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 31st August 2018, 01:53 PM   #81
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,503
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
....
I'm also planning to listen to the Matt Dellahunty video in the OP, as I am not yet familiar with Matt.
You need to start listening to the Atheist Experience podcast, particularly the episodes where Matt is hosting. Watching him nail theists to the wall is most gratifying.
The Sparrow 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 31st August 2018, 02:43 PM   #82
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,314
LOL, pseudo-intellectuals criticizing someone
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped 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 31st August 2018, 04:37 PM   #83
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,789
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
LOL, pseudo-intellectuals criticizing someone
LOL, a pseudo-intellectual criticizing someone.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
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 1st September 2018, 09:05 AM   #84
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,469
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
LOL, pseudo-intellectuals criticizing someone
Can you point to any post of yours in the past year that has furthered a discussion?
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 1st September 2018, 05:13 PM   #85
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 828
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I know he's very often wrong, but the broken clock principle applies. Most people are right sometimes. So if a specific claim is made, a person's track record has no bearing on whether the claim is true.
The whole point behind the analogy with a broken clock is that even cranks, kooks, etc. can be right by accident. If you acknowledge that someone is like a broken clock, then you're criticising them as being a useless barometer of the truth.

So I'm genuinely confused as to your attempt at defending him here. Someone who's only right by accident shouldn't be criticised for being only right by accident, and shouldn't be criticised for the times they're wrong, because they happen to randomly stumble upon being right from time to time?
JesseCuster 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 1st September 2018, 06:46 PM   #86
Lambchops
Critical Thinker
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 364
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
LOL, pseudo-intellectuals criticizing someone
Yes, Peterson is a pseudo-intellectual, and you are correct in LOLing at his BS.

Good job.
__________________
I am the working class.
Lambchops 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 8th September 2018, 02:14 PM   #87
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,398
Anybody wanna translate this into English?
Originally Posted by Jordan B Peterson
It is the “self-evidence” of the unacceptability of undue suffering that in part serves Sam Harris as God. More accurately: his Savior is the embodiment of the ethic that motivates each of us to choose Heaven over Hell and to act out that motivation.
I Am The Scum 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 8th September 2018, 04:34 PM   #88
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,964
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
I'll take a crack** at it:

"Sam Harris believes in God because human beings take actions to ameliorate undue suffering which is similar to the bible's description of choosing heaven over hell. This similarity means that there are no such things as atheists and therefore Harris is a secret theist."














** by which I mean I should smoke some crack until I find the correct "mindset" displayed by Peterson
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 8th September 2018, 07:43 PM   #89
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,413
It's just another variation on the sad old "Atheism is just another type of religion" argument.

Seriously can we can some, any new apologetics? Everything is a either a point already refuted a billion times or if it's new it's just post-truth reality denial.
__________________
"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; 8th September 2018 at 07:47 PM.
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 8th September 2018, 07:50 PM   #90
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 876
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Anybody wanna translate this into English?

It is the “self-evidence” of the unacceptability of undue suffering that in part serves Sam Harris as God. More accurately: his Savior is the embodiment of the ethic that motivates each of us to choose Heaven over Hell and to act out that motivation.
It is the “self-evidence” of the unacceptability of undue suffering that in part serves Sam Harris as God.

Peterson thinks that Harris believes that the unacceptability of undue suffering is self-evident.

More accurately: his Savior is the embodiment of the ethic that motivates each of us to choose Heaven over Hell and to act out that motivation.

Peterson thinks that Harris believes that we are (or we should be) motivated to act to "choose Heaven over Hell."

Peterson touches on the underlying idea in this short video (5 mins 43 secs) from around the 3 min mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwi9Q9apHGI

Last edited by GDon; 8th September 2018 at 08:09 PM.
GDon 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 8th September 2018, 11:49 PM   #91
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 876
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
It's just another variation on the sad old "Atheism is just another type of religion" argument.

Seriously can we can some, any new apologetics? Everything is a either a point already refuted a billion times or if it's new it's just post-truth reality denial.
Has Peterson's view been refuted, though? His view is consistent with some philosophers over the last several thousand years, including ancient Roman and Greek philosophers. See Karen Armstrong's "History of God", where she describes the evolution of views about God.

