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 24th August 2018, 01:05 PM   #1
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,898
Jordan Peterson's Religious Apologetic Arguments

I'm one of the many who has been following Jordan Peterson. My first exposure to him was the famous interview with Cathy So-you're-saying Newman. Peterson always struck me as a very rational fella, and even after I first heard him talk about the Metaphysical, and after realizing that he's a Christian, I thought he could nonetheless be a very important voice in today's era.

And while he does sustain very reasonable positions on Social Issues, such as the #metoo movement, gender pronouns and freedom of speech, I must say, when it comes to Religion and the supernatural, his positions are really poor and bordering on childish.

It was this particular interview with Matt Dellahunty that really began shedding some light on how ignorant he can be on the subject:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


He makes a lot of fallacious claims here, but just to highlight his worst ones:

* Consumption of drugs and hallucinogens is proof of the metaphysical
* You cannot quit smoking without use of mushrooms and other hallucinogens
* There is no such thing as Atheists. Atheists are basically closet Deists.
* The proof that you are secretly a Deist is that you have a moral code (In other words: Existence of a moral code is synonym with Religious belief)
* (As a consequence of the previous assertion)If there were such thing as an Atheist, it would be the most immoral kind of person. One that would murder and rape under the premise that there is no such thing as morality, "so then why bother being good"?


It is clear that some of these claims are very old, long-time debunked assertions that are not only false, but insulting. To say to an atheist, either that you know better than them whether or not they're an atheist, or then to say "If you actually are an atheist, you're an immoral person" is extremely insulting.


Regardless, as I said earlier, I think Peterson is an important voice for Social Issues. And he can be extremely brilliant and rational when it comes to these issues, and be totally on the side of science. But as soon as the discussion shifts to Religion and Morality, it's like he changes helmets, and goes from rational Peterson to irrational Peterson. It's really bizarre, kinda like a Jekyll/Mr Hyde transformation. Matt Dellahunty even called it out on the debate by saying that he was trying to be very careful not to do to Peterson what Cathy Newman did on the famous BBC interview, and now instead Peterson is doing that to him, by constantly interrupting him and putting words in his mouth.

My take on the Peterson phenomena: He became a popular figure because of his tenacity to fight against Social Justice Warriors and the PC Culture. But with his fame and amount of exposure, we're not seeing the other side of him that we didn't know of.

What is your personal take on the Peterson Phenomena?
__________________
"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 24th August 2018, 01:15 PM   #2
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,547
From what you describe it seems like not only apologetics, not only bad apologetics, but bad "old" apologetics we've seen a thousand times.

The "Atheist are really religious but just don't admit it" and "Why bother with anything" and "Any moral behavior is really a sign that you believe in God because of... reasons" are all pretty old hat at this point.

The drug use apologetics is novel coming from a religious apologist, but druggies pretending what they are doing is spiritual has been common enough in the margins for a few generations now that it leaking into the more mainstream religious apologetics is hardly surprising.

I'll watch the video when I get home but from a few articles I quickly found on the guy it seems (I reserve full rights to adjust this later) like a guy who is very good at saying things that people really want to hear coming from a source of expertise.

It's not quite a "Cult of Personality" but... it is in the same section of the library.
__________________
"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 online now   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 24th August 2018, 01:24 PM   #3
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,714
Never heard of him. Can you provide the times where he makes the points you've listed?
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc is online now   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 24th August 2018, 01:50 PM   #4
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,745
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
* There is no such thing as Atheists. Atheists are basically closet Deists.
I'm a closet Atheist. Does that mean I'm in a closet in my closet? Because I'm claustrophobic here people.
Quote:
* The proof that you are secretly a Deist is that you have a moral code (In other words: Existence of a moral code is synonym with Religious belief)
* (As a consequence of the previous assertion)If there were such thing as an Atheist, it would be the most immoral kind of person. One that would murder and rape under the premise that there is no such thing as morality, "so then why bother being good"?
The devil certainly believes in God, soooo....

