Jordan Peterson and Christianity

Author: yachilviveyachali
Christianity
Debate
Atheism
Jordan Peterson

Posts

Total: 45
Topic's author
#31
yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 265
0
2
3
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
3
-->
@MayCaesar
Making a statement that seems to align with “postmodernism” does not make one a postmodernist. It is my observation that we are living in a post-truth world. It is Peterson's observation that a dragon can be a metaphor for a struggle, a very real struggle. Being a scientist, Dawkins cannot bring himself to understand.

If you ask him, "Is there more than two genders?", he will instantly say, "No": the discussion is closed for him. But if you ask him, "Is Jesus alive?", then he will say something like, "What do you mean by 'is'?", or "It would take me 5 hours to answer this question".
These are sensible ways to answer. Peterson is a man who has not committed to Christianity in the intellectual sphere, and is therefore not able to say if Christ is alive or not. He has doubts and wants to be objective in his work. I can imagine him thinking that, to the Christian, Christ is alive. Does this mean Christ is walking around in the flesh, on earth, as he did 2000 years ago? This is not what the Bible says. Christ ascended to Heaven, yet he is here with us.
#32
MayCaesar
MayCaesar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 105
0
2
3
MayCaesar's avatar
MayCaesar
0
2
3
-->
@yachilviveyachali
Dawkins surely understands that a dragon can be a metaphor for a struggle. But you are making the same conflation as Peterson trying to defend him: putting facts of reality and, using Peterson's language, "metanarratives" in the same epistemological category. When saying "dragons are as real as lions", one makes a very concrete statement of fact. If Peterson wants to use a metaphor, he should do so; the statement that a creature from a metaphor is as real as a creature from the real world makes no sense. It is like saying that cheese that I imagine in my head is as real as cheese that is in my fridge, because cheese in my head represents eternal human struggle to acquire food.

Alex O'Connor once took a few minutes of prompting to just get Peterson to answer one straightforward question: does he believe that Jesus rose from the dead in this reality? Peterson did his best to wiggle out of the answer by bringing it a lot of pseudo-philosophical garbage. In the end, to a very carefully crafted question, he finally said: "I suspect the answer is yes". Why could he not say so immediately? Because making substantial statements is not something he is comfortable for.

Peterson poses as this deep thinker who sees all sides of every issue and does not commit to much in light of complexity of the questions - but in the end he ends up saying almost nothing. "The Bible has some intergenerational wisdom encoded in them" - yes, no guano, Sherlock. Anyone who accepts this has little to gain from listening to his musings on religion - which seems to be what occupies his mind 95% of the time nowadays.
Topic's author
#33
yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 265
0
2
3
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
3
-->
@MayCaesar
Peterson has used the dragon metaphor on more than one occasion. It is quite a significant metaphor of his. It was nothing new in his exchange with Dawkins and O'Connor. I maintain that these are likely not the types to have a great understanding of or regard for metaphorical language. 

Alex O'Connor once took a few minutes of prompting to just get Peterson to answer one straightforward question: does he believe that Jesus rose from the dead in this reality? Peterson did his best to wiggle out of the answer by bringing it a lot of pseudo-philosophical garbage. In the end, to a very carefully crafted question, he finally said: "I suspect the answer is yes". Why could he not say so immediately? Because making substantial statements is not something he is comfortable for.
He wanted to work through his answer. He may believe it to be one of the most, if not the most, consequential questions he has been asked.

