Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Losing Christianity and society's traditions might have a more negative than positive affect on society, and he believes that to be the case.
He never explained why, not in several hours of discussion. He did make up a lot of word salad though.
That said, I did learn some things from Peterson. I don't remember what right now, but I did learn some things. I don't remember what I learned because this series of videos was multiple hours long.
Peterson was very patient and polite. So was Harris. I think Harris got a little snappy for a bit in the last hour or so of the series...probably because the series was many, many hours long...and all I learned of relevance to their discussion from Peterson was that losing religion and traditional culture might cause more negative affects on culture than positive affects.
I've probably forgotten some things too because I listen to these sorts of videos while falling asleep or doing other things so I'm only halfway paying attention. Jordan Peterson's Kermit the Frog voice is my ASMR. It soothes me.
What I remember most about the discussion is just how little was actually said, yet it was interesting listening to the to people's thought processes bounce against each other. I recommend the videos if you don't particularly care whether or not you learn any new facts, but you're interesting in seeing the perspectives of some fairly intelligent people. I listened to it because I wanted to learn more about Jordan Peterson, who I've been hearing a lot about lately. I think I understand him more now.
Near the end of the last video, Sam Harris mentioned that he still, despite being several hours into their discussion, had no idea whether or not Jordan Peterson believes in a literal Christian God or not. Peterson doesn't seem to know that either.
Jordan Peterson is infatuated with the Christian culture, and takes the view that he behaves as if Christianity is true, without really commenting on whether it is or not, and he appears to believe that's the ideal mentality.
Peterson also respects other types of moral codes gathered from society or culture. He once said the rough equivalent of: if all you have is comic book characters to be your rolemodels, that's better than nothing. Peterson, above all else, appears to believe that people need strong examples, through culture, through stories, and through rolemodels to motivate society to behave ideally positively.
I find that interesting because I tend to hold the opposite view. I look at things more like, not only would people probably behave more ideally if organized religion was gone from society, we'd probably behave more ideally if we discarded most of culture in general too and everybody became hedonistic individualists - scrapping every aspect of culture into the metaphorical meat grinder that doesn't clearly lead to maximized pleasure and minimized suffering for ourselves and other feeling life, particularly humans.
The way I see things, I'm much better off listening to the advice of people who understand my circumstances than I am listening to people who don't, so that means I'm probably best off totally discarding the advice of people who lived centuries ago that comes in the form of religion, particularly because their advice might not even have been optimal back then. Peterson argues that because religion is so widespread, it might have assisted society in some way so we shouldn't casually discard it.
While it's certainly a possibility that religion can have a positive influence on society, Peterson had many, many hours to explain why it likely does...and he never even nudged the conversation into that area.
Even with culture in general, culture might not be evolved to assist society either. It certain can, but it doesn't have too. Culture was invented by non-thinking processes of groups, oftentimes. Sometimes it'll be invented by large numbers of people thinking along similarly sensible routes...but other times it'll just be a trend that happens to spread easily due to common flaws in thought processes, such as the widespread opposition to homosexuality much of the world has if they don't calm down and think to themselves, "Now...is really causing much, if any harm?"
The advantage of relying purely on self-constructed ideas and motivations as opposed to any kind of culture is that it's so much more rapidly adaptable to new conditions than culture is, so far as I can see.
If we look through the lens of logic, and determine why or we should not do things ourselves, we can filter out every logical flaw culture could lead to.
Culture can motivate us on an emotional level, and in that way can be useful...but in terms of thinking about the world intelligently to plan our goals, I think we're probably best off ignoring most of culture, except for the advice that comes from people we know, or who seem to likely know more than we do about a topic. The general rules of behavior called culture though, I think that stuff pretty much useless...probably. Yeah, culture can motivate me to not do heavy drugs, which is good, but it could just as easily motivate me to do them through peer pressure, and if I ignore both forms of pressure I don't lose anything.
So, given that culture is basically advice from a society that knows nothing about me, I'm assuming it's usually bad advice. I think that's at least about five times as true for religion, because religion was not only designed by people who don't know me, but people who lived centuries ago, who knew less about the world than me, who also weren't even necessarily particularly wise for their time.
Peterson emphasizes that culture and traditions that are widespread should often be respected because they would have spread for some reason...but then he never considers that perhaps the reason why Christianity and Islam are so widespread is because you go to hell for not doing the things they tell you to do and heaven for doing the things they tell you to do. Sam Haris made a point about that. I don't remember ho Peterson responded. Cultures don't have to be useful to anyone to be widespread.