For Sam Harris, God is a supernatural creature, existing as a separate entity. This is the God described in Sagan's "dragon in the garage" and Russell's "orbiting teapot" examples. That God is separate to the world. Take that dragon or teapot away, and the universe continues unchanged. Take away Harris's God, and his world is no different.

Peterson's God exists as transcendent values. It is the place-holder for all that is good. Remove that God, and you lose all transcendent values: morality, art, kindness, etc. Removing Peterson's God makes it a very different universe.

Peterson believes that Harris's morality is based on a self-evident claim that there is undue suffering and that undue suffering is bad. But that is a transcendent value. Thus (according to Peterson) Harris "really at heart" believes in God -- at least, God as Peterson understands the term.

I've seen Peterson try to describe this view a few times, both to Harris and Matt Dillahunty. But neither of them want to argue on that basis. They only want to argue on the basis of the God that they disbelieve in, which Peterson also disbelieves in! No wonder they get frustrated at Peterson's refusal to endorse the God that they disbelieve in.

I do blame Peterson for a large part of the frustration. He MUST know where Harris and Dillahunty are coming from. He should be able to clear it up, in my opinion. But also Harris and Dillahunty seem to insist on Peterson defending a God that Peterson personally doesn't believe in. They should know that by now, also. If they've read enough philosophy, they must have encountered such views before. They aren't unique to Peterson. Peterson does describe them from a more Jungian perspective though.

Last edited by GDon; 8th September 2018 at 11:52 PM.
GDon 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 9th September 2018, 12:38 AM   #92
Tommok
Student
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Has Peterson's view been refuted, though?
It is hard to refute an argument that is based on a very self-serving so-called "definition" of a god.

Based on screwed up definitions, everything seems to make sense somehow.

Quote:
Peterson's God exists as transcendent values. It is the place-holder for all that is good. Remove that God, and you lose all transcendent values: morality, art, kindness, etc. Removing Peterson's God makes it a very different universe.
Dillahunty has pointed this out several times. Define god as "everything good that exists", and - boom - without god nothing good exists. The problem here is that this god definition does not have any argumentative value. You might as well call everything good "everything good".

I could make the argument that god is henceforth defined as air pollution. So we all believe air pollution exists, don't we? Therefore we are now all theists. Which is then a BAD thing, because without god all air pollution would go away. Removing my god would make the planet a better place.

This definition doesn't get any argumentation anywhere, and neither does Peterson's.

Quote:
Peterson believes that Harris's morality is based on a self-evident claim that there is undue suffering and that undue suffering is bad. But that is a transcendent value.
Prove it. Preferably in a manner that includes an understanding of "transcendent" that makes sense.

Until you prove it, I submit that both "suffering" and "undue" are elements of our evolved morality as a social species.

Quote:
I've seen Peterson try to describe this view a few times, both to Harris and Matt Dillahunty. But neither of them want to argue on that basis. They only want to argue on the basis of the God that they disbelieve in, which Peterson also disbelieves in! No wonder they get frustrated at Peterson's refusal to endorse the God that they disbelieve in.
Once again, if you go ahead and argue that god really has no traits of being a person or a being at all, that he therefore doesn't answer prayers or care about your sexual preferences or your morality or you praying to him and has no son and no prophet and so forth, I think you are then getting pretty close to Dillahunty's position - only that he doesn't see any argumentative value in calling such a thing "god".

Are you willing to concede all that?
Tommok 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 9th September 2018, 04:28 AM   #93
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 876
I'm explaining Peterson's views (or how I understand Peterson's views), and not making my own personal argument.
GDon 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 9th September 2018, 04:30 AM   #94
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,011
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
I'm explaining Peterson's views (or how I understand Peterson's views), and not making my own personal argument.
Cool, so you agree that he's misguided and that his views have been refuted.
__________________
"... 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 9th September 2018, 04:56 AM   #95
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 876
Originally Posted by Tommok View Post
I could make the argument that god is henceforth defined as air pollution. So we all believe air pollution exists, don't we? Therefore we are now all theists. Which is then a BAD thing, because without god all air pollution would go away. Removing my god would make the planet a better place.
That's a fair point. At that point, you can either reject that definition of god, and therefore not proceed with the argument; or you can accept that definition of god, and proceed based on that definition.

The problem is Harris proceeds without understanding where Peterson is coming from, and Peterson proceeds without adequately explaining his view.