I don't know this Peterson guy, but I'm not impressed thus far.
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

- Professional Wastrel
sylvan8798 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 24th August 2018, 01:59 PM   #5
nelsondogg
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 322
My first exposure to him was when he and Sam Harris debated the meaning of truth for two hours on Sam's podcast. Peterson was absolutely ridiculous (basically arguing things are only true if they promote our survival), and that told me everything I needed to know about him.
nelsondogg is online now   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 24th August 2018, 02:04 PM   #6
sir drinks-a-lot
Illuminator
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 3,364
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
What is your personal take on the Peterson Phenomena?
I guess I'm pro-Peterson, whatever that means. I heard of him long ago when some students accosted him on campus accusing him of racism and racism and homophobia and all sorts of other things because he disagreed with legislation about personal pronouns in Canada.

Since then I've seen several other interviews and snippets, including the "so you're saying" Cathy Newman disaster. I've always found him somewhat interesting, but am surprised that he's become such a figurehead when there are so many others that are just as eloquent as he can be on the various issues he discusses.

As far as religion, I thought he was sort of a Jungian religious sort, which I sort of agree with to the extent I understand it. But don't quote me on that. Speaking of quotes, how many of the items in your bullet list were direct quotes? Or were they your interpretations of what he said?

He is definitely more religious than someone like Douglas Murray, who I probably enjoy listening to more on some of the social issues. Murray is an atheist, but one who is starting to see some value in Christianity in a sort of peculiar way. Through listening to him on several occasions, I was referred to a paper by Jürgen Habermas entitled An Awareness of What is Missing which is an enjoyable read.
__________________
I drink to the general joy o' th' whole table. --William Shakespeare
sir drinks-a-lot 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 24th August 2018, 02:06 PM   #7
sir drinks-a-lot
Illuminator
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 3,364
Originally Posted by nelsondogg View Post
My first exposure to him was when he and Sam Harris debated the meaning of truth for two hours on Sam's podcast. Peterson was absolutely ridiculous (basically arguing things are only true if they promote our survival), and that told me everything I needed to know about him.
They did a second podcast which apparently went better. In the second one, which I listened to having not heard the first, they discussed the dumpster fire of the first podcast for a short time before moving on to many other topics.
__________________
I drink to the general joy o' th' whole table. --William Shakespeare
sir drinks-a-lot 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 24th August 2018, 02:20 PM   #8
nelsondogg
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 322
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
They did a second podcast which apparently went better. In the second one, which I listened to having not heard the first, they discussed the dumpster fire of the first podcast for a short time before moving on to many other topics.
I listened to that a well, but I didn't think the first was a dumpster fire at all. It was very illuminating. Peterson rails against the post modernism in the trans gender pronoun debate yet his views on truth are as po-mo as you can get with lots of word salad thrown in to boot.
nelsondogg is online now   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 24th August 2018, 02:22 PM   #9
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,898
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
Never heard of him. Can you provide the times where he makes the points you've listed?
I provided, in my Opening Post, the source video in which you can find all the points I listed. If what you're asking is the specific time codes of each instance where he said each one of those things, I cannot do that for you. As you'll see, it's a pretty long video, and that would be quite a hell of a homework to ask someone to do for you
__________________
"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 24th August 2018, 02:25 PM   #10
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,898
Originally Posted by nelsondogg View Post
My first exposure to him was when he and Sam Harris debated the meaning of truth for two hours on Sam's podcast. Peterson was absolutely ridiculous (basically arguing things are only true if they promote our survival), and that told me everything I needed to know about him.
I did see that one too. And there was someone who commented on the video "I'm glad this was not my first introduction to Jordan Peterson", which I couldn't agree more. If that's your first exposure to Peterson, you'll probably think he's nothing but a more sophisticated Deepak Chopra. But as it has it, when he's on the side of reason, he can be very good.

So to be fair, I wouldn't claim that that video provides everything you need to know about him. The interview on BBC shows how he can make solid arguments and calmly defend himself from never ending strawman attacks.
__________________
"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 24th August 2018, 02:26 PM   #11
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,898
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
As far as religion, I thought he was sort of a Jungian religious sort, which I sort of agree with to the extent I understand it. But don't quote me on that. Speaking of quotes, how many of the items in your bullet list were direct quotes? Or were they your interpretations of what he said?
None of the bullet points I made were quotes. They were my own synthesis short-version phrases on assertions he made.
__________________
"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 24th August 2018, 03:24 PM   #12
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,720
I mostly fit in the same boat.