So, while learning about Peterson was interesting, the main flaw of Peterson's arguing style was that he had many, many hours to describe why his perspective that we should greatly respect traditional culture, including at least some forms of religion, was correct, but he never did it.
Peterson is quite popular. He's a skilled speaker, and there appears to be a growing group of people who like him. I'm getting the impression he's just one of these word-salad speakers though, whose just more respectful than most of them so he gets more approval of a larger chunk of society. That could be a bad thing.
On the other hand, part of me wonders if his mentality is the next evolution of Christianity, and it might be a positive evolution. So, the fire and brimstome-spouting Christian God who hates dancing has pretty much been stomped into the ground in much of first world. He's still in some places. He still has more of a presence than I'd like in the U.S., for example, but his presence seems to be dwindling, on average, at least in the west.
Next on the chopping block is the much closer to benign god of the gaps - the one people believe in to fill up the gaps science can't tell us yet. It's not opposed to science. It might comfort a few people. It might depress some other people. It's probably not a huge priority compared to the fire and brimstone-belching one.
Also on the modern chopping block is the god of the gaps ugly cousin: No Ears Blind Guy. This is the god of people who just don't care about facts any whatsoever.
Also on the modern chopping block is the cousin of that god: Pseudo-science McGee, who is genuinely curious about the world and does research, but is nonetheless wrong.
So, I'm wondering if, due to rising social pressures, all these gods will one day evolve into the Jordan Peterson version of God: the god that you don't actually have to believe is real - the god that is a reverence for culture and for one's potentially comforting fantasies about a paternal caregiver, that people may or may not know to be mere fantasies.
I don't know whether the spread of such a mentality would be for better or worse. It might lead into a smooth and easy transition from the more fire-belching and ignorance-worshipping variants into one of the more benign forms, or it might, alternatively, evolve into a kind of defensive carapace for the fire-belching variants, through making it appear more like the people who are actually best described as atheists or agnostics have the same mentalities as the fire-belchers, or something.
On another note, the moderator of this last video isn't as defensive of religion and traditional culture as Jordan Peterson is, but he mentions something like: if we look at what happens when Christianity goes away, look at all these dogmas that develop, that often are very odd and probably not the most ideal of mentalities.
I thought he as talking about people who list their religion as Jedi, or Satanist, or consider themselves witches, or insist they have the spirit of a nonhuman, such as a dragon or demon, who call themselves Otherkin.
I find myself wondering...what's so bad about that? I see advantages to all of those over most organized religion. All of those pseudo-religions can help people be part of a group, but none of them encourage people to wonder about the fear of hell. Even the vengeance that LaVeyan Satanism encourages might not be worse for society than the being overly forgiving that Christianity encourages...and with LaVeyan Satanism you don't have to worry about hell.
So, when I hear people like Jordan Peterson worrying about harm to society from a loss of organized religion and modern traditions, worrying about everybody becoming drugged up necrophiliac Otherkin, I think, "Okay...well that's pretty bad, but we don't know that will happen, and for the most part, I see our society as already being pretty close to the bottom of a hole, without much of a distance to go in any direction but up."
What do you think? I'm suspecting that most people on this forum won't see religion's influence on culture as a positive thing...but what about culture in general? Do think the idea that we should just discard culture in general is the best route, or do you think it has value?
I'd be very surprised if Peterson was correct about Christianity in general having a positive impact on society, on average, but I'm still wondering whether or not culture does.
So, my hypothesis is that ideally everyone would reach a point where they're ready to almost totally ignore culture and live as hedonistic individualists. I think I'd prefer a society where adults are incredible skilled at ignoring social pressures of any kind.
Do you think that's a wise route, or do you see more value to culture and social pressures for adults?
When I think of culture and social pressures for adults, I think of the pressures to go to work and support one's family (which is good) and the pressure to take care of oneself (which is good) and those sorts of things, but I also think of other negative aspects of culture.
*Culture encourages meat-eating, which has a variety of negative health affects
*Culture discourages environmentalism and thriftyness through encouraging the competition involved with buying big houses and nice cars and basically wasting resources that could be used for better things.
*Culture can pressure people to work, but it can also pressure people to be workaholics.
*Culture can just kind of lead the whole of society down a pointlessly distracting route that motivates everyone to care about having nice shoes while totally ignoring global events and the bigger issues, such as our species likely extinction in a few centuries...and that makes me seriously consider the prospect that maybe our species would be better off if everybody suddenly developed Aspergers and became blissfully unaware of the trivial social norms swarming all around us at all hours of the day.
