seems comforting to them.

Do you watch a sunrise or an earthspin?

Do they look any different or affect my day to day life at all? I totally understand that the sunrise is caused by the earth spinning, but it doesn't really change anything in the grand scheme of things in my life.

Enjoy.