The proposal and its refulsal is here:
I replied to statement on Jordan Peterson as follows:
So having principles (axioms) makes you religious?
I see that as an really interesting from my atheist point of view. American believers might say i have no morals without God.
- I know i have principles.
I am so boring because of them, but for the same reason I earned some respect from my friends. Such as I dont drink alcohol, i dont smoke. Why? I dont know, i dont find it a particulary good idea. But I am also aware that there are available information that its not good for your health, and i put some effort to try those in order to understand others better to find out that I dont like the feeling it brings at all.
This simple example proves I have principles - therefore morals, and by definition of Jordan Peterson I am religous. Read “You are one of us”.
- Now… I will seize power in a small country, and I will ban christian worship, because it uses wine.
Actually this would go against my principles, because i support free speech and free religion. But i would put banning of alcohol as a more important value than my other principles.
I am following my principes throught the system of values. Am I still religious? Jordan Peteron would say Yes, because its a trait of “religious fundamentalism”.
I havent seen more complex example of “atheism is a religion” fallacy before.
So I have principles, I indeed try to act according to them, I do feel need to spread or share them with others. But thats not a religion for very specific reason. I would agree with Jordan that there is a lot of people who keep less pleasant traits of their personality hidden from themselves, or that we are complicated. I would agree that acting is more important thats speaking on principles.
I do not worship my own principles. I do not ask them to make small favor to me.
Following principles and acting upon them is not the same like worshipping. Thats something religios people in fact DO NOT understand. They worship a lot of principles, instead of following them, and acting upon them.
Acting upon principles is called “scrupulous”, “principled”.
And as example 2 mention, people are willing to abandon some of the principles in favor of others. Who are those people. Non religious?
I’d say you got Peterson figured out. I’m hoping the more he opens his mouth, the less popular he becomes.
I watched the hour and a half discussion with him and Matt Dillahunty on Pangburn’s patreon site (paywall). Matt let him talk and they were both respectful, and Jordan was totally exposed. In one evening, he used arguments that could have come from Deepak Chopra, Ken Ham and Oprah Winfrey. He makes them sound better by referencing literature and mythological characters and claiming “these things are hard” and require study.
I believe that he believes himself, but he has no framework on which to build a philosophy.
Here’s Matt’s follow up to the debate. I think it’s accurate. He talks about the time he got really annoyed at the end of this. And he slams the guy a few times, with good reason.
In between 23 and 25 minute marks, he talks about the value of story. I argued with him a lot about this, and now he’s too busy to answer my emails, so I’m glad he’s saying stuff like this that I agree with. Peterson talks about the importance of keeping religion, he calls it the “metaphoric substrate”, but doesn’t define that term. Matt says, either gods exist or they don’t. It’s a separate question from whether or not god stories have value. If a god story has value, maybe it’s showing that any myth could have value, and that facts and observation about what it is to be human also has value. He says, the things that these stories point to that are true are things about us. The mythological characters are not true.
Later, around 30 minutes, he says the commonality of these stories doesn’t point to some supernatural influence, we tell the same stories because we are the same. This isn’t just some philosophy of myth, it points to how we can see, in our cultures and histories, that we are more alike than different. If we would stop arguing about the name of the thing we are pointing at, we could see that.
Oddly enough I understand term “metaphoric substrate”.
Its when you start to speak about Bible myths with someone who isnt literalist and he will claim that those are metaphorical moral stories which should educate the reader about certain events which might occur in his future life. In such manner you can learn about morality. If he claims its a source of our culture… well that would be long and unpleasant debate, but he would be partially right in case of judaism, christianity and islam + all syncretic combinations with culture which preceeded those religions (and cultures).
(Note: I would say that if you go 2000 or 6000 years to the past, you might experience a problem that “metaphorical” and “theoretical” were not completely differentiated yet, while people now have problem to understand that. Problem with metaphores is that you are required to KNOW the context. Plain theoretical approach does not have this problem.)
Thats why Bible literalists (“Bible is true” people) are always wrong, and people who pick between literal or metaphorical meanings of the lines are usually even more wrong. The problem is that Bible, Old and New Testament frequently switches from metaphorical content to literal historical (and questionable) accounts, while most readers dont understand they read a collection of books, not a single one.
Dawkins experienced while making documentary for BBC about religion. He met with a priest and asked him why he isnt giving his real opinions to the flock. But how you can translate a metaphor to a literalist? I dont believe he would undestand. This was later explained at 4 Horsemen when was said that theologians speak in a different manners among themselves and say completely different things to believers.