Also, what do you think about Jordan Peterson? He's very polite and knows how to phrase things beautifully. I find myself torn between wondering if he's a shiester who makes a living selling word salad to people, wondering if he has some genuine wisdom, and wondering if he just has a different perspective than I do that I very much disagree with.
Excellent. I'd say - or for me - the bottom line is that we do not need religion because it is true. It isn't. That's my stance. The discussion is about whether we are happier having them, never mind emotionally needing them.
I can't imagine human life without festivals. Held for no reason other than because we like 'em. For us, there are Three - Christmas, Bonfire night and Hallow'een. One religious, one political and the third just for fun and free sweets for the kids.
I have no patience with those who bleat that we have forgotten the religious component of Christimas. We should forget it. It is a tale no more credible than any in Harry Potter. I feel the same way about those who whine about forgetting the political basis of Guy Fowkkes. Ok - it's history, but, as celebrating the foiling of the last of a long chain of catholic plots against the protestant British government, let's leave it to history. And we can do without Christian moaning about the satanic aspects of trick or treat. The sooner we stop listening to these foolish people who believe a ludicrous tale out of a nasty old book the better.
So, if we stop being Too Serious about these fun celebrations, will that make us better off? I'd say it would open up a whole range of celebrations that otherwise would have been off -limits.
So, we may suspect that one who is talking about the value of religion either in the De Botton initiative where it can have therapeutic value (I can't think of any other and he didn't say) of the cultural festival aspect are really believers trying to keep it afloat. That doesn't matter. Bias really doesn't - it is whether a valid point or argument is being made that matters. And if an atheist has a good word to say about Keeping Christmas, you can bet there ain't no bias.
I like Harris's books, the four I've read, but find his videos and ventures into public speaking interminable and uninteresting. This is no doubt due to my intellectual laziness and lack of depth.
I also like that he has a PhD in Neuroscience from Stanford. Just seems like a cool thing to do and no doubt demanding and time consuming. I would attempt the same at some decent state school, but I can't endure the mouse research, animal rights and all. That piece is very expensive, I've been told and they don't have it at the state school down the street from me, but it is generally a requirement.
Oh, and he also does martial arts, also very cool. But probably trivial next to the other achievements.
could come in handy just in case one of those "You wouldn't dare say that to my face!" artists tries the intimidation ploy a finger poke too far in a debate.
could come in handy just in case one of those "You wouldn't dare say that to my face!" artists tries the intimidation ploy a finger poke too far in a debate.
Oh, you mean the martial arts? Yeah, he's a tiny little Jewish guy and it probably does wonders for him. I pursued it for the opposite reason: I'm a very tall northern European (Swedish ancestry) and wanted to control my impulses to kick the $hit out of people.
I have heard little of much use or interest from Peterson when he moves outside his own area of career and training - which is mental health and psychology/psychiatry.
Once he moves outside that realm he either becomes uninteresting or outright bat-s crazy. For example he claims to strongly believe that solely through the use of psychedelic drugs - that people of ancient cultures garnered knowledge of the Double Helix nature of Human DNA long before DNA itself was ever discovered or even suspected to exist. And his sole evidence for this is images such people made of things wrapped around each other. Not noticing - it seems - that such images are common in nature such as Snakes Mating.
To be honest I am totally unconvinced Peterson would have any kind of media career if it was not for his one move of standing up against laws in his home country regarding Gender Pronouns. He - for once - actually has a good point on that score. That legally mandating what language people use is a bad move for any society. Much has been made of him refusing to use such pronouns - when in fact his issue was not with the pronouns but with being legally mandated to use them.
Sam Harris has an "Ask me anything" session behind his paywall but a writer I know quoted something from it which I can repeat for you here - as it was asked and answered before the 4 hours of video to which you refer.
Quote:
Questioner.
For the last year I have been listening to a lot of Peterson's material and am in the process of finishing his program "Past and future authoring". Even though there is something about his material that does not feel right that I can not articulate.
Harris.
I have these events coming up with Jordan where I will hash this out. Generally I see how much value people are finding in what he is saying. It is not a mystery to me why that would be. He is giving a very standard Self Help Curriculum with more moral and political urgency.
There is a quasi religious undertone to it. I see why that would land with so many people. But I also see that there is a fair amount wrong with it, not grounded in a careful intellectually honest analysis of what we have good reason to believe, and reject. I will save my specific arguments for when we meet. I think he has exposed a hunger for meaning and structure in the secular community that I sensed was there, but never really saw this clearly.
