As for my criticism of Peterson's reliance on religion as the basis of morality...it seems posting a little blue link in the middle of a bunch of text that didn't get read carefully didn't result in anyone noticing the link either. Here's the episode I'm referring to:
As for Hitchens: I never said he wasn't sanctimonious (he scathed very well) but he brought a good bit more to the table than Peterson. I don't see anything Peterson has done for civilization that Hitchens didn't already do, and do better.
Again, i think you're missing the larger point of Peterson. It's not Christianity or any religion...they facilitate but are not essential to the human condition of yearning for oneness, togetherness, to serve something higher than the self/ego...the mystery.
At the risk of sounding like a lawyer depends on the context of the world believe. Broadly a Theist believes in a higher power, an Atheist believes there is no higher power and an Agnostic thinks it is a stupid question and would rather go make a sandwich. If you use the term Believer as in a believer of God or a higher power than the Theist is the only believer. I am a devout Agnostic and personally have always been wholly uninterested in such a cosmic question. My only interest is ones behavior and character which puts me at odds with the notion that morality requires belief however I am not going to dispatch and dispense the man solely because of this. Some of you seem to think that Peterson is a one trick pony Christian pusher which I find odd seeing how I have watched literally hours of video with him discussing many subjects and I was not even aware that he was a Christian. Seems like we are throwing out the baby with the bath water and discounting the vast library of knowledge dispensed by this man because you philosophically disagree with one of his beliefs.
Edit: And you don't think Christopher Hitchins was sanctimonious? He deliberately and purposefully set out to be as condescending, patronizing and sanctimonious as he could to shock those he wished to reach into understanding. It was his mo or schtick. Being sanctimonious does not necessarily equate with ignorance and uselessness as a philosopher or teacher.
Most agnostics I have known were very interested in theology and religious questions, mainly from a comparative religion viewpoint. Many held, "The quest for truth" as a central tenet of their belief system - no expectation of completely finding "the truth" but considering the search as central to their religion and morality (generally Unitarian-Universalists, but I think as a whole, UUs have become increasingly theist in recent years.)
At the risk of sounding like a lawyer depends on the context of the world believe. Broadly a Theist believes in a higher power, an Atheist believes there is no higher power and an Agnostic thinks it is a stupid question and would rather go make a sandwich. If you use the term Believer as in a believer of God or a higher power than the Theist is the only believer. I am a devout Agnostic and personally have always been wholly uninterested in such a cosmic question. My only interest is ones behavior and character which puts me at odds with the notion that morality requires belief however I am not going to dispatch and dispense the man solely because of this. Some of you seem to think that Peterson is a one trick pony Christian pusher which I find odd seeing how I have watched literally hours of video with him discussing many subjects and I was not even aware that he was a Christian. Seems like we are throwing out the baby with the bath water and discounting the vast library of knowledge dispensed by this man because you philosophically disagree with one of his beliefs.
Edit: And you don't think Christopher Hitchins was sanctimonious? He deliberately and purposefully set out to be as condescending, patronizing and sanctimonious as he could to shock those he wished to reach into understanding. It was his mo or schtick. Being sanctimonious does not necessarily equate with ignorance and uselessness as a philosopher or teacher.
Since we're in a quote topic I'll get pedantic on something, which has implications beyond just clarifying an argument.
The logical opposite of I believe there is a boson named the Higgs particle is not I believe there is no such thing as the Higgs boson but I don't believe in the Higgs boson, or more precisely the existence of the Higgs boson has not been proven to my satisfaction.
For one thing, the existence of the Higgs boson can be proved with a single instance, but the non-existence can't be proved at all. There is no number of incidents that do not include a Higgs boson that prove there is no such thing; we can only know that we haven't seen one yet. We now have strong evidence that there are gravity waves too, but that was an unproven conjecture for a very long time. Whether that evidence convinces anyone or not is where belief comes in; gravity waves exist (or not) independent of that belief.