Last edited by GDon; 9th September 2018 at 05:04 AM.
GDon 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 9th September 2018, 05:03 AM   #96
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 876
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Cool, so you agree that he's misguided and that his views have been refuted.
I don't think he's misguided, and I can't see how you can say his views have been refuted if no-one actually addresses his views. I'm not interested in arguing the validity of his views, which is essentially a faith position. You either accept his premise or you don't.
GDon 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 9th September 2018, 05:16 AM   #97
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,011
I think Tommock refuted his views pretty clearly.
__________________
"... 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 9th September 2018, 05:37 AM   #98
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,413
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
I'm not interested in arguing the validity of his views, which is essentially a faith position. You either accept his premise or you don't.
Anti-intellectual spit piddle.
__________________
"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 9th September 2018, 05:38 AM   #99
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,663
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Has Peterson's view been refuted, though? His view is consistent with some philosophers over the last several thousand years, including ancient Roman and Greek philosophers. See Karen Armstrong's "History of God", where she describes the evolution of views about God.

For Sam Harris, God is a supernatural creature, existing as a separate entity. This is the God described in Sagan's "dragon in the garage" and Russell's "orbiting teapot" examples. That God is separate to the world. Take that dragon or teapot away, and the universe continues unchanged. Take away Harris's God, and his world is no different.

Peterson's God exists as transcendent values. It is the place-holder for all that is good. Remove that God, and you lose all transcendent values: morality, art, kindness, etc. Removing Peterson's God makes it a very different universe.

Peterson believes that Harris's morality is based on a self-evident claim that there is undue suffering and that undue suffering is bad. But that is a transcendent value. Thus (according to Peterson) Harris "really at heart" believes in God -- at least, God as Peterson understands the term.

I've seen Peterson try to describe this view a few times, both to Harris and Matt Dillahunty. But neither of them want to argue on that basis. They only want to argue on the basis of the God that they disbelieve in, which Peterson also disbelieves in! No wonder they get frustrated at Peterson's refusal to endorse the God that they disbelieve in.

I do blame Peterson for a large part of the frustration. He MUST know where Harris and Dillahunty are coming from. He should be able to clear it up, in my opinion. But also Harris and Dillahunty seem to insist on Peterson defending a God that Peterson personally doesn't believe in. They should know that by now, also. If they've read enough philosophy, they must have encountered such views before. They aren't unique to Peterson. Peterson does describe them from a more Jungian perspective though.
I define God as "oxygen". Sam Harris likes oxygen, so he likes God. If he didn't like oxygen, I would like to see him live without it as a true atheist would. He doesn't, therefore he is not a true atheist.
__________________
"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 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 9th September 2018, 05:54 AM   #100
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 876
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I think Tommock refuted his views pretty clearly.
Where did he do that? He actually said that it was "hard to refute", when the argument is based on a very self-serving so-called "definition" of a god.
GDon 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 9th September 2018, 05:58 AM   #101
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,663
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Where did he do that? He actually said that it was "hard to refute", when the argument is based on a very self-serving so-called "definition" of a god.
I bet nobody could refute my God is oxygen argument, providing you accept my first move that God is oxygen, then you bloody well better not be an atheist (as JP might say!).
__________________
"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 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 9th September 2018, 06:02 AM   #102
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,413
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Where did he do that? He actually said that it was "hard to refute", when the argument is based on a very self-serving so-called "definition" of a god.
"His argument is so meaningless and self-contradictory that you can't refute it!"

Stunning. Simply stunning.
__________________
"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 9th September 2018, 09:34 PM   #103
Tommok
Student
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 33
Let me try an analogy:

I like J.S. Bach's music very much. As a matter of fact, his music is the world to me. I have an old record here which is just awesome.

I therefore define "earth" as being said record.

Now I can unequivocally state that, based on first-hand observation, the earth is indeed flat.

Check mate, spheroid earthers. Now GDon, please refute my argument. Or explain how you think Jordan Petersen would.
Tommok 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 10th September 2018, 12:24 AM   #104
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 876
Originally Posted by Tommok View Post
Check mate, spheroid earthers. Now GDon, please refute my argument.
You know, I did actually agree with your statement earlier, when you wrote: "It is hard to refute an argument that is based on a very self-serving so-called "definition" of a god. Based on screwed up definitions, everything seems to make sense somehow."