I disagree completely with almost everything I've heard him say about religion, but think he makes some good points in other areas. He blew up in popularity up here in Canada nearly 2 years ago (oct/nov 2016) when the bill C16 debate was coming up. I didn't know of him before that but he was I guess relatively known in Canada (for a uni professor) making some TV appearances and having popular lecture series on youtube. now he's namedropped constantly as a misogynist/nazi/whatever for expressing mostly traditionalist beliefs and being relatively anti-SJW.

I think he is one of the millions of people who are raised religious, identify with that label and then later try to justify it in some way. He doesn't even want to directly answer very straight-forward questions like "do you believe in god" and I think this is a tactic to avoid cognitive dissonance. But that's all just speculation on my part.

I saw his chat with Dillahunty and thought it was quite interesting, because as I expected even though it wasn't a "debate" I do think Matt wiped the floor with him. Matt has 10 years of experience talking to people more sophisticated than Peterson on the topic of religion and is willing to interject as needed (and allow his opponent to speak) in a way that makes him a very formidable opponent. He's also reasonably charitable in the dozens or so debates I've seen him in (and his youtube series "Atheist Debates" where he goes in depth on a small religious topic for 15-40 mins)

Last edited by pharphis; 24th August 2018 at 03:26 PM.
pharphis 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 24th August 2018, 03:27 PM   #13
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,099
My take: I don't get it. That guy makes Sam Harris look good.
mumblethrax is online now   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 24th August 2018, 03:34 PM   #14
sir drinks-a-lot
Illuminator
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 3,364
Originally Posted by nelsondogg View Post
I listened to that a well, but I didn't think the first was a dumpster fire at all. It was very illuminating. Peterson rails against the post modernism in the trans gender pronoun debate yet his views on truth are as po-mo as you can get with lots of word salad thrown in to boot.
That's a pretty good point. I have seen Peterson verging a bit into po-mo word saladism. You've convinced me to go back and listen to the first Harris/Podcast.

I'm also planning to listen to the Matt Dellahunty video in the OP, as I am not yet familiar with Matt.
__________________
I drink to the general joy o' th' whole table. --William Shakespeare
sir drinks-a-lot 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 24th August 2018, 04:06 PM   #15
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,789
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
I thought he could nonetheless be a very important voice in today's era.

He makes a lot of fallacious claims here, but just to highlight his worst ones:

* Consumption of drugs and hallucinogens is proof of the metaphysical
* You cannot quit smoking without use of mushrooms and other hallucinogens
* There is no such thing as Atheists. Atheists are basically closet Deists.
* The proof that you are secretly a Deist is that you have a moral code (In other words: Existence of a moral code is synonym with Religious belief)
"Important" as an example of how stupid some people's paranormal beliefs can make them perhaps. Otherwise . . . Nah.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 24th August 2018 at 04:24 PM.
ynot 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 24th August 2018, 05:05 PM   #16
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,964
I don't understand his popularity. He is not even wrong on most of what I've seen him talk about; he plays the victim whenever he can and is the perfect Poster Boy for right-wing pseudo-intellectualism.

Strike that. I do understand his popularity but it's certainly not based on his being correct nor insightful. He is a fundamentalist reactionary who makes me laugh almost as much as a stand up comedian. The difference is that he takes himself terribly seriously while the comedians do not; and that the comedians are deliberately trying to be funny while his humor comes from his arrogant Dunning-Kruger act.
The Norseman 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 25th August 2018, 12:20 AM   #17
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,694
Originally Posted by nelsondogg View Post
I listened to that a well, but I didn't think the first was a dumpster fire at all. It was very illuminating. Peterson rails against the post modernism in the trans gender pronoun debate yet his views on truth are as po-mo as you can get with lots of word salad thrown in to boot.
Yeah, I listened to the first Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson debate after having heard Peterson making it pretty clear on a Joe Rogan podcast that he is an Orthodox Christian. For some reason, he has been coy when asked directly about his religious views, and I am always under the impression that his views on "Truth" are just attempts to smuggle a religious viewpoint past skeptical inquiry.

