ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 13th September 2018, 12:14 PM   #121
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,884
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
The devout followers of Fred Phelps, TomŠs de Torquemada and Osama bin Laden listened to inspirational messages which led them to give themselves to a holy cause bigger than themselves.
Indeed. Another good point.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2018, 07:33 PM   #122
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 878
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
However, his main argument seems to be basically this (and I'm using my own words to synthesize his claim. This is NOT a quote in any form):

"Without Religion, we are left with nothing. Not morally. Not culturally. There's no music, architecture, literature, philosophy that comes with not believing in God. There's no inspirational message that leads us to give ourselves in to something bigger than us"
I'm listening to the debate now. I'm only part-way in, but I strongly doubt that Peterson would mean "without religion..." He has consistently talked about "transcendental values". At 22 mins in, he starts on that.

For Peterson, transcendental values are what gives meaning to morality, art, music, etc. Inspirational messages reflect transcendental values.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
As far as "inspirational messages that leads us to give ourselves to something bigger than us", Jordan only needs to look at people such as Carl Sagan and Neil Degrasse Tyson. Their delivery of science education and their ability to inspire, can and has created the same sense of awe at the grandiosity of the Universe, without ever having to claim that there's something other than the mere laws of physics operating behind all of this.
Peterson, I'm sure, would argue that the inspirational messages provided by Sagan and Tyson (and indeed those by Sam Harris and Ron_Tomkins) are somehow a reflection of truth, and not a subjective truth, but a truth underpinned by transcendental values.

Please note: I'm not defending Peterson here, just explaining what I think he means!

Last edited by GDon; 13th September 2018 at 09:13 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 05:12 AM   #123
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,502
And what is Judeo-Christian tradition based on?
Was the world an amoral hell-scape before the Messiah showed up?
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 05:29 AM   #124
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,672
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
True. Peterson keeps going back to the argument that everything that is moral or beautiful, or inspiring, or insightful, etc, comes from the Judeo-Christian tradition. It has been pointed out to him several times that this is factually incorrect, but he just keeps ignoring it.
Well, that is the purpose of his reference to "archetypes". All the literature in the world, if it is successful, is based on archetypes that go back into antiquity which themselves are written into the fabric of the universe etc... these stories have evolutionary benefits etc...
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 05:50 AM   #125
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Well, that is the purpose of his reference to "archetypes". All the literature in the world, if it is successful, is based on archetypes that go back into antiquity which themselves are written into the fabric of the universe etc... these stories have evolutionary benefits etc...
Its bizarre how little Peterson understands about evolution.
The "archetype" concept flies in the face of Game Theory: breaking the mold will make you much more successful than re-hashing old patterns.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 06:24 AM   #126
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,156
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
breaking the mold will make you much more successful than re-hashing old patterns.
Only if the context changes, though. If something 'sells', keep selling it.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 06:47 AM   #127
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Only if the context changes, though. If something 'sells', keep selling it.
Not true.
Freeloaders can pretend to stick to the pattern without actually fulfilling their role ... and that destabilizes the system.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 07:02 AM   #128
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,156
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Not true.
Freeloaders can pretend to stick to the pattern without actually fulfilling their role ... and that destabilizes the system.
Can. But you said "will". Evolution usually makes good leaps when the context changes. Otherwise there's little point in trying to change a winning formula.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 07:34 AM   #129
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Can. But you said "will". Evolution usually makes good leaps when the context changes. Otherwise there's little point in trying to change a winning formula.
We are not talking evolution, we are talking learned and adapted social behavior.
And it is humans who change the context - they don't wait for nature to change it for them.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 07:41 AM   #130
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,884
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
I'm listening to the debate now. I'm only part-way in, but I strongly doubt that Peterson would mean "without religion..."
Oh but he does in fact claim that "without religion" we would be left without any moral framework. Do listen to the entire conversation. He also has said this in most, if not all, past debates. He claimed this in the other debate with Sam Harris and Bret Weinstein. He claimed this in his debate with Matt Dillahunty. It is pretty clear that his belief is basically: Without religion, we would all be like Raskolnikov: Amoral monsters who, after realizing there is no God, would find no reason not to commit the worst atrocities possible.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 07:42 AM   #131
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,884
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
And what is Judeo-Christian tradition based on?
Was the world an amoral hell-scape before the Messiah showed up?
That's exactly what I want him to address. Does he really think that Christianity invented morality?
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 08:11 AM   #132
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,156
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
We are not talking evolution, we are talking learned and adapted social behavior.
Er... ok?