And I also agreed that you made a fair point when you used your "define god as air pollution" analogy just above.

Are you now disagreeing with your earlier statement? Where exactly are we disagreeing, such that your flat earth analogy adds to the discussion?

Last edited by GDon; 10th September 2018 at 01:10 AM.
GDon 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 10th September 2018, 10:11 AM   #105
Tommok
Student
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
You know, I did actually agree with your statement earlier, when you wrote: "It is hard to refute an argument that is based on a very self-serving so-called "definition" of a god. Based on screwed up definitions, everything seems to make sense somehow."

And I also agreed that you made a fair point when you used your "define god as air pollution" analogy just above.

Are you now disagreeing with your earlier statement? Where exactly are we disagreeing, such that your flat earth analogy adds to the discussion?
I don't understand your question at all. The flat earth analogy, as well as the air pollution analogy, is supposed to demonstrate how absurd definitions of god or anything else then invalidate any conclusions drawn from them.

Your reply should have been "I cannot refute your argument based on your definition of "earth", however your definition is nonsensical and therefore your conclusion has no argumentative value".
Tommok 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 10th September 2018, 10:15 AM   #106
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,413
This is a "gotcha" that Woo Slingers (and as often Woo Apologist) seem to have become oddly in love with in recent years; the "You can't argue against a poorly defined thing" cop-out.

After a certain point not clearly defining something is obviously just a dirty argumentative tactic, one that shouldn't hand the other side the win.

If someone keeps hording the fact that I can't disprove his belief in Fleerns over my head because he refuses to define what a Fleern is that's just silly word games and argumentative, and laughably transparent ones at that.

It grants absolutely zero intellectual weight to the actual possibility of Fleerns existing.
__________________
"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 10th September 2018, 06:43 PM   #107
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 876
Originally Posted by Tommok View Post
I don't understand your question at all. The flat earth analogy, as well as the air pollution analogy, is supposed to demonstrate how absurd definitions of god or anything else then invalidate any conclusions drawn from them.
Yes, I've already said you had a fair point on the air pollution analogy. Was your flat earth analogy showing something different? If not, what was the point?

Originally Posted by Tommok View Post
Your reply should have been "I cannot refute your argument based on your definition of "earth", however your definition is nonsensical and therefore your conclusion has no argumentative value".
Since I've already agreed with you on that point, I have no idea why you want me to agree again. But anyway: I cannot refute your argument based on your definition of "earth", however your definition is nonsensical and therefore your conclusion has no argumentative value.

What were you expecting me to reply with? Where, in your mind, do you think we disagree?
GDon 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 10th September 2018, 07:13 PM   #108
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,011
You seem to think that Peterson has something meaningful to say when he says that Sam Harris believes in God, but on the other hand you say you agree that he's just playing games with the definition of the word. So which is it?
__________________
"... 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 10th September 2018, 08:10 PM   #109
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 876
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
You seem to think that Peterson has something meaningful to say when he says that Sam Harris believes in God, but on the other hand you say you agree that he's just playing games with the definition of the word. So which is it?
I think that Peterson has something meaningful to say when he says that Sam Harris in effect believes in God. I don't agree with how Peterson frames it. It is a little insulting and inaccurate to call Harris some kind of secret theist.

I also agree with Tommok that "It is hard to refute an argument that is based on a very self-serving so-called "definition" of a god."

IF Peterson is playing games with the definition of "god", then his argument is "hard to refute". Is that a fair conclusion, based on the above premise?

"Hard to refute" doesn't mean that Peterson is making a GOOD argument, which is how everyone seems to be trying to read what I'm saying.

The whole thing seems to have originated with your comment "I think Tommock refuted his views pretty clearly", and my response "Where did he do that?" That's because I'm interested in seeing if Peterson's views have been refuted.

Saying Peterson's views are "based on a very self-serving so-called "definition" of a god" is a reasonable basis for REJECTING his views, but it is not a refutation by any means.

The difference is this: I give an argument that an omni-benevolent God exists. Person X rejects the existence of the supernatural, so rejects the grounds of my argument. Has Person X refuted my argument? No. It is reasonable for him to REJECT my argument, but it isn't a refutation. Then another person, Person Y, says that gratuitous suffering is inconsistent with an omni-benevolent God, therefore an omni-benevolent God can't exist. Has Person Y refuted my argument? Yes!