As for my criticism of Peterson's reliance on religion as the basis of morality...it seems posting a little blue link in the middle of a bunch of text that didn't get read carefully didn't result in anyone noticing the link either. Here's the episode I'm referring to:
As for Hitchens: I never said he wasn't sanctimonious (he scathed very well) but he brought a good bit more to the table than Peterson. I don't see anything Peterson has done for civilization that Hitchens didn't already do, and do better.
At the risk of sounding like a lawyer depends on the context of the world believe. Broadly a Theist believes in a higher power, an Atheist believes there is no higher power and an Agnostic thinks it is a stupid question and would rather go make a sandwich. If you use the term Believer as in a believer of God or a higher power than the Theist is the only believer. I am a devout Agnostic and personally have always been wholly uninterested in such a cosmic question. My only interest is ones behavior and character which puts me at odds with the notion that morality requires belief however I am not going to dispatch and dispense the man solely because of this. Some of you seem to think that Peterson is a one trick pony Christian pusher which I find odd seeing how I have watched literally hours of video with him discussing many subjects and I was not even aware that he was a Christian. Seems like we are throwing out the baby with the bath water and discounting the vast library of knowledge dispensed by this man because you philosophically disagree with one of his beliefs.
Edit: And you don't think Christopher Hitchins was sanctimonious? He deliberately and purposefully set out to be as condescending, patronizing and sanctimonious as he could to shock those he wished to reach into understanding. It was his mo or schtick. Being sanctimonious does not necessarily equate with ignorance and uselessness as a philosopher or teacher.
If you hold a belief something doesn't exist, why even attempt the question? as for proof....outside of logic, the only things philosophy proves is that there are more questions.
I'm sure I'm not smart enough in philosophy to even try but....if morality requires a culture, or all people (universal), than the individual who "does what thou whilt," may often choose what is considered moral, but remain nihilistic.
In more layman's terms, it seems self evident the human condition has universal morality...dont kill or steal, observe the golden rule.
thats all I've got to say, and return the channel to its regularly scheduled broadcast.
Absence of belief? An atheist believes there is no god/deity. I've seen as much evangelist/fundamentalist dogma from atheists as southern babtists. Perhaps absence of belief would fit an agnostic.
He/Dostoevsky does a pretty good job with the argument, that morality hinges on a higher value/transcendence, beyond the self. I don't contend that you need belief in a deity to be a good person, and don't believe Peterson argues that either. But, you need belief beyond oneself (transcendence) to remain what we universally consider moral.
We have other places to argue this, so this will be my last attempt: atheism means (literally) a (without) -theos (god) -ism (belief in or adherence to a doctrine of). Not believing in something is not the same as believing in the non-existence of something. You may be thinking of antitheists, who actively deny that god(s) exist, presumably inviting god(s) to smite them as rebuttal.
An agnostic doesn't know whether god(s) exist or not; most atheists are also agnostics.
The atheists I know would say that they'd be willing to believe in god(s) given evidence for one (or more), but there is no such. Most theists will readily admit that; they base their belief on, basically, belief: the idea appeals to them or they have a feeling that it's true, therefor there is (are) god(s). This is the essence of faith: believing in something without evidence.
Peterson's approach to arguing about the source of morality is a bit different, sort of arguing the inverse: instead of claiming that morality follows from religion (which he takes as a given) he argues that what atheists claim is a rationally-derivable morality is just a remnant of a religious dogma so embedded in the cultural milieu that atheists can't see it. He doesn't prove this (he can't, really—how could he know which cultural forces other people are immune to?) but he uses it to dismiss an argument without really considering its merits. An argument he admits (over and over in the clip I linked to) that he doesn't understand.
And since you're making a claim similar to what Peterson assumes as an axiom I'll invite you to prove it. Setting aside sectarian-specific beliefs (like not suffering a witch to live or that eating shellfish will damn you for all eternity) demonstrate that no one can derive a universally-acceptable set of moral principles without resorting to higher powers or deities or whatever you mean by "transcendence".