It is not a surprise to me that that is there, but it is a surprise how many people are willing to imbibe precisely what he is delivering without issue, because this is a kind of religious communication in the end. But I do think 90% of what he is saying is interesting, worthwhile, but it is being vitiated by the other 10%. It would be nice to strip that 10% out and have a truly honest and interesting conversation about meaning and values and profundity and the sacred. And even the utility of thinking in terms of myths, that could potentially be useful. But I think we have to be honest about what we think is true while we do that.
Other Bat-s crazy claims Peterson tends to make are that people can not be cured of things like smoking with without supernatural intervention. And he also claims that people can not be artists and be atheist. When asked what he is afraid of in a world without religion he answers that "you would lose art, poetry, drama, narrative and story telling". As if!
In fact he also claims most people who claim to be atheist are not atheist. Why? Because they are not going around murdering people all the time. To even call that a non-sequitur is to miss just how much a nonsense move it is. And all that is not to mention his weird obsession with the idea we all should act more like lobsters.
So no - I see nothing much useful or interesting in Peterson. He should stick to the field he is actually trained in - or maybe writing a few self help books. But alas his being catapulted to fame by his position on a single societal issue has given him and many followers the illusion he has lots interesting to say.
I have heard little of much use or interest from Peterson when he moves outside his own area of career and training - which is mental health and psychology/psychiatry.
Once he moves outside that realm he either becomes uninteresting or outright bat-s crazy. For example he claims to strongly believe that solely through the use of psychedelic drugs - that people of ancient cultures garnered knowledge of the Double Helix nature of Human DNA long before DNA itself was ever discovered or even suspected to exist. And his sole evidence for this is images such people made of things wrapped around each other. Not noticing - it seems - that such images are common in nature such as Snakes Mating.
To be honest I am totally unconvinced Peterson would have any kind of media career if it was not for his one move of standing up against laws in his home country regarding Gender Pronouns. He - for once - actually has a good point on that score. That legally mandating what language people use is a bad move for any society. Much has been made of him refusing to use such pronouns - when in fact his issue was not with the pronouns but with being legally mandated to use them.
Sam Harris has an "Ask me anything" session behind his paywall but a writer I know quoted something from it which I can repeat for you here - as it was asked and answered before the 4 hours of video to which you refer.
Other Bat-s crazy claims Peterson tends to make are that people can not be cured of things like smoking with without supernatural intervention. And he also claims that people can not be artists and be atheist. When asked what he is afraid of in a world without religion he answers that "you would lose art, poetry, drama, narrative and story telling". As if!
In fact he also claims most people who claim to be atheist are not atheist. Why? Because they are not going around murdering people all the time. To even call that a non-sequitur is to miss just how much a nonsense move it is. And all that is not to mention his weird obsession with the idea we all should act more like lobsters.
So no - I see nothing much useful or interesting in Peterson. He should stick to the field he is actually trained in - or maybe writing a few self help books. But alas his being catapulted to fame by his position on a single societal issue has given him and many followers the illusion he has lots interesting to say.
That is one reasonable point and one poor one.
The latter is simply not understanding atheists. And I'll bet he doesn't want to, either. It would remove a few treasures beliefs that he has.
The other is a loss of art and poetry if one is atheist. Perhaps the best answer to that is the the Impressionists (I know they didn't care for the term). They were the first ones that painted ordinary people and things and made art of it. You don't need the inspiration of religion, mythology or legend to do art. It is true that you get the religious composers doing fine work, but Beethoven really wasn't religious. Nor Sibelius, though he seems to had a belief in God and feelings for the church. His inspiration was in nature. If he'd have been a disbelievers, his music needn't have been any different. Would dance and poetry suffer without Theism? I haven't reason to believe that you can't find subjects for dance outside of religion. Nor Keats needing religion for his art anymore than Copeland needed it for his.
If the point was that Godbelief gives us the feelings to be artistic, that's simply 'He does not understand atheists and doesn't want to'.
Hmmmm... I do behave like Zeus is real and isn't bothering me.
And I also behave like Harry Potter might be real but I'm a muggle (or is it "no-mag" in this land?).
I'm sure without Greek Polytheist Mythology and Harry Potter I would be another 1-dimensional atheist character in some popular (for being "pop") publication.
To be honest I am totally unconvinced Peterson would have any kind of media career if it was not for his one move of standing up against laws in his home country regarding Gender Pronouns. He - for once - actually has a good point on that score. That legally mandating what language people use is a bad move for any society. Much has been made of him refusing to use such pronouns - when in fact his issue was not with the pronouns but with being legally mandated to use them.
Canada law doesn't mandate anything in the public and private language such as that. It was just about the government which already controls language such as French and English being national languages.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