Peterson poses as this deep thinker who sees all sides of every issue and does not commit to much in light of complexity of the questions - but in the end he ends up saying almost nothing. "The Bible has some intergenerational wisdom encoded in them" - yes, no guano, Sherlock. Anyone who accepts this has little to gain from listening to his musings on religion - which seems to be what occupies his mind 95% of the time nowadays.
He does not pose; he is a deep thinker. This is why he takes time with his answers. Perhaps you are not listening. It does seem that nowadays we cannot give thought to something for more than four seconds. It all has to be instantaneous. We are lazy and have become stupid, tribalist, and superficial. It is pitiful.
#34
MayCaesar
MayCaesar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 105
0
2
3
MayCaesar's avatar
MayCaesar
0
2
3
-->
@yachilviveyachali
How about answering the question and then elaborating on it, rather than going on endless tangents? A metaphor's purpose is to illustrate a point, not to substitute for it, and it appears that all Peterson does is the latter. To say that Dawkins or O'Connor have little regard for metaphorical language is quite something, when Dawkins regularly cites great works of fiction, and O'Conner has received the Oxford degree in theology. Perhaps they just know what the proper place for such language is, while Peterson thinks that its domain of applicability is unconstrained?

Peterson certainly is a deep thinker, and he has come up with some profound insights on evolutionary biology, sociology and politology. However, deep thinkers are highly susceptible to losing touch with reality and descending into madness, and that appears to have been his trajectory for the past 3-4 years. He has become increasingly irritatable, sophistic and vague. I just listened to his recent conversation with Sam Harris, and it was a world of difference from their debates in Vancouver, London an Dublin years back: the guy sounded like RFK, a full-on crank.
Topic's author
#35
yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 265
0
2
3
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
3
-->
@MayCaesar
I just listened to his recent conversation with Sam Harris, and it was a world of difference from their debates in Vancouver, London an Dublin years back: the guy sounded like RFK, a full-on crank.
Perhaps it was the company he was in? It is Sam Harris.

It may also be a reflection of the times.

You may think he has become eccentric or mentally unwell, but he has not become stupid. I believe he continues to be very sharp.

I would imagine Alex O'Connor studied theology to gain an upper hand in his debates with theists. He can claim he has knowledge, and may well have knowledge; knowledge that he uses against his opponent.
#36
MayCaesar
MayCaesar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 105
0
2
3
MayCaesar's avatar
MayCaesar
0
2
3
-->
@yachilviveyachali
I have had a few interactions like that with peole who claimed that there was a lot of depth to Peterson. Then I would ask them to give an example of an especially deep insight of his, and they never could. It seems that Peterson is a master of using sophisticated language that sounds profound, but amounts to nothing. I am not saying that he does it intentionally either - more likely he is just uncomfortable with concrete statements on some subjects for he is afraid to commit to something he is not fully sure of. His listeners marvel at his brilliant performances, then cannot name a single position of his.

During one of their debates, Sam said, "What worries me, Jordan, is that after all this time I still have no idea what you believe. And if I have no idea, then neither do the listeners". Being so unclear that nobody knows what you are trying to say is not a sign of sophistication, but of sophistry.
Topic's author
#37
yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 265
0
2
3
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
3
-->
@MayCaesar
During one of their debates, Sam said, "What worries me, Jordan, is that after all this time I still have no idea what you believe. And if I have no idea, then neither do the listeners". Being so unclear that nobody knows what you are trying to say is not a sign of sophistication, but of sophistry.
Why does Sam Harris need to know what Peterson believes?

Then I would ask them to give an example of an especially deep insight of his, and they never could.
Peterson is a psychologist, a natural psychologist. Psychologists are people who care about what we say and do. I have seen him make observations that many do not care to make. His most recent appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast was interesting. Rogan commented on the male desire for sex and said that men want to put it in as many women as they can. He said this is their biological instinct and that sex is fun. I could tell Peterson was then curious about Rogan's marriage, and that he wanted to find out whether it was a monogamous marriage. Rogan quite cleverly avoided talking about whether his marriage is monogamous or not, and even retorted to Peterson that he must have had women throwing themselves at him too.