Peterson doesn't even attempt it, so I won't be disappointed if you don't pick up that gauntlet.
Moreover numerous people have done just that (derived a set of more-or-less universally-acceptable moral principles without resorting to deities), and unless you can point out some kind of flaw in their thinking you have your work cut out for you.
Absence of belief? An atheist believes there is no god/deity. I've seen as much evangelist/fundamentalist dogma from atheists as southern babtists. Perhaps absence of belief would fit an agnostic.
So all religion is meaningless? Or are you arguing for a more fundamentalist view? Is not atheism a belief?
I think the philosophy of religion is a meaningful discussion; but not the belief/disbelief of God. For the latter, both sides have faith in answering a question they really can't answer.
In order:
1. No, religions have profound impacts on our lives, both in what we are called to d by them and by what others are called to do to us by them.
2. I don't think he was arguing anything of the sort, but I'll let noenz speak for himself here.
3. No, atheism is the absence of belief, just as clear is not a color and nothing for me, thanks is not a sandwich.
4. Um, ok, but claiming (as Peterson does) that the absence of belief means an absence of morality is simply an ignorant form of religious chauvinism. He admits not understanding the opposite view, but seems genuinely incurious about understanding it.
Absence of belief? An atheist believes there is no god/deity. I've seen as much evangelist/fundamentalist dogma from atheists as southern babtists. Perhaps absence of belief would fit an agnostic.
He/Dostoevsky does a pretty good job with the argument, that morality hinges on a higher value/transcendence, beyond the self. I don't contend that you need belief in a deity to be a good person, and don't believe Peterson argues that either. But, you need belief beyond oneself (transcendence) to remain what we universally consider moral.
Sanctimonious? No, but most of these guys are salesmen, figuratively and literally with their latest book...
So all religion is meaningless? Or are you arguing for a more fundamentalist view? Is not atheism a belief?
I think the philosophy of religion is a meaningful discussion; but not the belief/disbelief of God. For the latter, both sides have faith in answering a question they really can't answer.
In order:
1. No, religions have profound impacts on our lives, both in what we are called to d by them and by what others are called to do to us by them.
2. I don't think he was arguing anything of the sort, but I'll let noenz speak for himself here.
3. No, atheism is the absence of belief, just as clear is not a color and nothing for me, thanks is not a sandwich.
4. Um, ok, but claiming (as Peterson does) that the absence of belief means an absence of morality is simply an ignorant form of religious chauvinism. He admits not understanding the opposite view, but seems genuinely incurious about understanding it.
3. I tell people my father was a devout atheist. His atheism sustained him through WWII as he disproved the saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes." Me, I'm pretty much an Apatheist, which leads to...
4. Agree. Live your life so it doesn't matter if God exists or not. Whether for the benefit of society or future lollipops, take your best shot at doing good.
Without watching more of the debates (which I fully intend to do) I have a feeling where this is headed. The debate with Sam Harris staked out the playing field between the "catastrophe" of dogma and the "catastrophe of moral relativism", which both wanted to avoid.
But by appealing to human psychology, Jungian archetypes, narrative, and Christian beliefs, I see a desperate attempt to find a universal moral language - a commonality I think he called it - that is neither dogmatic nor relative to culture. I have not yet met anyone who has squared that particular circle and, quite frankly, I don't expect to.
I have a strong suspicion that JP wants to establish that we are only free moral agents within some form of universal moral construct (which is where the sanctimonious shit comes in, he speaks like someone who thinks he has found these "universal rules" which is just another word for dogma) but does a mental back-flip to position himself as a free-thinker outside of the structure he posits. But actually he is championing some kind of dogma, dressed up in modern garb and I think that is why he is annoying: a supreme intellect, highly erudite but fundamentally using his cerebral prowess to fool himself... ok, I 'm stretching here.. may my further research prove me wrong.
Whatever, the debate was one of the best I have seen, so I have to give him credit for that.
