You're a spiritual and intellectual midget compared to either of these two men
Jordan Peterson thread
- Thread starter DAIR
- Start date
You're a spiritual and intellectual midget compared to either of these two men
Intellectual maybe...
Well Dawkins entire raison d'être is anti-spiritual. His recent comments on the Sam Harris and Joe Rogan podcasts about meditation and psychedelic drugs suggests he has actively avoided such things — perhaps he's worried that a spiritual experience (even a non-religious one) may shatter his world view.
As for JP, I think he struggles to consolidate his scientific and Christian views (publically at least). He refuses to answer questions such as 'did Jesus physically walk on water' because he knows that if he answers honestly, he will alienate the hard-Christian wedge of his fanbase.
So neither of them are particularly pillars of spirituality but that's not to say they are less spiritual than jsmoke.
As for JP, I think he struggles to consolidate his scientific and Christian views (publically at least). He refuses to answer questions such as 'did Jesus physically walk on water' because he knows that if he answers honestly, he will alienate the hard-Christian wedge of his fanbase.
So neither of them are particularly pillars of spirituality but that's not to say they are less spiritual than jsmoke.
Well Dawkins entire raison d'être is anti-spiritual. His recent comments on the Sam Harris and Joe Rogan podcasts about meditation and psychedelic drugs suggests he has actively avoided such things — perhaps he's worried that a spiritual experience (even a non-religious one) may shatter his world view.
As for JP, I think he struggles to consolidate his scientific and Christian views (publically at least). He refuses to answer questions such as 'did Jesus physically walk on water' because he knows that if he answers honestly, he will alienate the hard-Christian wedge of his fanbase.
So neither of them are particularly pillars of spirituality but that's not to say they are less spiritual than jsmoke.
Any normal person can answer that question which the answer is no, he did not. You don't need JP around to answer that question.
Well quite, but the fact that he refused to answer the question is telling.Any normal person can answer that question which the answer is no, he did not. You don't need JP around to answer that question.
It's also one of them questions that non-believers/critics just throw out to end an argument and feel superior, I think JP would rather have the discussion.
I know some of his views may be grounded in his religious upbringing, doesn't mean that it's irrelevant to someone who is an atheist. Not sure it's all down to an inability of his to make them both align, he's not a zealot unwilling to be rational.
True, but when the discussion is about JP's religious convictions it is relevant — I'm thinking specifically about his debate with Sam Harris in Vancouver.
I'm not suggesting that his teachings are irrelevant to atheists because he's Christian. Although, as I've stated previously, I do think he puts too much emphasis on Christianity with regard to his analysis of archetypes and meta-stories.
He's being perfectly rational — he has a strong Christian fanbase and he could damage his relationship with them if he was honest and direct about such a question.
Instead, he obfuscates by questioning objective vs. subjective truth. Even then, he can't bring himself to admit that Jesus didn't objectively walk on water, even if the fable has a deeper subjective truth to it.
Associate
He prefers to focus on the symbolism behind the stories rather than whether they're literally true or not. I saw a YT video a while back in which he responded to someone asking him whether he believed in God and he said "I act as if He exists", so it's not as if he's really beating the religious drum like some people make out.
That is most likely why he doesn't answer it. The moral of the story matters, not the semantics of the story. And he's probably aware that people will discredit the fable because of inaccuracies in the story. In the same way a lot of people on this forum (and the rest of the internet) will dismiss someones argument because they make a grammatical mistake, completely ignoring the argument itself.
Soldato
I listened to Sam Harris's podcast where he was a guest earlier. Even though it was well over 2 hours of them arguing over truth it was interesting. Harris wouldn't let him off the hook on his moral truth overriding scientific truth and I honestly thought Harris kicked his arse on that subject. Shame they didn't delve into morals and religion as I would find that fascinating. I'll have to watch their Vancouver debate on YT.
Absolutely. My issue isn't necessarily that he's religious, it's is that he prioritises the Christian interpretation/application of his archetypes over other faiths and cultures. He does go some way to addressing this in the intro to 12 Rules but I don't think it would hurt for him to expand his horizons.
I've recently finished 'The Hero with a Thousand Faces' by Joseph Campbell, which does a much better job of analysing a plethora of archetypal narratives from a huge range of cultures from around the world. Given that it was written in 1949, I would be surprised if someone like JP wasn't familiar with Campbell's work but he's chosen (for whatever reason) to promote the Christian fables above everything else.
Perhaps. Personally, I would respect him more if he explicitly stated that he didn't think the miracles happened but that, as an allegory, they transcend what's physically possible in order to convey a deeper meaning. As above, I'm sceptical as to why he doesn't do this.
That first Harris/Peterson podcast is a bit of a slog but certainly interesting. The second attempt on Sam's podcast and then their other debates (like Vancouver) flow better.
The whole objective/subjective truth, especially with regard to morality, is fascinating and I keep swinging back and forth between the two sides of the argument. If that interests you, check out The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt — it focuses on different/opposing subjective moralities and why everyone believes their subjective morality is the only true morality.