His listeners marvel at his brilliant performances, then cannot name a single position of his.
I see this as a good thing. It is appealing to me. Peterson is here to ask questions and have interesting, lengthy, explorative discussions. He is not obliged to become a simpleton and spell out for us his positions. We know that he is in favor of critical thought, and this is what matters. He usually arrives at the right answer, and gives more detail than anyone else can give.
Topic's author
#38
yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 265
0
2
3
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
3
Psychologists analyze far more than the non-psychologist. It is to be expected that Peterson is very analytical and puts every word under the microscope.
#39
MayCaesar
MayCaesar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 105
0
2
3
MayCaesar's avatar
MayCaesar
0
2
3
-->
@yachilviveyachali
Please. He is not just here to ask questions: he makes very strong assertions on topics that he considers himself an expert at. "Dragons are as real as lions", "Atheism leads to nihilism", "Everyone has a Nazi prison guard in him", "Men are more interested in things, and women are more interested in people" - are just a few examples (and the latter two assertions I agree with).

Where he becomes obtuse is when probed further - he is very vague and dodgy when it comes to backing up his assertions on certain topics with an argument, or when it comes to religious truth claims that he very carefully avoids endorsing or rejecting. It is not hard for him to say how many genders there are, but to say whether the Great Flood actually happened or not - he cannot even say "I do not know"; instead, he will start the usual nonsense: "What do you mean by 'happened'? See, Carl Jung said that... [the tangent continues for as long as it takes for his conversation partner to give up on this line of questioning]"

From. your exerpt of his appearance on Rogan's podcast, his brilliant insight apparently was that sex is fun and is biologically encouraged. Wow, who would have known... Nobel Prize-worthy innovative finding.
Topic's author
#40
yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 265
0
2
3
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
3
-->
@MayCaesar
He is not just here to ask questions: he makes very strong assertions on topics that he considers himself an expert at. "Dragons are as real as lions", "Atheism leads to nihilism", "Everyone has a Nazi prison guard in him", "Men are more interested in things, and women are more interested in people" - are just a few examples (and the latter two assertions I agree with).
Why do you agree with the latter two and not the others?

It seems to me that you find fault with Peterson providing lengthy responses, yet are saying he does not explain the aforementioned views. Which one is it?

Where he becomes obtuse is when probed further - he is very vague and dodgy when it comes to backing up his assertions on certain topics with an argument, or when it comes to religious truth claims that he very carefully avoids endorsing or rejecting. It is not hard for him to say how many genders there are, but to say whether the Great Flood actually happened or not - he cannot even say "I do not know"; instead, he will start the usual nonsense: "What do you mean by 'happened'? See, Carl Jung said that... [the tangent continues for as long as it takes for his conversation partner to give up on this line of questioning]"
We know there are only two sexes (intersex are a combination of the two). Gender is not something I pay mind to. It seems the majority appear to be their sex. 

How would he know if the Great Flood happened?

From. your exerpt of his appearance on Rogan's podcast, his brilliant insight apparently was that sex is fun and is biologically encouraged. Wow, who would have known... Nobel Prize-worthy innovative finding.
This is not what I said. I am talking about Peterson's curiosity and talent in observing others and probing further. This is what a psychologist does. Others do not care. It is incredible that people miss so much and ask so few questions.
#41
MayCaesar
MayCaesar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 105
0
2
3
MayCaesar's avatar
MayCaesar
0
2
3
-->
@yachilviveyachali
Dragons clearly are not real: I do not need to elaborate on that, and I have already talked about differences between fantasy and reality. As for atheism -> nihilism, this is just a Christian projection: Christians tend to think that a finite life is meaningless, while more... rational people focus on enjoying the finite life that they demonstrably have.

On the Great Flood, we can hypothesize that it happened, suggest what evidence would confirm or reject it, and look for that evidence. The results of such searches have been very conclusive: there was no "Great Flood" or "Noah's Ark". This is all religious fiction.

Peterson is not doing a therapy session when talking to Harris or O'Connor. And even if he did, what kind of a psychologist cannot answer a simple yes or no question?
Topic's author
#42
yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 265
0
2
3
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
3
-->
@MayCaesar
Dragons clearly are not real: I do not need to elaborate on that, and I have already talked about differences between fantasy and reality. As for atheism -> nihilism, this is just a Christian projection: Christians tend to think that a finite life is meaningless, while more... rational people focus on enjoying the finite life that they demonstrably have.
Dragons are real when we are talking in metaphors.