I knew about his stance on gender pronouns and how he wanted to refuse "compelled speech", but Sam Harris made two points that I completely agreed with. The first is that perhaps Peterson himself misunderstands the law that he is standing up to, and the second is that Peterson's worldview is even more deranged than the "lunatics" that were apparently compelling his speech, because maybe they are trying to deny the reality of gender, but Peterson is taking an axe to the very notion of truth by pretending that objective reality is merely one form of truth and that another is based on mythical archetypes of dragons, gold and lobsters.

My takeaway from the first Peterson interview was that Harris really did not want to talk with him again, but felt he had to because listeners to the first one (perhaps overwhelmingly Peterson fans) wanted another. My take away from the second one was that this "better" podcast was just Harris going through the motions, asking Peterson to say what he thought, offering a few dissenting comments, and then ending without responding to Peterson's suggestions that they talk again. Harris nearly always says he would be interested in talking with his guests again, and I thought it was obvious he wasn't interested in speaking with Peterson again. That's why I have been so surprised that they have had a tour of public discussions.
__________________
"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 25th August 2018, 03:03 AM   #18
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,087
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Yeah, I listened to the first Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson debate after having heard Peterson making it pretty clear on a Joe Rogan podcast that he is an Orthodox Christian. For some reason, he has been coy when asked directly about his religious views, and I am always under the impression that his views on "Truth" are just attempts to smuggle a religious viewpoint past skeptical inquiry.

...snip...
Which one - Eastern or Oriental? One suspects he has no actual doctrinal beliefs just whatever supports whatever criticism he is making today.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 25th August 2018, 12:20 PM   #19
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,539
Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/s...-for-life.html
Fudbucker 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 25th August 2018, 01:05 PM   #20
Seismosaurus
Philosopher
 
Seismosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,549
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
[i]Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.
I do not have a partner. I have, in fact, never had a partner. I am also one of the least violent people you could meet.

Quote:
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy.
I'm curious as to how Mr Peterson believes that society should force me into monogamy. I'm potentially willing, even eager, to go along with this, though the devil may be in the details. Am I to understand that Mr Peterson believes that the government should be charged with procuring a woman for me? Do I get a selection, or will one simply be assigned to me? What if, as seems certain from past experience, she doesn't want to be involved with me?

Questions, questions.
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul
Seismosaurus 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 25th August 2018, 01:16 PM   #21
Lambchops
Critical Thinker
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 410
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
I don't understand his popularity. He is not even wrong on most of what I've seen him talk about; he plays the victim whenever he can and is the perfect Poster Boy for right-wing pseudo-intellectualism.

Strike that. I do understand his popularity but it's certainly not based on his being correct nor insightful. He is a fundamentalist reactionary who makes me laugh almost as much as a stand up comedian. The difference is that he takes himself terribly seriously while the comedians do not; and that the comedians are deliberately trying to be funny while his humor comes from his arrogant Dunning-Kruger act.
I could not agree more. Like I posted in another thread, I see him as one of the greatest unintentional comedians of our time. Some of his ramblings are absolutely hilarious.

The fact that so many people follow him with a cult-like fervor is much less funny though. Check out the comments from his fans on any youtube vid that's critical of their Lobsterdaddy, it's Scientology-level creepy.
__________________
I am the working class.

Last edited by Lambchops; 25th August 2018 at 01:22 PM.
Lambchops 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 25th August 2018, 07:12 PM   #22
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,964
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
I could not agree more. Like I posted in another thread, I see him as one of the greatest unintentional comedians of our time. Some of his ramblings are absolutely hilarious.

The fact that so many people follow him with a cult-like fervor is much less funny though. Check out the comments from his fans on any youtube vid that's critical of their Lobsterdaddy, it's Scientology-level creepy.
I haven't seen that particular viddie, but the others I've seen, yeah... SMH

He's being hailed as one of the greatest thinkers of our time by the right-wing, conservative, religious nutters which makes sense, as all three of those groups are known for strong belief in what turns out to be fantasy; he dishes out his version of fantasy by a strange concoction of Jungian psychology along with his flavor of Christian religious fundamentalism.