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Its bizarre how little Peterson understands about evolution.
The "archetype" concept flies in the face of Game Theory: breaking the mold will make you much more successful than re-hashing old patterns.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 08:26 AM   #133
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Er... ok?
Peterson thinks that Evolution can produce something like brain pre-forms that necessarily lead to archetype-like characters. Chomsky thought something similar.
Current knowledge says that's wrong.
For all we know, if we could take a time machine and pick up a health early Homo Sapiens baby and raise it like any of ours other, it would not fall out of today's norm.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 05:45 PM   #134
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,403
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
SH: Thatís not at all what God is believed to be. Just about all people think heís the Big Man in the Sky

JP: No thatís not at all true, people have been arguing over this exact question for millennia. Just about all traditions place God as something beyond your understanding

BW: I actually listened to what JP was saying and his definitions make perfect sense to me and I can relate to that
Peterson is right. His definition or something like it has been around for millenia, predating Christianity. I recommend Karen Armstrong's "History of God", who goes into the evolution of beliefs in God.
Peterson is not even close to being right. The vast majority of people who affirm belief in a god really do think of it as being some variation of "big man in the sky."

Pointing out older ideas does not change this fact. You might as well say that when the phrase "God made flesh" is spoken in church, it is a reference to Zeus taking the form of a swan, because that's older than the Jesus story.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2018, 07:00 AM   #135
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,672
Here is a great clip from the most recent (I think) Sam Harris vs. Jordan Peterson debate which Douglas Murray was moderating.

Harris has now been in discussion/debate with Peterson for maybe 10 hours if you include the two podcasts, the two discussions with Weinstein, and this one, and he says he still doesn't know what JP's view on the existence of God is.

According to the Twitter explanation:

"Jordan Peterson has a mini-tantrum with the audience when Sam Harris presses him on his religious proclamations."

Then Harris says: "I have never heard so many people applaud the evasion of a simple question"

https://twitter.com/GSpellchecker/st...73019241934849
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2018, 07:12 AM   #136
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,884
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Here is a great clip from the most recent (I think) Sam Harris vs. Jordan Peterson debate which Douglas Murray was moderating.

Harris has now been in discussion/debate with Peterson for maybe 10 hours if you include the two podcasts, the two discussions with Weinstein, and this one, and he says he still doesn't know what JP's view on the existence of God is.

According to the Twitter explanation:

"Jordan Peterson has a mini-tantrum with the audience when Sam Harris presses him on his religious proclamations."

Then Harris says: "I have never heard so many people applaud the evasion of a simple question"

https://twitter.com/GSpellchecker/st...73019241934849
Hahaha, yup. That moment was the highlight of the debate. The moment when Peterson for a moment, revealed his inner child and threw a tantrum, lecturing the audience with all his "Oh please! Like any of you know deep down what you believe! You have no idea about the complexity of your own beliefs blablabla"

It was one of those moments where the real Jordan Peterson seemed to come out. Compare that to the Jordan Peterson being interviewed by Cathy Newman. Calm, relaxed, cool, always in control. Of course, Cathy Newman literally hung herself with her own stupid questions, so there was very little to do there at all.