Since I believe I understand where Peterson is coming from, I'm interested in any refutations of his views. Harris and Dillahunty haven't provided it, since they either don't understand it or they don't accept Peterson's view of God, even for the sake of argument. They are in their rights to reject Peterson's view of God (in which case they are doing theology), but it doesn't engage with Peterson's arguments.

Hitchen's razor is "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". It is not "What can be asserted without evidence can be refuted without evidence".

It is reasonable for people to reject Peterson's view of God for all kinds of reasons: they don't understand his views, or they think it is self-serving, or they prefer a more standard definition of God. I'm not saying that any argument that is "hard to refute" is necessarily a good one. I'm just interested if anyone has given a refutation. I'm making a distinction between "refute" and "reject".

Last edited by GDon; 10th September 2018 at 09:36 PM.
GDon 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 11th September 2018, 01:19 AM   #110
Tommok
Student
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
I think that Peterson has something meaningful to say when he says that Sam Harris in effect believes in God. I don't agree with how Peterson frames it. It is a little insulting and inaccurate to call Harris some kind of secret theist.
What meaningful thing would that be?

Quote:
Since I believe I understand where Peterson is coming from, I'm interested in any refutations of his views. Harris and Dillahunty haven't provided it, since they either don't understand it or they don't accept Peterson's view of God, even for the sake of argument. They are in their rights to reject Peterson's view of God (in which case they are doing theology), but it doesn't engage with Peterson's arguments.
Am I correct in assuming that you want us to test Peterson's arguments for consistency within his rather unhelpful set of definitions?

We will probably end up referring any conclusion back to the lack of meaning of the original definition. So calling Harris a "theist", for starters, makes perfect sense within the definition, but since the definition is flawed has no argumentative value. The same applies to the air pollution or flat earth examples.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that his definition makes a lot of sense. What exact arguments or conclusions are we therefore supposed to accept or rather examine for validity?

Quote:
Hitchen's razor is "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". It is not "What can be asserted without evidence can be refuted without evidence".
I would see little sense in refuting anything that has been successfully dismissed. But let's give it a try.
Tommok 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 11th September 2018, 02:40 AM   #111
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 876
Originally Posted by Tommok View Post
Am I correct in assuming that you want us to test Peterson's arguments for consistency within his rather unhelpful set of definitions?
It's up to you. Yes, if you want to refute his arguments. No, if you want to reject his arguments because you have dismissed his definition of God. Either is reasonable in my opinion.

This whole part of the thread was generated by Roboramma's comment that Peterson had been refuted here. I'm not here to defend Peterson, only explain what he means, since it seems some people weren't sure.

Originally Posted by Tommok View Post
But let's assume for the sake of argument that his definition makes a lot of sense. What exact arguments or conclusions are we therefore supposed to accept or rather examine for validity?
Whatever you find reasonable and understandable. If you find Peterson's views neither, then cool.

I've read various examinations of Peterson's and Harris's debates. Those with a grounding in philosophy generally understand where Peterson is coming from, even if they disagree.

Here is partial transcript from someone at one of the debates between Peterson (JP), Harris (SH) and Bret Weinstein (BW), who was the moderator and is (I think) an atheist:
https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeter...vs_sam_harris/
SH: I believe you’ve said you believe God exists

JP: No, I’ve said I act as if he exists

Later:

SH: Can you define God in under 2 minutes? (It was supposed to go to questions after this)

JP: No, but I’ve made a long list of parts of the definition of God and will have to do my best in 2 minutes:

‘God is what sits at the top of the hierarchy of values’

‘God is what brings order out of chaos through the Logos’

‘God is the selection mechanism which judges which men are worthy’ and gives a few more definitions that I can’t remember

SH: That’s not at all what God is believed to be. Just about all people think he’s the Big Man in the Sky

JP: No that’s 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.

But does Harris or you have to accept Peterson's definition of God? No, not at all. Harris can continue to define God as "the Big Man in the Sky", and continue debating with that definition. As I said, I'm not trying to defend Peterson here, just clarify what he is arguing, as some on this thread seemed interested in where he was coming from.

Originally Posted by Tommok View Post
I would see little sense in refuting anything that has been successfully dismissed.
Exactly.

Last edited by GDon; 11th September 2018 at 02:45 AM.
GDon 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 11th September 2018, 04:53 AM   #112
Tommok
Student
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 33
Then we're done here?