He’s human just like the rest of us. The rules are there to aspire to.
Even Jesus said “may he without sin cast the first stone” (or thereabouts). Nobody is perfect!
Respect him more, why? So that you can dismiss him as someone who believes in miracles? Why does it matter. I'm all for people criticising organised religion, it's flawed because most are hierarchical and all are manmade. Christianity itself has driven the west to what it is today and we are so quick to dismiss it because of the flaws in organised religion as opposed to flaws in the christian message. I get it, why would you want to identify as Roman Catholic in this day and age with all the kiddy fiddling. But do you think love thy neighbour is a good message? Turn the other cheek? Forgiveness (really the most important aspect of christianity [and I would add western civilisation])? And of course I'm not saying Christianity has the exclusive rights to those messages, nor that all of its messages are perhaps good.
You see an absence of transcendental inspiration everywhere these days, music, art, architecture. If people believed they were designing it for an omnipotent god or for an almighty hero of a King; they might be inspired, and they were. Modern architecture and art today is so devoid of inspiration because it reflects the fact that we as a society are devoid of inspiration. Instead what 'inspires' the youth of today? We label things brave that really aren't that brave. We aspire to obtain material possessions. We are narcissistic. We encourage victimhood (really pathetic weakness), "are the things that go wrong in life to do with me?", no it's something out of your control, it's not your fault. Admittedly some people are dealt a bad hand, but some things are your fault! Aspiring towards the impossible, Jesus (or insert mythical omnipotent person here) means you will reach higher and higher. Aspiring to something relatively easy? And you end up with what we have today.
Having a common set of values in religion gives people purpose and something to sooth you for the impending doom and unknown that is death. Because really, if we are just an accident of nature, a fluke from the primordial soup (as Richard Dawkins puts it) floating around on a rock, then really what's the point of living at all? Your kids will know your name, their kids will, their kid's kids might, after that? Forgotten. It's no way to live. And that's why I have faith. There are much better arguments put forward than I can manage, The Everlasting Man by GK Chesterton is fantastic.
Last edited:
I think you misread what I said. I would respect him more if he came out and said that he doesn’t believe in miracles (of the biblical kind at least).
And the reason, as I said above, is that I don’t think he does believe in miracles but I think he won’t admit it because it would exclude some of his base.
Personally, I find far more aesthetic beauty in a Rothko painting than a Raphael. I prefer Fallingwater to Notre Dame. That’s not to say I don’t appreciate the skill required to produce gothic architecture or a renaissance painting — it’s just a personal preference — but Rothko and Frank Lloyd Wright weren’t driven by a desire to paint/design for an omnipotent god.
I also don’t believe faith is required to find purpose and meaning in life.
That’s another issue I have with JP. Pretty much all of his teaching is in line with how I was brought up (in an entirely secular household, so minus the religiosity). I said very early on in this thread that I didn’t find the lessons in 12 Rules groundbreaking — it surprises and saddens me that so many people need a book like 12 Rules to be told these things. If it helps people then I’m happy for them — note that I’m not dismissing the obvious good that JP has done for a lot of people.
Last edited:
Soldato
I understand that but he's preaching about "the rules", he's writing about "the rules" and making a shed load of money doing so. Because he's clearly not adhering to his own rules that, for me somewhat invalidates the whole thing. I'll be the first to admit I don't know that much about him or his material though so perhaps I'm misreading it.
Soldato
I can understand why those people who bought his books. followed his advice and put him up on a pedestal might be disappointed that he turned out to be a drug addict. Personally I wouldn't hold it against him, I've not walked in his shoes, I've know plenty of people who have struggled with addiction at times in their lives.
I think there is still opportunity for him to practice what he preaches in all of this.
He's got the opportunity to take his own advice, in particular treating himself like someone who he is responsible for. If he gets through this phase of his life, his success shouldn't be measured by how relevant/prominent he is in the media/society but rather how 'well' he is.
This is a tough thing for any person to deal with, and can happen to anyone so I wish him all the best in his recovery.
He's got the opportunity to take his own advice, in particular treating himself like someone who he is responsible for. If he gets through this phase of his life, his success shouldn't be measured by how relevant/prominent he is in the media/society but rather how 'well' he is.
This is a tough thing for any person to deal with, and can happen to anyone so I wish him all the best in his recovery.
He was prescribed drugs by a Doctor, then struggled with coming off them because they're physically addictive. Is everyone using prescription drugs now being labelled a drug addict?
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2018
- Posts
- 1,304
If they can't come off them then by definition they are drug addict, doesn't matter how they got into them in the first place.
He's addicted to drugs therefore a drug addict, very simple.
Calling someone a drug addict doesn't mean i have no sympathy for their situation though, i'd never judge someone who became addicted to drugs because they were trying to cope with a tragedy.
It's not that simple though is it? 'Drug addict' has implications as a phrase. It's not the same as someone getting jacked up on heroin regularly compared to being prescribed something by your doctor. You're being disingenuous if you don't see what implications using that phrase has.