Peterson is in very similar position. I am absolutely sure that he is really intelligent and educated in philosophy, but he expects some degree of knowledge from the audience while he follows his idea of individualism. He got disconnected with the society. In the case I described he disrespected the questioner from the very beginning and thats why he gave simplistic answer from his point of view.
When you get the same question over and over again, you start to dislike it, and later despise it because you attempted to explain your position numerous times and you are having this discussion forever. His problem is that he should bring his… together and write a book about it. From many people he gets the idea that they are following an ideology (which isnt completely untrue about us for example), and he proposes to follow ones individuality.
Thats exactly why he acts so odd. I had (and still have to some extent) same social problem.
What he also actually does, is andragogics (same as pedagogics, but for adults). He provokes thinking, by using his own language, he gets further questioning because his answers are thought provoking regardless when are poorly formulated. But also he does a lot of context switching because he goes to examples which are similar, but actually quite far away from original topic.
not enough time to really dig in, jobs to finish, but I do have a first impression to share
American believers might say i have no morals without God.
Christ American evangelicals are demonstrating to us they have neither morals or ethics - behaving more like spoiled teenagers or toddlers than thinking (dare I say rational) adults.
Oddly enough I understand term "metaphoric substrate".
.......
What he also actually does, is andragogics (same as pedagogics, but for adults). He provokes thinking, by using his own language, he gets further questioning because his answers are thought provoking regardless when are poorly formulated. But also he does a lot of context switching because he goes to examples which are similar, but actually quite far away from original topic.
I thought the guy narrating the video explained his "context switching" pretty well. Jordan makes some valid points, but those are the "bread" of a sandwich. The "meat" of his sandwich is an absurd point, but he's hoping you won't notice, and swallow the whole bite anyway. His absurd point in your video is that "religion is what you act out". Christianity has been doing this since the enlightenment, trying to claim that because you act like the best values expressed by Christianity, you ARE Christian and you got your values from Christianity and from their God.
I think your definition of metaphoric substrate is fine, but I think Peterson takes that definition a step further. He doesn't come out and say it, again doing that context switching, but I think he believes there is some supernatural force beneath or behind our minds that is somehow holding society together. He thinks the stories he picks, some novels and some Biblical, keep us connected to that force. I don't agree with that.
The “meat” in sandwich is too spoiled so i will definitely not miss that point.
To Citizens: I have heard about Ted Haggard. His story is absolutely hillarious 
I went into discussion with some dude unde Matt’s Video. I guess its one of the callers to AxP…
He aparrently didnt liked my statment that I havent been brought up in judeo-christian tradition. He made quite a funny statement that “Czechoslovakia was a christian country before communists ravaged it after 1910”…
- Czechoslovakia existed between 1918-1938 and then 1945-1993
- Communists got to power in 1948 and were forced to leave in 1989.
- Its true that during Habsburg monarchy the country was religious. It was because Habsburg family was, and still is strongly roman-catholic.
Also because the country was ravaged by conflicts between protestants and catholics, there was agreed on a peace that if local lord was protestant, all his subjects were considered protestant, and if he was a catholic his subjects were catholics. It wasnt regime of religious oppresion per-se, but there was no religious freedom at all. Monarchy went throught many changes in its shape and slowly were people more and more educated and given more and more rights. It wasnt completely a totalitarian state at the end of First World War.
He attempted to claim that there is 40% of christians in Czechoslovakia (which by the way no longer exists). Um actually, there is 34,5% of “No relgion” and 44,5% Undeclared people in last census in 2011 when speaking on current Czech republic, and 25% undeclared in current Slovakia (vs 75% various christians).
He had no problem to argue with monarchy ruled by a well known catholic aristocratic family and claim there was 95% of christian there, and made up % about current amount of christian in now non-existing country, yet he completely overlooked that for 41 years there has to be 0% of religious people. Also I know that my family conformed to this, as they wanted good future for me and my brothers. (if you was a believer, you was not allowed to study at university).
Living in Czechoslovakian version of communism was not so appalling as its now in North Korea, even China has more strict social regime. But i usually hear a lot of christians to say how commuists, atheists and humanista are trying to undermine christian morale. So… When i was born in a country which had communist regime for 35 years at that time, he still claimed i was brought up in christian values? That contradicted his own statements.
Then he made statement that “christian values were all around me” and my morale was based on them. So why making the statement about humanist marxism and how it wants to destroy all the social values?
The AxP forums can get pretty intense. Sounds like you found someone who has no problem making up facts that suit him.
Offler tried finding your discussion with AxP, couldn’t find it, that is one amazingly active comments thread. Have a link to the start of it?
Hey so I’m curious anyone out there want to give it a shot: WHAT IS A RELIGION?