But when dealing with the real questions that tap into the essence of the discussion, of course Peterson loses his cool. And this is because I think that ironically, as much as Peterson claims that atheists "don't act as if they don't believe in God", Peterson himself doesn't act as if he believed in one. Instead, he acts as someone who "believes in belief", a phenomena that Daniel Dennett has talked about extensively, where a person doesn't really believe in God. They just believe that belief in God is something that is important and necessary, even if deep down, you know that's probably ********.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2018, 07:38 AM   #137
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,672
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Hahaha, yup. That moment was the highlight of the debate. The moment when Peterson for a moment, revealed his inner child and threw a tantrum, lecturing the audience with all his "Oh please! Like any of you know deep down what you believe! You have no idea about the complexity of your own beliefs blablabla"

It was one of those moments where the real Jordan Peterson seemed to come out. Compare that to the Jordan Peterson being interviewed by Cathy Newman. Calm, relaxed, cool, always in control. Of course, Cathy Newman literally hung herself with her own stupid questions, so there was very little to do there at all.

But when dealing with the real questions that tap into the essence of the discussion, of course Peterson loses his cool. And this is because I think that ironically, as much as Peterson claims that atheists "don't act as if they don't believe in God", Peterson himself doesn't act as if he believed in one. Instead, he acts as someone who "believes in belief", a phenomena that Daniel Dennett has talked about extensively, where a person doesn't really believe in God. They just believe that belief in God is something that is important and necessary, even if deep down, you know that's probably ********.
Peterson has explicitly said on a few occasions that people need religion, and that without it they would do terrible things (like Raskolnikoff) and would be incapable of good things (like giving up smoking!). But he cannot apparently answer the question of whether or not an actual existing omnipotent or omniscient creator being described in the Bible is really there and is really necessary and decides to throw out any epistemological tools to avoid stating his view.

I don't know if it is the "real" Jordan Peterson, but there are times when the cognitive dissonance shows. Whereas on some topics when he isn't required make a strong metaphysical stance, such as whether there is a gender pay gap he apparently has no trouble rattling off a list of beliefs (that there is evidence that women make different choices from men, that they have different personality types, that these are statistical facts for groups rather than for every individual, etc...) when it comes to his foundational beliefs, he apparently professes complete uncertainty about whether we can even know what our beliefs are.

To me this reveals he is arguing in bad faith. Why does he do it? I don't know. I think Murray possibly hit on the reason, and that is he is "Jesus smuggling" and is something I suspected way back in the first argument that Harris and him had on truth as though he was trying hard to get the other person to say, "Well, okay then, the Bible is true" so that he can say, "Ta-da, you agree then, that Jesus and the Bible are literally true! I win! Atheism is dead!"
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2018, 07:45 AM   #138
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,884
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Peterson has explicitly said on a few occasions that people need religion, and that without it they would do terrible things (like Raskolnikoff) and would be incapable of good things (like giving up smoking!). But he cannot apparently answer the question of whether or not an actual existing omnipotent or omniscient creator being described in the Bible is really there and is really necessary and decides to throw out any epistemological tools to avoid stating his view.
Yeah, well, that's precisely what I mean: He believes in belief. Not in God. Just in the power of believing in God. He believes people need Religion, but not necessarily a literal belief in a deity. His last debates with Sam Harris have suggested that while he may not technically believe in a God, he certainly believes that a belief in a God can keep mankind on their best behavior. Everything that Jordan Peterson says, does nothing but confirm to me that 1) He does not behave like someone who in fact believes in God, and 2) He behaves like someone who believes in belief.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2018, 07:55 AM   #139
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,429
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Yeah, well, that's precisely what I mean: He believes in belief. Not in God. Just in the power of believing in God. He believes people need Religion, but not necessarily a literal belief in a deity.
Like you I question how much of this is his personal belief and how much of this is his apologetic argument.

I've mentioned something sort of like this before when the arguments for vague Gods of vague vagueness doing vague things comes up, that's it's obviously a trap argument, an attempt to water the concept down to get someone to make a surface level agreement and, once the foot is in the door, bootstrap their original version of God back up into the argument.

This seems to be the same thing just even one more step removed. "Everybody believes in something, ergo belief in anything is justified."
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 17th September 2018 at 07:57 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2018, 08:16 AM   #140
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,884
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Like you I question how much of this is his personal belief and how much of this is his apologetic argument.