As long as he preaches all women must stay home barefoot and preggers, men must take the leadership role, all sex is bad sex unless it's for procreation and anything which smacks of a more moderate or even left-leaning position on society in general is Teh Eevul, then he's just getting ready to sit on his pile of cash thrown at him by all his loony brethren.

His stance on socialism/Marxism/communism is especially funny. He almost goes apoplectic in righteous indignation and THUNDERING CONDEMNATION...

... of something which he knows nothing about.
The Norseman 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 25th August 2018, 07:33 PM   #23
Lambchops
Critical Thinker
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 410
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
I haven't seen that particular viddie, but the others I've seen, yeah... SMH

He's being hailed as one of the greatest thinkers of our time by the right-wing, conservative, religious nutters which makes sense, as all three of those groups are known for strong belief in what turns out to be fantasy; he dishes out his version of fantasy by a strange concoction of Jungian psychology along with his flavor of Christian religious fundamentalism.

As long as he preaches all women must stay home barefoot and preggers, men must take the leadership role, all sex is bad sex unless it's for procreation and anything which smacks of a more moderate or even left-leaning position on society in general is Teh Eevul, then he's just getting ready to sit on his pile of cash thrown at him by all his loony brethren.

His stance on socialism/Marxism/communism is especially funny. He almost goes apoplectic in righteous indignation and THUNDERING CONDEMNATION...

... of something which he knows nothing about.
Oh, I wasn't thinking of any particular video. Just any video that dares question the infinite wisdom of deep thinker and prophet JBP (glory be upon his name).
The comments will turn into an utter crapstorm.

And yeah, I love the irony of a man who out right states that there is no such thing as objective reality and "facts aren't necessarily true" railing against post modernism.
And equating post modernism with "Cultural Marxism".

It's comedy gold.
__________________
I am the working class.

Last edited by Lambchops; 25th August 2018 at 07:52 PM.
Lambchops 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 25th August 2018, 08:32 PM   #24
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,964
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
Oh, I wasn't thinking of any particular video. Just any video that dares question the infinite wisdom of deep thinker and prophet JBP (glory be upon his name).
Ah, okay. I thought you were referring to a specific video when you mentioned the Lobsterdaddy meme, but anyway, it's sometimes a sad thing to see that everyone seems to want to post their opinions no matter how based in ignorance they are.

I think there are a few venues, however, that can avoid that to some extent such as message boards like this one because there are a few who can speak knowledgeably about a particular topic and that can make up for the flood of chaff.

Many subreddits can also be very informative but crap like Facebook and Twitter are pretty much lost causes for any kind of insightful comment (though again, there can be one here and there).


Quote:
And yeah, I love the irony of a man who out right states that there is no such thing as objective reality and "facts aren't necessarily true" railing against post modernism.
hahahaha! Yes, I hadn't thought of that connection but now that you point it out, that's a classic! Also, it demonstrates the critical thinking skills his audience has.

It's almost like the poor grammar and misspellings that email scams utilize to screen out the people who would never fall for the trick so it's a waste of the scammers' time to chase after those; or the kinds of people who consider themselves to be business savvy and yet pour money into free energy scams and other similar stuff.


Quote:
And equating post modernism with "Cultural Marxism".

It's comedy gold.
True. "Cultural Marxism" is, of course, one of the current memes that are designed to demonize multiple separate ideas, concepts or philosophies with one pithy phrase.
The Norseman 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 25th August 2018, 08:53 PM   #25
Lambchops
Critical Thinker
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 410
I'm convinced that Peterson does not actually believe even half of the BS he spews.

He's apparently making upwards of 80Kusd a month on ******* Patreon, and I'm pretty sure that was his goal the whole time. The man is nothing but a snake-oil selling grifter.

He tells people what they want to hear, and cashes in on it big time. The whole "I don't believe in God, but I still think we should all follow Jesus" thing is just genius. This way he can get both traditional religious right-wing conservatives and so-called "New Atheist" right-wing Scepti-Bro's to back his ****.