Christians understand that there is meaning beyond their existence. You may be able to bring meaning to your life by doing things you enjoy, but they are simply things you enjoy. The meaning is something you have come up with and it sprang from nothingness. Atheism is nothingness.

On the Great Flood, we can hypothesize that it happened, suggest what evidence would confirm or reject it, and look for that evidence. The results of such searches have been very conclusive: there was no "Great Flood" or "Noah's Ark". This is all religious fiction.
Why do you seek to prove that which cannot be proven? It is not as if we can test God in a laboratory. You do not know what happened.

Peterson is not doing a therapy session when talking to Harris or O'Connor. And even if he did, what kind of a psychologist cannot answer a simple yes or no question?
They are not “simple yes or no questions.” Peterson would have simple answers if they were. He prefers to think about it and analyze the matter.
#43
MayCaesar
MayCaesar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 105
0
2
3
MayCaesar's avatar
MayCaesar
0
2
3
-->
@yachilviveyachali
When asking whether dragons exist, people do not ask whether they exist metaphorically. You know it and Peterson knows it. So please stop dodging the real issue.

Meaning beyond one's existence is a contradiction in terms. Something can only mean something to a conscious being, and outside of said consciousness the concept is inapplicable.

That which cannot be proven can be rejected on the spot. Otherwise, feel free to accept all kinds of invisible massless unicorns and descend into madness.

"Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead?" is a simple yes or no question. There are two options: "Yes I do", and "No I do not". If neither, then "I do not know". "What do you mean by 'believe'?" is a stupid response.
Topic's author
#44
yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 265
0
2
3
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
3
-->
@MayCaesar
When asking whether dragons exist, people do not ask whether they exist metaphorically. You know it and Peterson knows it. So please stop dodging the real issue.
It is a matter of context. If they are open to metaphor, you can say that dragons exist without it sounding wrong. When asking if there is evidence of the existence of the dragon, it would be correct to say there is not. The former is in the realm of religion and philosophy, while the latter remains in the realm of biology. However, when addressing the latter, we have to keep in mind that dragons are a representation of real creatures, comprise natural elements, and were an early explanation of dinosaurs.

Meaning beyond one's existence is a contradiction in terms. Something can only mean something to a conscious being, and outside of said consciousness the concept is inapplicable.
This is where you and theists disagree. Neither of you can be proven to be correct. It is a matter of belief and perspective. We will all see what awaits us in the end. I happen to believe in Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory.

That which cannot be proven can be rejected on the spot. Otherwise, feel free to accept all kinds of invisible massless unicorns and descend into madness.
I am happy to descend into madness. I don't want to reject things because they cannot be proven on the spot. You say it will lead to madness, but I say it is insane to reject that which you cannot prove on the spot. Do you not find this very limiting? How many things can really be proven on the spot?

"Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead?" is a simple yes or no question. There are two options: "Yes I do", and "No I do not". If neither, then "I do not know". "What do you mean by 'believe'?" is a stupid response.
Peterson explained his reasoning before arriving at his answer. This is no different from giving the answer and then explaining the reasoning, which you are expected to do.
#45
MayCaesar
MayCaesar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 105
0
2
3
MayCaesar's avatar
MayCaesar
0
2
3
-->
@yachilviveyachali
I am open to good answers to my questions. I am not open to metaphorical answers to concrete questions. If I ask whether 1+1=3 and you say yes, then you are speaking a different language than me. If everyone else speaks English and Jordan speaks Dragon, then he is a fool.

What I wrote is a basic logical conjecture. Its validity does not depend on what anyone believes. If you believe that A does not follow from A, then your belief is simply wrong.

Nobody said anything about proving something on the spot. You said that there are things that cannot be proven, and I said that they can be rejected on the spot.

"Before giving an answer"? In most cases he never gives the answer, and people have to press him hard to finally give one.
Does he believe in god? I have not seen him answer this one single time, even though "god" is what he nowadays talks about more than anything else.