I've mentioned something sort of like this before when the arguments for vague Gods of vague vagueness doing vague things comes up, that's it's obviously a trap argument, an attempt to water the concept down to get someone to make a surface level agreement and, once the foot is in the door, bootstrap their original version of God back up into the argument.

This seems to be the same thing just even one more step removed. "Everybody believes in something, ergo belief in anything is justified."
Yeah, that assertion is one of the most popular fallacious assertions when it comes to this topic.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2018, 08:19 AM   #141
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,429
So yeah even if "belief" is required for the human condition (and let's just go ahead pretend and we've had a 50+ page hijack arguing the exact definition of "belief" to Narnia and back) it wouldn't require belief in absurdities or falsehoods.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2018, 08:27 AM   #142
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,502
It seems to me that Peterson put all his money on Pascal's Wager and doesn't dare to deny God in case he gets sent to hell.
It goes beyond belief in belief itself.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:36 AM   #143
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 878
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Hahaha, yup. That moment was the highlight of the debate. The moment when Peterson for a moment, revealed his inner child and threw a tantrum, lecturing the audience with all his "Oh please! Like any of you know deep down what you believe! You have no idea about the complexity of your own beliefs blablabla"
Doesn't Sam Harris then tell Peterson that Peterson is right? From around 68 mins in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aALsFhZKg-Q

Harris responds: "Yes. Everything you just said about not being fully transparent to yourself is true."

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
It was one of those moments where the real Jordan Peterson seemed to come out.
Those moments are usually when someone who isn't a clinical psychiatrist makes a comment that touches on the topic that Peterson finds nonsensical. Sam Harris clearly backs Peterson up on the point that Peterson is responding to.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:15 AM   #144
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,013
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Doesn't Sam Harris then tell Peterson that Peterson is right? From around 68 mins in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aALsFhZKg-Q

Harris responds: "Yes. Everything you just said about not being fully transparent to yourself is true."
Did you miss Harris' words immediately prior to the ones you quoted: "I've never heard so much applause for the evasion of a simple question"?

So yes, he agrees that Peterson is right about something which has absolutely nothing to do with his question.

Quote:
Sam Harris clearly backs Peterson up on the point that Peterson is responding to.
Nope.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:40 AM   #145
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,156
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Peterson thinks that Evolution can produce something like brain pre-forms that necessarily lead to archetype-like characters. Chomsky thought something similar.
Current knowledge says that's wrong.
For all we know, if we could take a time machine and pick up a health early Homo Sapiens baby and raise it like any of ours other, it would not fall out of today's norm.
That's my understanding as well. I'm honestly not sure what the hell he means by archetype anyway.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:43 AM   #146
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,156
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Hahaha, yup. That moment was the highlight of the debate. The moment when Peterson for a moment, revealed his inner child and threw a tantrum, lecturing the audience with all his "Oh please! Like any of you know deep down what you believe! You have no idea about the complexity of your own beliefs blablabla"

It was one of those moments where the real Jordan Peterson seemed to come out. Compare that to the Jordan Peterson being interviewed by Cathy Newman. Calm, relaxed, cool, always in control. Of course, Cathy Newman literally hung herself with her own stupid questions, so there was very little to do there at all.
His problem, of course, is that it's impossible to be more calm, relaxed, cool and always in control than Sam Harris. The man's completely disarming in his level-headedness. So it follows that the relentless assault of logic eventually got to him.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:49 AM   #147
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,156
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Yeah, well, that's precisely what I mean: He believes in belief. Not in God. Just in the power of believing in God. He believes people need Religion, but not necessarily a literal belief in a deity.
That matches with the experience I've had with some theists before.

In one example, a friend of mine who was the believer of the group told me that, were he to not believe in god, he'd be devastated because there'd be no justice in the world. Sounds like he chooses to believe because the alternative is undesirable.