And he's laughing all the way to the bank.
__________________
I am the working class.

Last edited by Lambchops; 25th August 2018 at 09:02 PM.
Lambchops 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 25th August 2018, 09:56 PM   #26
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,720
Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
I do not have a partner. I have, in fact, never had a partner. I am also one of the least violent people you could meet.


I'm curious as to how Mr Peterson believes that society should force me into monogamy. I'm potentially willing, even eager, to go along with this, though the devil may be in the details. Am I to understand that Mr Peterson believes that the government should be charged with procuring a woman for me? Do I get a selection, or will one simply be assigned to me? What if, as seems certain from past experience, she doesn't want to be involved with me?

Questions, questions.
He has clarified that he means "social pressure" towards monogamy. I think the phrasing is stupid, and that we already have said social pressure anyway. He's normally quite careful with his phrasing so I'm surprised he used the term "enforced monogamy" in the first place.
pharphis 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 25th August 2018, 10:28 PM   #27
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 880
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
He makes a lot of fallacious claims here, but just to highlight his worst ones:

* Consumption of drugs and hallucinogens is proof of the metaphysical
* You cannot quit smoking without use of mushrooms and other hallucinogens
No, Dr Peterson says it is *evidence* (but not definitive proof) of the supernatural. Matt Delahunty actually says "he's [Peterson is] right" at around 16 mins in.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
* There is no such thing as Atheists. Atheists are basically closet Deists.
Not closet deists (unless I missed him saying that), but atheists suffering cognitive dissonance might be a better term.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
* The proof that you are secretly a Deist is that you have a moral code (In other words: Existence of a moral code is synonym with Religious belief)
He says that actions are a reflection of beliefs. Anyone with a moral code is acting on a belief in the 'supernatural'. Part of the issue is that Peterson is using 'supernatural' and 'metaphysical' as synonyms, which can be confusing.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
* (As a consequence of the previous assertion)If there were such thing as an Atheist, it would be the most immoral kind of person. One that would murder and rape under the premise that there is no such thing as morality, "so then why bother being good"?
Yes, he does say that, though maybe "amoral" rather than "immoral" (again, unless I missed him using that word).

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
It is clear that some of these claims are very old, long-time debunked assertions that are not only false, but insulting. To say to an atheist, either that you know better than them whether or not they're an atheist, or then to say "If you actually are an atheist, you're an immoral person" is extremely insulting.
I agree. Peterson shouldn't be doing this. In his defence, it is clear WHY he is doing it. But it is a passive aggressive approach that only confuses. It gets used way too much as a debating tactic: "You say you are not X! But you do Y! Therefore you really are X!" It's been used as a tactic in discussions going back 2000 years.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Regardless, as I said earlier, I think Peterson is an important voice for Social Issues. And he can be extremely brilliant and rational when it comes to these issues, and be totally on the side of science. But as soon as the discussion shifts to Religion and Morality, it's like he changes helmets, and goes from rational Peterson to irrational Peterson. It's really bizarre, kinda like a Jekyll/Mr Hyde transformation.
On the contrary, his thoughts on religion and belief in God are deep and complex. Check out analyses on his debates with Sam Harris. Here is a 17 min clip on the Think Club channel, where Peterson and Harris discuss God, with Bret Weinstein moderating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5C8Iusm6yI

Last edited by GDon; 25th August 2018 at 10:42 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 25th August 2018, 10:37 PM   #28
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 880
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
He has clarified that he means "social pressure" towards monogamy. I think the phrasing is stupid, and that we already have said social pressure anyway. He's normally quite careful with his phrasing so I'm surprised he used the term "enforced monogamy" in the first place.
Dr Peterson says that he is using "well-established anthropological language".
From his blog: https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on...rced-monogamy/
It’s been a truism among anthropologists and biologically-oriented psychologists for decades that all human societies face two primary tasks: regulation of female reproduction (so the babies don’t die, you see) and male aggression (so that everyone doesn’t die). The social enforcement of monogamy happens to be an effective means of addressing both issues, as most societies have come to realize (pair-bonded marriages constituting, as they do, a human universal (see the list of human universals here, derived from Donald Brown’s book by that name).

