Jordan Peterson definition of God

Homepage Forums Theism Jordan Peterson definition of God

This topic contains 136 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  Ivy 4 months, 1 week ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 137 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #26980

    Davis
    Participant

    Part of the concept of God that underlies the Western ethos is the notion that whatever God is, is expressed in the truthful speech that rectifies pathological hierarchies

    I don’t speak double dutch and there is no google translate for gobbledegook. Could you please explain this to me without the word-torturing and in a manner that is:

    1. Coherent

    2. Can be critically responded to

    3. Falsifiable or at the very least might be wrong?

    #26981

    Davis
    Participant

    Part of the concept of God that underlies the Western ethos is the notion that whatever God is, is expressed in the truthful speech that rectifies pathological hierarchies

    I don’t speak double dutch and there is no google translate for gobbledegook. Could you please explain this to me without the word-torturing and in a manner that is:

    1. Coherent

    2. Can be critically analysed and responded to

    3. Falsifiable or at the very least is not impervious to arguments that could demonstrate that it is wrong?

    • This reply was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by  Davis.
    #26983

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I’ve explained it in my last answer.

    #26984

    #26986

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Some things only sound like deepities because they might take some work to understand.  Their meanings may not be apparent on first sight.

    #26988

    God is how we imaginatively and collectively represent the existence of an action of consciousness across time; as the most real aspects of existence manifest themselves across the longest of time-frames but are not necessarily apprehensible as objects in the here and now.

    And He made a virgin pregnant with His son who is Himself.

    #26989

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Is it possible these deepity bloggers and self-help gurus will eventually replace the brick and mortar churches? Add them to the flat earthers, preppers, homeopaths, anti-vaccinators, MGTOW, Fake News adherents, Scientologists, LDS, climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, young earth creationists, mushroom-brain evolutionists, faith healers, chiropractors, suction cup therapists, acupuncturists. Anything but reality !!!

    #26995

    Ivy
    Participant

    @davis

    Your original words were:

    We use reason and logic and clarity to evaluate just about every claim we hear

    I’m wondering if you could point me to the “peer-reviewed” literature you read that allowed you to make such a claim….I’m sure you used your reasoning and logical skills. And who is “we?” Are you referring to all human beings on the planet? What about those who are illiterate?

    #26996

    Ivy
    Participant

    @davis

    It’s actually stunningly easy and common to use strong reasoning skills when doing this and most do it every day.

    And what about those who don’t or can’t? What about people who have damage to their brain that impairs their executive functioning? What may be “easy” for you is nearly impossible for them. How can you honestly assert that “most people do this every day in everything they do?” I’m honestly curious if that has some evidence to back it up or if that is your own projection and subjective opinion.

    #26997

    Ivy
    Participant

    @davis

    “Most” research psychologists are still learning how we can even reliably measure executive functioning.

    (Neuropsychology Review

    March 2006, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 17–42| Cite as
    Executive Function and the Frontal Lobes: A Meta-Analytic Review)

    I don’t see how the hell you “know” that “we all” are excellent at “evaluating claims” and we “all” do it “every day.” Particularly when you account how how much of the population has one or more cognitive impairments…

    The world is nowhere near as logical with all the “clarity” you seem to think “we all” have…..you must live in a utopian bubble

    #26998

    Ivy
    Participant

    And I think you’re forgetting how much of the world lives at the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid. They have survival on the mind 24/7. Not “evaluating claims.”

    #27005

    Davis
    Participant

    Ivy you are consistently responding to this fork in the conversation that misses my original point, which I don’t think you get and it seems you are entirely distracted on a very different topic of conversation. You are talking about “the way the world really works” and folk psychology. I don’t remember anyone bringing that up except you. Nobody here disagrees with you. Most of us are fully aware why people believe stupid things and I don’t really believe that anyone considers a poor under-educated villager in the Republic of Chad as a bad person or unusually derranged or inherantly stupid because of their belief in Allah. It’s unfortunate that we were designed to believe in crazy stupid shit until certain methods of inquiry are discovered AND valued. Nobody here has argued about this nor have I read a thinkatheist member who has the expectation that human beings could or even should develop critical thinking overnight or even ever at all, or that the people of Alabama should think the way I do (they clearly don’t nor won’t for a long time). I don’t even think that the scientific method is the one and only one, that it must be used and there is something wrong with you if you don’t. But when you put on the “argument through evidence hat” and use “the language of inquiry” and play the critical thinking game, then get ready for rigorous critical analysis. When religious people start passing off creationism as “science” and when nut case Muslim theologists attempt to formalize sharia law through normative ethics…then it is grotesque for them to cry “no fair” when their arguments are torn down (as they inevitably are).

    This discussion is about Jordan Peterson, an intellectual and academic who is well educated in the art of debate, problem solving, critical thinking and the formation and criticism of claims (and truth claims). He’s not even an uneducated ignorant. He practices critical thought in his field of study that he is an expert in, sort of kind of does it when it comes to his dubious “identity politicking” and completely loses it when it comes to religion. That would be fine if he put on a different hat. If he donned a “religious priest or theological commentator” outfit and spoke from subjective religious perspective, then I would have no problem with it (well I would cause it’s stupid bullshit but I wouldn’t fault a person for simply expressing their opinions while making it clear they are opinions without the fakery of intellectualism). He doesn’t do that. He does so as an intellectual, in intellectual forums, in question sessions where he mixes psychology, sociology and religion.

    With religion he breaks the rules and does so in a very deceptive way and I am nearly certain does so on purpose. His discourse becomes purposefully vague, evasive, confusing, meaningless and in many cases phrased in ways which make it impervious to debate or critical thought. As a player in formal debate, this makes him really truly the worst kind of charlatan. Because he has mastered the tecniques of academic integrity and uses them in his main field of study (mostly with fidelity) yet plays manipulative games of discourse when discussing religion, in a manner and in a forum of similar debate.

    It would be somewhat like a tax lawyer who plays by the rules when defending a client when it comes to taxes and fraud investigations gaining a reputation as a respected lawyer and uses that reputation to also moonlights on the side as an under qualified defense lawyer who breaks the rules and ignores procedures in order to get his best friend off scott free for some skanky indefensible crime. Maslow’s pyramid has nothing to do with this (we can save whether or not his theory is really that useful or even true for another discussion).

    That’s why he is an intellectual fraud and is dismissed by so many. It’s sad really.

    #27006

    Ivy
    Participant

    @davis I was honestly just following the rabbit trail of what YOU said in your post.

    You clearly don’t understand anything about his position on the Biblical stories. I’m curious to know how many hours of Jordan Peterson have you even watched?

    #27007

    Ivy
    Participant

     

    #27008

    Glen D
    Participant

    @ivy

    Just so.

    Simply put, the existence of god is an unfalsifiable claim. God cannot be argued into or out of existence.

    For that reason, I don’t get involved in arguments  of  a definition or  qualities of a putative god.

    Instead, I will post a favourite quote; Epicurus on god and the existence of evil:
    “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

    ― Epicurus

     

    • This reply was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by  Glen D.
    • This reply was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by  Glen D.
Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 137 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.