In another example, when my paternal grandmother died, a priest came in and spoke the usual platitudes... until he said something very odd. He said that 'we believe she's in a better place now' and something to the effect that this made it easier to accept her death. I'm paraphrasing, but it sounded like he knew there was no logic or reason, but that faith is based on the need to believe in things that make sense of the world, not an actual conviction in these things.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:50 AM   #148
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,156
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
It seems to me that Peterson put all his money on Pascal's Wager and doesn't dare to deny God in case he gets sent to hell.
Ha! Sucks to be him. The one true god is Vishnu!
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:29 AM   #149
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 878
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Did you miss Harris' words immediately prior to the ones you quoted: "I've never heard so much applause for the evasion of a simple question"?
No, but that has nothing to do with Peterson's 'tantrum'. Peterson simply gives a laugh at Harris's words there.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
So yes, he agrees that Peterson is right about something which has absolutely nothing to do with his question.
True enough, but I was responding to Ron_Tomkins's comment about Peterson's tantrum.

Last edited by GDon; Yesterday at 05:30 AM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:50 AM   #150
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,013
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
No, but that has nothing to do with Peterson's 'tantrum'. Peterson simply gives a laugh at Harris's words there.


True enough, but I was responding to Ron_Tomkins's comment about Peterson's tantrum.
Of course it does, his "tantrum" was precisely his evasion of Harris' question.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:54 AM   #151
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,884
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That matches with the experience I've had with some theists before.

In one example, a friend of mine who was the believer of the group told me that, were he to not believe in god, he'd be devastated because there'd be no justice in the world. Sounds like he chooses to believe because the alternative is undesirable.

In another example, when my paternal grandmother died, a priest came in and spoke the usual platitudes... until he said something very odd. He said that 'we believe she's in a better place now' and something to the effect that this made it easier to accept her death. I'm paraphrasing, but it sounded like he knew there was no logic or reason, but that faith is based on the need to believe in things that make sense of the world, not an actual conviction in these things.
Yup. I'm finding that more frequently, what people call belief turns out to be belief in belief.

The real believers, the ones who literally think they're doing the work of God and going to a better place after the die, are usually the ones who hijack planes and crash them against buildings. Those guys have no trace of a doubt about their belief.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:07 AM   #152
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,156
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Yup. I'm finding that more frequently, what people call belief turns out to be belief in belief.
That sure explains why they have some affinity towards other believers, even across religions, more than towards atheists.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:30 AM   #153
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,672
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Yup. I'm finding that more frequently, what people call belief turns out to be belief in belief.

The real believers, the ones who literally think they're doing the work of God and going to a better place after the die, are usually the ones who hijack planes and crash them against buildings. Those guys have no trace of a doubt about their belief.
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That sure explains why they have some affinity towards other believers, even across religions, more than towards atheists.
It's not really surprising. It is a kind of circling of the wagons on the parts of the religious, and also a type of Rube-Goldbergian argument style.

These days, it is hard to be taken seriously by simply coming out with an argument that values are those that are created by God, and only by following the one true God can you be Good. etc... because you will be asked for evidence. There are some who grasp the nettle and say, "look, a hurricane blew in and killed a bunch of people. That's evidence of sin!" but these people are mostly considered to be cranks and would not be able to sit on a stage with Sam Harris and Douglas Murray and be taken seriously.

So, now you have to come at the topic from an angle where people don't always see you coming and some people are blindsided by it.

"Ah! Have you ever noticed how there are some truths in the Bible which seem to be built into humanity, maybe guiding evolution. Maybe these are there for some cosmic purpose that we cannot doubt and therefore we have to live in a religious mode. Also... lobsters!"
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:33 AM   #154
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,429
Some religious apologetics is, I think, undergoing a pretty meaningful shift in how it is dealing with the concept of belief, trying to take us back to a pre-enlightment version of it.

Essentially if you notice a lot, lot of the arguments we're starting to see out of the religious apologetics is less "I'm right (or can't be proven wrong) because of Contrived Special Pleading Version Y" as it has been for so long but "I'm wrong but it doesn't matter because belief/happiness/whatever" is more important.