Whether or not you or I think that his definitions make a lot of sense, any sense, or no sense at all is irrelevant as long as nothing is derived from them.

So as long as Peterson or anyone referring to Peterson doesn't make any claims based on these so-called definitions, such as "god answers prayers" or "you should worship god" or "you can only have sex in certain positions with certain people" or "there is life after death" or any others, then we are just playing word games, right?
Tommok 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 11th September 2018, 11:23 AM   #113
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 876
Sounds good.
GDon 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 13th September 2018, 07:40 AM   #114
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,877
Ok, so I'm almost finished watching the latest (I think it's the latest, if not one of the latest) debates between Sam and Jordan. This time with DOuglas Murray.... (By the way, I was about to link the debate here and I can't find it!!!! Did they delete it from youtube?)

This last debate is much "better" in that Jordan doesn't make as many fallacious claims as he does in previous debates.

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"



So my refutal of that argument goes basically like this: While it is true that Atheism, because it's not a Church, doesn't come with any iconic set of artistic representations in painting, music, literature, etc; this does not mean that without Religion we would be left in a world devoid of art and of epic fantasy stories that inspire people. It would just mean that these stories and these artistic creations would not come with the underlying claim that a Divine Creator was behind all of this. Just like when we watch a great fantasy movie which can inspire us, we don't need to believe that those characters are real, nor that the conception of such movie was product of a Divine Intervention.

And, more importantly, because the art we would make would have no association with the Divine and with God, there would be less of a fear to criticize it and question it if necessary. There would be no need to indoctrinate people into following the word of Tolkien. And in fact, you do have some sort of Tolkien Religion anyway, where Tolkien fans gather and speak in elvish and dress like the characters, etc. So that is proof that social events where people gather and socialize, and share stories and connect at an emotional level, can happen without a Religious belief.

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.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan

Last edited by Ron_Tomkins; 13th September 2018 at 07:53 AM.
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, 08:03 AM   #115
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,524
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.
On point.

__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n 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, 08:08 AM   #116
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,877
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Yup. Essentially.



Update on the actual debate: Apparently Pangburn Philosophy removed it so you can't find it on the youtube search bar. However, it is still "hidden" in youtube. Here's the link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqpY...uAFsd56zTr160w
__________________
"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, 08:10 AM   #117
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,121
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Plus, just looking at the large number of artworks depicting scenes from The Lord of the Rings, Dragonball and Superman, clearly you don't need religion.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... 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 13th September 2018, 08:13 AM   #118
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,663
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Ok, so I'm almost finished watching the latest (I think it's the latest, if not one of the latest) debates between Sam and Jordan. This time with DOuglas Murray.... (By the way, I was about to link the debate here and I can't find it!!!! Did they delete it from youtube?)

This last debate is much "better" in that Jordan doesn't make as many fallacious claims as he does in previous debates.

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"



So my refutal of that argument goes basically like this: While it is true that Atheism, because it's not a Church, doesn't come with any iconic set of artistic representations in painting, music, literature, etc; this does not mean that without Religion we would be left in a world devoid of art and of epic fantasy stories that inspire people. It would just mean that these stories and these artistic creations would not come with the underlying claim that a Divine Creator was behind all of this. Just like when we watch a great fantasy movie which can inspire us, we don't need to believe that those characters are real, nor that the conception of such movie was product of a Divine Intervention.

And, more importantly, because the art we would make would have no association with the Divine and with God, there would be less of a fear to criticize it and question it if necessary. There would be no need to indoctrinate people into following the word of Tolkien. And in fact, you do have some sort of Tolkien Religion anyway, where Tolkien fans gather and speak in elvish and dress like the characters, etc. So that is proof that social events where people gather and socialize, and share stories and connect at an emotional level, can happen without a Religious belief.

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.
It doesn’t matter to Peterson. He just says all of it is religion in disguise.
__________________
"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 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 13th September 2018, 08:49 AM   #119
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,524
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.
The devout followers of Fred Phelps, Tomás de Torquemada and Osama bin Laden listened to inspirational messages which led them to give themselves to a holy cause bigger than themselves.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n 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, 12:13 PM   #120
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,877
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
It doesn’t matter to Peterson. He just says all of it is religion in disguise.
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.
__________________
"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
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 08:43 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.