That's weird, trying to find a universal moral language based on Christian beliefs that is not relative to culture. Not dogmatic? I guess that means finding your "universal moral language" by picking and choosing the Christian beliefs you like. You know, like the evangelicals.
Better off recognising that all this shit is based on your culture. That leads you to situational ethics - in the original sense that, if I remember correctly boils down to "do it with love for other people"
So all religion is meaningless? Or are you arguing for a more fundamentalist view? Is not atheism a belief?
I think the philosophy of religion is a meaningful discussion; but not the belief/disbelief of God. For the latter, both sides have faith in answering a question they really can't answer.
In order:
1. No, religions have profound impacts on our lives, both in what we are called to d by them and by what others are called to do to us by them.
2. I don't think he was arguing anything of the sort, but I'll let noenz speak for himself here.
3. No, atheism is the absence of belief, just as clear is not a color and nothing for me, thanks is not a sandwich.
4. Um, ok, but claiming (as Peterson does) that the absence of belief means an absence of morality is simply an ignorant form of religious chauvinism. He admits not understanding the opposite view, but seems genuinely incurious about understanding it.
I must admit the first video I saw of him was precisely that sanctimonious up-his-own-arse side to him and I pigeon-holed him pretty quickly. The debate with Sam Harris I watched yesterday at least made me pause. To his credit, JP can follow a clear line of argument through multiple recursions and side-tracking, which is not something many people manage. So yeah, he does have a brain. But ultimately the line he is arguing is untenable, (i.e. that religion speaks to some higher truth that can only be expressed or explored in narrative). To make this logically consistent he would have to water it down to meaningless (which he tries to do to make it salonfähig in front of the likes of Sam Harris) but by paying lip service to the narrative he stokes a fanbase of believers. He's basically trying to have his cake and eat it too.
So all religion is meaningless? Or are you arguing for a more fundamentalist view? Is not atheism a belief?
I think the philosophy of religion is a meaningful discussion; but not the belief/disbelief of God. For the latter, both sides have faith in answering a question they really can't answer.
To be fair, I don't even know that much about Peterson's view on religion. I am much more interested in his views on human psychology, society, free speech and individual responsibility. As I have listened to him more and more, I can hear snippets of his championing Christianity but I am not one to get bogged down in the semantics of a person's religious preference unless they are Evangelical or Fundamental. I tend to poo poo that. I am more interested in one's behavior and ideas. Religion including Atheism is nothing but style and delivery, the real measure is how all of this is manifest in the individual in the spirit world.
Without watching more of the debates (which I fully intend to do) I have a feeling where this is headed. The debate with Sam Harris staked out the playing field between the "catastrophe" of dogma and the "catastrophe of moral relativism", which both wanted to avoid.
But by appealing to human psychology, Jungian archetypes, narrative, and Christian beliefs, I see a desperate attempt to find a universal moral language - a commonality I think he called it - that is neither dogmatic nor relative to culture. I have not yet met anyone who has squared that particular circle and, quite frankly, I don't expect to.
I have a strong suspicion that JP wants to establish that we are only free moral agents within some form of universal moral construct (which is where the sanctimonious shit comes in, he speaks like someone who thinks he has found these "universal rules" which is just another word for dogma) but does a mental back-flip to position himself as a free-thinker outside of the structure he posits. But actually he is championing some kind of dogma, dressed up in modern garb and I think that is why he is annoying: a supreme intellect, highly erudite but fundamentally using his cerebral prowess to fool himself... ok, I 'm stretching here.. may my further research prove me wrong.
Whatever, the debate was one of the best I have seen, so I have to give him credit for that.
To be fair, I don't even know that much about Peterson's view on religion. I am much more interested in his views on human psychology, society, free speech and individual responsibility. As I have listened to him more and more, I can hear snippets of his championing Christianity but I am not one to get bogged down in the semantics of a person's religious preference unless they are Evangelical or Fundamental. I tend to poo poo that. I am more interested in one's behavior and ideas. Religion including Atheism is nothing but style and delivery, the real measure is how all of this is manifest in the individual in the spirit world.