Again for a while now that I've been getting this itchy idea in the back of my head that certain concepts actually have been argued into a corner hard enough that the only way for them to survive is to switch to an even more anti-intellectual "Being right is over-rated, I'm factually wrong but that doesn't matter" angle.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:40 AM   #155
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,672
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Doesn't Sam Harris then tell Peterson that Peterson is right? From around 68 mins in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aALsFhZKg-Q

Harris responds: "Yes. Everything you just said about not being fully transparent to yourself is true."


Those moments are usually when someone who isn't a clinical psychiatrist makes a comment that touches on the topic that Peterson finds nonsensical. Sam Harris clearly backs Peterson up on the point that Peterson is responding to.
No, no, no!

You cannot seriously argue that Harris's challenge to Peterson is adequately explained by Peterson's answer. The whole point is that Peterson says something that is true, but not relevant to the question. Harris then demonstrates that it is perfectly possible to answer his question in a satisfactory way, and yet Peterson continues to obfuscate.

He then asks whether the Bible has some significant status unlike any other book, or whether it is just old writings by human beings like ourselves.

Peterson's answer, "I think it's both!"

(He's a man of faith - Bad faith!)

Harris asks where this inspiration comes from (he is clearly asking whether Peterson is positing supernatural origin).

Peterson says we don't know where inspiration comes from.

Peterson is an intellectual charlatan.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:45 AM   #156
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,429
It's a common tactic, one several posters here in fact base their entire intellectual framework on.

"If you devalue the entire concept of knowledge so that nobody is provably right to your standards, you save yourself from having to admit you are wrong about any specific one thing."

It's an absolutely infuriating intellectual shellgame, picking one specific special pleading "out" to drop only when you are arguing into a corner.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:51 AM   #157
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,403
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
You cannot seriously argue that Harris's challenge to Peterson is adequately explained by Peterson's answer. The whole point is that Peterson says something that is true, but not relevant to the question. Harris then demonstrates that it is perfectly possible to answer his question in a satisfactory way, and yet Peterson continues to obfuscate.
Hey can you come pick me up from work in 15 minutes?
You want me to drive cross-country in 15 minutes? Nobody can do that! If you could do that, you'd be omnipotent!
Dude, I'm like a mile away. If you're busy, just say so.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:54 AM   #158
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,884
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
It's not really surprising. It is a kind of circling of the wagons on the parts of the religious, and also a type of Rube-Goldbergian argument style.

These days, it is hard to be taken seriously by simply coming out with an argument that values are those that are created by God, and only by following the one true God can you be Good. etc... because you will be asked for evidence. There are some who grasp the nettle and say, "look, a hurricane blew in and killed a bunch of people. That's evidence of sin!" but these people are mostly considered to be cranks and would not be able to sit on a stage with Sam Harris and Douglas Murray and be taken seriously.

So, now you have to come at the topic from an angle where people don't always see you coming and some people are blindsided by it.

"Ah! Have you ever noticed how there are some truths in the Bible which seem to be built into humanity, maybe guiding evolution. Maybe these are there for some cosmic purpose that we cannot doubt and therefore we have to live in a religious mode. Also... lobsters!"
Yes. Belief in a way has been forced to evolve. It had to make some decisions to give up certain arguments because they can't hold water. So now, the arguments take a different shape. Basically, the goalposts have been shifted and the discussion is less literal and more abstract, avoiding any clear definitions or any consistent language, so belief can remain safe from any critical analysis/debunking. It's less "I have the absolute truth because God has dictated it to me", and more "But what is truth anyway? Can anyone know? Therefore, God"
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:55 AM   #159
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,672
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
It's a common tactic, one several posters here in fact base their entire intellectual framework on.

"If you devalue the entire concept of knowledge so that nobody is provably right to your standards, you save yourself from having to admit you are wrong about any specific one thing."

It's an absolutely infuriating intellectual shellgame, picking one specific special pleading "out" to drop only when you are arguing into a corner.
Yep, it's "Going Nuclear!"
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:58 AM   #160
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,429
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Yep, it's "Going Nuclear!"
Yeah and it's a functionally insane methodology that makes zero sense but it keeps getting used and it is surprisingly effective.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.