Not sure if it will work here.
My YT/Google account is under my real name. Also I mentioned i discussed guy who appears to call AxP, not to “discuss with AxP”.
I would go with defnition as listed here in right upper corner:Everyone is Religious - Debunked (Jordan Peterson) - YouTube
“A set of supernatural beliefs concerting the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, which typically prescribes moral edicts and has devotional ritual practices.”
Not sure if it will work here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LjYovTo4uc&lc=z23xwtdztxqitf2pc04t1aokgxfssh2j4g5ntoflkiedbk0h00410.1525346610604910
My YT/Google account is under my real name. Also I mentioned i discussed guy who appears to call AxP, not to "discuss with AxP".
I would go with defnition as listed here in right upper corner:https://youtu.be/ZMhP59FnXgw?t=9m9s
"A set of supernatural beliefs concerting the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, which typically prescribes moral edicts and has devotional ritual practices."
Yuck hate that perspective.
That totally leaves out music at its best.
To me that's the purest form of religion,
which for me has more to do with appreciating what is beyond our understanding, than anything else.
Though in the real world I see religion first and foremost as a means to control and manage tribes and societies.
Yuck hate that perspective.
That totally leaves out music at its best.
To me that's the purest form of religion,
which for me has more to do with appreciating what is beyond our understanding, than anything else.
Though in the real world I see religion first and foremost as a means to control and manage tribes and societies.
Well... I would add that "set of supernatural beliefs" has two sides. Those who believe, and those who make people believe. You can leave out the supernatural part of it, and you will end up with "politics" or "ideology". I often compare the three, because religious people tend to point out how are ideologies harmful, but "religions are good". Its same when christian say why his religion is true, while he certainly recognizes that islam is not.
The discussion is up for free now Jordan Peterson vs Matt Dillahunty (CC: Arabic & Spanish) - YouTube
I’m not necessarily endorsing it. I just find Matt’s style appealing. He made it a discussion, not a debate. Sadly, Jordan did to Matt the very thing Matt said he would not do, which is to put words in his mouth. Matt tried the entire time to understand what Jordan believed about God, and Jordan never answered. Near the end, Jordan told Matt he believed in God because he has morals.
On a different Jordan Peterson note, I saw a clip of him on Bill Maher. He challenges the liberal panel with a question about what they are going to do about the divided country. He says he agrees Trump is a problem, but even if he gets booted out of the White House, he asked how these liberals are going to help heal the country. The video includes subtitles by the YouTuber that pointed out how they never answered the question.
My answer, it’s not their question to answer. Sure, we can all be nice to crappy people and show them how to act like grown ups. But we’ve been giving them better health care and trying to help them improve their schools although that’s mostly a local issue. I don’t control comedians so I can’t tell them to stop mocking people who vote against their own economic interests. Jordan is very good at asking questions as if there should be answer, but he ignores the context and doesn’t respond when asked to clarify.
On a different Jordan Peterson note, I saw a clip of him on Bill Maher. He challenges the liberal panel with a question about what they are going to do about the divided country. He says he agrees Trump is a problem, but even if he gets booted out of the White House, he asked how these liberals are going to help heal the country. The video includes subtitles by the YouTuber that pointed out how they never answered the question.
My answer, it's not their question to answer. Sure, we can all be nice to crappy people and show them how to act like grown ups. But we've been giving them better health care and trying to help them improve their schools although that's mostly a local issue. I don't control comedians so I can't tell them to stop mocking people who vote against their own economic interests. Jordan is very good at asking questions as if there should be answer, but he ignores the context and doesn't respond when asked to clarify.
I learned about Peterson from "Real Time" as I watch its bits on Youtube. I really like Bill's style, he is well informed and can grip certain topics from both sides, while still clearly describe his own position.
They spoke how Peterson got attention, and it was related to transgenderism on universities .Peterson is a psychologist. I think he still perceives transgenderism as a form of psychological delusion, and his training tells him to assure the patient about reality.
From the start of the discussion i have an impression he maintains his training as well. He intejects Matt and confronts his thought before its actually completed. Its slightly coercive approach. Later he provides tons of different information to explain his position while adding LOTs of context. But i found interesting to hear a psychologist to say that "conscionsness is mysterious". I found it complicated, but thats due my previous work on AI, but not mysterious.
It seems to me that Peterson keeps getting back to poetry, metaphores and his training as psychologist. He uses that as a way how to explain things. Less logic, more emotions, better impact within the discussion. Thats the way how certain religious texts are written.
Peterson has little to no idea about the "golden rule". His statement about the axioms as a religion tells more about him, than about objective truth.
