Are Atheists Closeted Believers Or Is Jordan Peterson A Closeted Atheist?

Homepage Forums Atheism Are Atheists Closeted Believers Or Is Jordan Peterson A Closeted Atheist?

This topic contains 33 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  Simon Paynton 6 months, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 34 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #9243

    Unseen
    Participant

    If you’ve no idea who Dr. Jordan Peterson, Matt Dillahunty, or even David Pakman is, Youtube is full of videos by or about them.

    Why Jordan Peterson has more in common with atheists than Christians

    • This topic was modified 7 months ago by  Unseen.
    #9245

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Jordan Peterson’s acclaim as an intellectual is as much a condemnation of his fawning admirers as Trump’s presidency is a condemnation of a substantial minority of Americans

    #9246

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Jordan Peterson’s cool, he’s the real thing.  There’s a lot of Jungian stuff there which may muddy the waters for us strict rationalists.

    #9248

    _Robert_
    Participant

    I think he is correct on several topics but for the wrong reasons. I was kind of like that before I gave up my faith. It’s not like my social and political views all changed when I realized I didn’t believe. For many people their faith seems to dictate their political and social views on life. To me, belief was a separate thing.

    #9249

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    @robert – “I think he is correct on several topics but for the wrong reasons.

    – what do you mean?  I don’t think religion is a central part of his take-away message at all.  I think it’s more, “sort yourself out”.

    #9250

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Charlatan with a capital C…i won’t critique his ideas because i have to read/listen to him and he makes me ill.

    #9251

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    But he gets real results.  A lot of people, especially young men, including quite a few heroin addicts, have credited him with turning their lives around.

    #9252

    Unseen
    Participant

    His argument in a nutshell (nut’s hell) is that anyone who is moral must at heart be a believer in God.

    It’s a strange combination of poisoning the well with an egotistical “I know you better than you even know yourself.”

    He claims to be a believer and defends belief, but it’s hard to put a finger on any particular belief he holds other than that he believes in God, though her doesn’t tell us very much about this God he believes in, making him hard to criticize because “There’s no there there.”

    • This reply was modified 7 months ago by  Unseen.
    #9256

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen, if that is a fair synopsis of Peterson it helps me to understand him.  (gonna speculate here)

    I was so taken aback listening to his epistemology which i characterize as pre-caveman and post-modern sophistry.  It is the little engine that enables his message. Similarly faith enables any form of religion.  I would not be surprised if he does not himself believe that message.  But like any charlatan he will peddle anything that promotes his message.

    No need to even comment on the idea that he knows the mind of the believer.

    The first claim equating belief in god with morality ought to be attacked savagely by anti-theists. It is a greater lie than the the lie it is built upon-the lie about gods and our special place in the universe.

    1. Thousands of gods-how to know which one to believe? No rational way to distinguish one from another.  So it is an accident of our birth or path which determines which god we subscribe to.  Since gods promote different morals we are lucky indeed if we have received the one true law as to morality.

    2. Therefore belief insures that the majority who follow their belief are immoral.  Pity.

    3. The gods have in common a demand for obedience.  If the believers are in effect slaves to the gods who give morals then it follows  believers are slaves to the fabricators of gods. But those who constructed the gods were using the contemporary mores.  Thus slavery, subordinate women,  smite, smote, rip the nuts off of the bad guys,  protect the status quo of haves and have-nots; most of which conflict with our good sense and with any proper sense of fairness.

    4. The idea of belief in god as sine qua non of morality is inextricably linked with orthodoxy. If a purported believer is in violation of the strictures of her particular god then she is immoral.  But we all know that the orthodox are fucking nuts and if we were each of us TRUE FOLLOWERS that the conflicts, nastiness, harshness and  brutality would be even worse than it already is.

    5. There is little room for followers to account for the nuances of a situation but that is exactly how life comes at us.  A morality derived from an angry god is going to dispatch the offender but we are better than that.  We have come to understand nuances and uncertainty and must employ it in judging of a person or issue.  Life is not always black and white. It is nebulous.  But not for believers who are true followers. They are stuck with the caveman morality that judges harshly and without consideration of what we have learned through science and reason.

    6. We know from various studies that individuals who are atheists are no more unethical than believers.  In many instances they are better people.  True belief turns you into a suicide bomber or a man who beats the hell out of his wife.  It is not a surprise.  MORALITY REQUIRES THE EXERCISE OF OUR JUDGMENT!  When a person becomes a believer that person is moral if at all by accident.

    #9257

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    @jakelafort – “a fair synopsis of Peterson

    – from what I’ve seen, it’s more “using psychology to better yourself”.  The religious part probably comes from Jung and his archetypes.  I’ve barely seen him mention religion or morality at all.

    The famously painful interview with Sam Harris was a mismatch between different definitions of truth.  Harris used a purely “rational” definition, while Peterson’s could be summed up as “truth is love”, i.e. that rationality is there to be used for the betterment of life.

    #9258

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Simon that performance against Harris was indefensible.

    Further, anybody who wants to promote belief is a person i have no use for…

    I read the article about him that Reg linked and it further cemented my opinion of him.  I aint saying there is nothing of merit in what he has to say but i don’t care to listen to him.  He is for me disqualified as a thinker.  I lost respect for Trump very quickly.  I lost respect for Peterson as well.  There is room for differences of opinion in some matters.  But on other occasions a person has exposed a fundamental lack of rationalism, so much so that i dismiss him.

    #9260

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    @jakelafort – why don’t you watch the half-hour interview he did for British TV, which is on Sunday School May 6th.  Instead of what other people have to say.  That will give you a good representation of what he’s about – you may be surprised.  He doesn’t mention God once, and morality maybe glancingly.

    #9263

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Again Simon, i have no use for J. P.

    It is a sad state of affairs when we human are so little discriminating that a charlatan as transparent as he is elevated as a guy with answers.  Some credit Jesus Christ with their turnaround. Some credit J. Peterson.  So?  It is of little value in judging of his ideas.  Further, whatever good he does in helping addicts he more than counteracts in his epistemology and in pushing the two-ton lie that it takes belief in a god to be moral.  For christ sake we hear atheists defending themselves to theists how they can be moral without god.  It ought to be the other way around.

    #9264

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    @jakelafort – you don’t want to believe everything you hear.  It’s more scientific to go straight to the horse’s mouth.

    #9266

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Simon, i listened to JP.  He is a nothing. The king has on no clothes but he should wear something.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 34 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.