Here’s something intelligent about the issue, written by antiquark2 on reddit (after the NYT piece appeared and produced its tempest in a tea pot): “Peterson is using well-established anthropological language here: “enforced monogamy” does not mean government-enforced monogamy. “Enforced monogamy” means socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy, as opposed to genetic monogamy – evolutionarily-dictated monogamy, which does exist in some species (but does not exist in humans). This distinction has been present in anthropological and scientific literature for decades.”
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 25th August 2018, 10:40 PM   #29
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,684
Peterson doesn't understand evolution or social dynamics.
His "one-size-fits-all" approach to gender roles is, frankly, childish.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
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 25th August 2018, 10:40 PM   #30
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 880
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/s...-for-life.html
From Dr Peterson's blog: https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on...rced-monogamy/
Simply put: monogamous pair bonding makes men less violent. Here are some examples of the well-developed body of basic evolutionary-biological/psychological/anthropological evidence (and theory) supporting that claim.

“men who transition to a monogamous, or less competitive, mode of sexual behavior (fewer partners since last wave), reduce their risk for violence. The same results were not replicated for females. Further, results were not accounted for by marital status or other more readily accepted explanations of violence. Findings suggest that competition for sex be further examined as a potential cause of male violence.”
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 25th August 2018, 10:44 PM   #31
Lambchops
Critical Thinker
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 410
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
He has clarified that he means "social pressure" towards monogamy. I think the phrasing is stupid, and that we already have said social pressure anyway. He's normally quite careful with his phrasing so I'm surprised he used the term "enforced monogamy" in the first place.
JBP is "normally quite careful with his phrasing"? If "careful phrasing" means the same as "vague word salad", then yeah, sure.

The man is always vague on purpose, so he can answer anyone who calls out his BS with "Oh, but that's not what I'm saying at all".

He uses the term "enforced monogamy" to appeal to Incels and various other bottom of the barrel right-wing losers. His whole "chaos is feminine" schpiel is designed to attract misogynists of both the old-school religious type, and the trendy "edgy red-pilled atheist skeptic" type. More money in the bank for JBP.

But as mentioned above, he keeps it vague enough that he can say "oh, I don't actually mean monogamy should be enforced by the government (but I kinda do, wink wink)" if and when anyone questions him on it. It's absolutely revolting.

The fact that so many people actually follow this transparently disingenuous charlatan just boggles my mind. In fact, it's kind of unsettling.
__________________
I am the working class.

Last edited by Lambchops; 25th August 2018 at 10:51 PM.
Lambchops 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 25th August 2018, 10:44 PM   #32
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,684
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
From Dr Peterson's blog: https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on...rced-monogamy/
Simply put: monogamous pair bonding makes men less violent. Here are some examples of the well-developed body of basic evolutionary-biological/psychological/anthropological evidence (and theory) supporting that claim.

“men who transition to a monogamous, or less competitive, mode of sexual behavior (fewer partners since last wave), reduce their risk for violence. The same results were not replicated for females. Further, results were not accounted for by marital status or other more readily accepted explanations of violence. Findings suggest that competition for sex be further examined as a potential cause of male violence.”
And this is an insight how?
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
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 25th August 2018, 10:46 PM   #33
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 880
Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
I'm curious as to how Mr Peterson believes that society should force me into monogamy. I'm potentially willing, even eager, to go along with this, though the devil may be in the details. Am I to understand that Mr Peterson believes that the government should be charged with procuring a woman for me? Do I get a selection, or will one simply be assigned to me? What if, as seems certain from past experience, she doesn't want to be involved with me?

Questions, questions.
Dr Peterson explains this in a short article on his blog: https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on...rced-monogamy/
Simply put: monogamous pair bonding makes men less violent. Here are some examples of the well-developed body of basic evolutionary-biological/psychological/anthropological evidence (and theory) supporting that claim...

So, let’s summarize. Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.

That’s all.

No recommendation of police-state assignation of woman to man (or, for that matter, man to woman).

No arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels.