I would agree, the cornerstone of most of his discussions have little to do with religion, or politics.
I must admit the first video I saw of him was precisely that sanctimonious up-his-own-arse side to him and I pigeon-holed him pretty quickly. The debate with Sam Harris I watched yesterday at least made me pause. To his credit, JP can follow a clear line of argument through multiple recursions and side-tracking, which is not something many people manage. So yeah, he does have a brain. But ultimately the line he is arguing is untenable, (i.e. that religion speaks to some higher truth that can only be expressed or explored in narrative). To make this logically consistent he would have to water it down to meaningless (which he tries to do to make it salonfähig in front of the likes of Sam Harris) but by paying lip service to the narrative he stokes a fanbase of believers. He's basically trying to have his cake and eat it too.
So all religion is meaningless? Or are you arguing for a more fundamentalist view? Is not atheism a belief?
I think the philosophy of religion is a meaningful discussion; but not the belief/disbelief of God. For the latter, both sides have faith in answering a question they really can't answer.
I must admit the first video I saw of him was precisely that sanctimonious up-his-own-arse side to him and I pigeon-holed him pretty quickly. The debate with Sam Harris I watched yesterday at least made me pause. To his credit, JP can follow a clear line of argument through multiple recursions and side-tracking, which is not something many people manage. So yeah, he does have a brain. But ultimately the line he is arguing is untenable, (i.e. that religion speaks to some higher truth that can only be expressed or explored in narrative). To make this logically consistent he would have to water it down to meaningless (which he tries to do to make it salonfähig in front of the likes of Sam Harris) but by paying lip service to the narrative he stokes a fanbase of believers. He's basically trying to have his cake and eat it too.
To be fair, I don't even know that much about Peterson's view on religion. I am much more interested in his views on human psychology, society, free speech and individual responsibility. As I have listened to him more and more, I can hear snippets of his championing Christianity but I am not one to get bogged down in the semantics of a person's religious preference unless they are Evangelical or Fundamental. I tend to poo poo that. I am more interested in one's behavior and ideas. Religion including Atheism is nothing but style and delivery, the real measure is how all of this is manifest in the individual in the spirit world.
"I don't think it is possible to grow up without having children." Jordan Peterson
I would like to add that having children does not guarantee growing up either. Caveat is that this opinion does not put a judgment on growing up as a goal or as a pejorative.
This is the kind of hyperbole is what keeps people from taking him seriously. He has interesting/relevant/true things to say and brackets them with sanctimonious nonsense like this.
I must admit the first video I saw of him was precisely that sanctimonious up-his-own-arse side to him and I pigeon-holed him pretty quickly. The debate with Sam Harris I watched yesterday at least made me pause. To his credit, JP can follow a clear line of argument through multiple recursions and side-tracking, which is not something many people manage. So yeah, he does have a brain. But ultimately the line he is arguing is untenable, (i.e. that religion speaks to some higher truth that can only be expressed or explored in narrative). To make this logically consistent he would have to water it down to meaningless (which he tries to do to make it salonfähig in front of the likes of Sam Harris) but by paying lip service to the narrative he stokes a fanbase of believers. He's basically trying to have his cake and eat it too.
Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more; it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
Yeah, seriously. He became a free speech martyr and rode that to stardom, but there just isn't that much to him.
I'm glad he used his alt-platform to re-introduce people to Enlightenment values, glad he is an articulate defender of intellectual honesty. That's commendable and all, but that should be the minimum for being a public intellectual. What he brings to the table beyond that is bland Christian moralism. He's no Christopher Hitchens.
The fact that he is seen as a radical—by both his detractors and supporters—is a sad comment on the current intellectual atmosphere.
I don't see him as radical at all, if I did I would probably not be a supporter, not that radicalism is a presumed pejorative. Does not mean that I am correct in my assessment of him as radical or not, but I am quite sure of how I see him.