Nothing scandalous (all innuendo and suggestive editing to the contrary)

Just the plain, bare, common-sense facts: socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence. In addition (and not trivially) they also help provide mothers with comparatively reliable male partners, and increase the probability that stable, father-intact homes will exist for children.
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 25th August 2018, 10:49 PM   #34
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 880
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
And this is an insight how?
That when describing someone's views, it's best to go to the source.
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 25th August 2018, 10:54 PM   #35
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,684
It's a non-sequitur that monogamy makes men less violent.
Regular access to SEX makes men less violent.

If Peterson was right, there would be no such thing as Domestic Violence.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.

Last edited by The Great Zaganza; 25th August 2018 at 10:56 PM.
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 25th August 2018, 10:58 PM   #36
Lambchops
Critical Thinker
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 410
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
From Dr Peterson's blog: https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on...rced-monogamy/
Simply put: monogamous pair bonding makes men less violent. Here are some examples of the well-developed body of basic evolutionary-biological/psychological/anthropological evidence (and theory) supporting that claim.

“men who transition to a monogamous, or less competitive, mode of sexual behavior (fewer partners since last wave), reduce their risk for violence. The same results were not replicated for females. Further, results were not accounted for by marital status or other more readily accepted explanations of violence. Findings suggest that competition for sex be further examined as a potential cause of male violence.”
Wow, he is such a moron. And people actually buy this ****...
__________________
I am the working class.
Lambchops 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 25th August 2018, 11:02 PM   #37
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,720
How did you go from "less violent" to "there would be no such thing as domestic violence"?
pharphis 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 25th August 2018, 11:04 PM   #38
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,684
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
How did you go from "less violent" to "there would be no such thing as domestic violence"?
Domestic violence is the no.1 cause of violence against women.
This is in direct contradiction to Peterson's claims that it is unmarried men who cause the greatest harm to women.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
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 25th August 2018, 11:05 PM   #39
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 880
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
Wow, he is such a moron. And people actually buy this ****...
Peterson is quoting from Justice Quarterly, a peer-reviewed journal of sociology, so you might be able to get it free from an academic library rather than buy it. Here is the abstract for that paper: https://www.acjs.org/page/JQ
Sexually active men, who are not in a monogamous relationship, may be at a greater risk for violence than men who are sexually active within monogamous relationships and men who are not sexually active. The current study examines changes in sexual behavior and violence in adolescence to early adulthood. Data on male (n = 4,597) and female (n = 5,523) respondents were drawn from four waves of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent and Adult Health (Add Health). HLM regression models indicate that men who transition to a monogamous, or less competitive, mode of sexual behavior (fewer partners since last wave), reduce their risk for violence. The same results were not replicated for females. Further, results were not accounted for by marital status or other more readily accepted explanations of violence. Findings suggest that competition for sex be further examined as a potential cause of male violence.

Last edited by GDon; 25th August 2018 at 11:09 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 25th August 2018, 11:06 PM   #40
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,720
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
JBP is "normally quite careful with his phrasing"? If "careful phrasing" means the same as "vague word salad", then yeah, sure.

The man is always vague on purpose, so he can answer anyone who calls out his BS with "Oh, but that's not what I'm saying at all".

He uses the term "enforced monogamy" to appeal to Incels and various other bottom of the barrel right-wing losers. His whole "chaos is feminine" schpiel is designed to attract misogynists of both the old-school religious type, and the trendy "edgy red-pilled atheist skeptic" type. More money in the bank for JBP.

But as mentioned above, he keeps it vague enough that he can say "oh, I don't actually mean monogamy should be enforced by the government (but I kinda do, wink wink)" if and when anyone questions him on it. It's absolutely revolting.

The fact that so many people actually follow this transparently disingenuous charlatan just boggles my mind. In fact, it's kind of unsettling.
Look, I think he is quite often vague and dodgy on some topics, but I think that's just how he addresses those topics (religion, philosophy). When it comes to other topics I think he is normally straight-forward (whether I agree with him or not). I think "enforced monogamy" as a term left unexplained easily implies all the worst things his critics would like to nail him with (government forcing marriages, or something). His carelessness there surprised me.

That he later clarified this doesn't undo the damage to his reputation.
*shrug*
pharphis 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 11:45 AM.
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.