Jordan Peterson's Religious Apologetic Arguments

[Lambchops]

I don't understand his popularity. He is not even wrong on most of what I've seen him talk about; he plays the victim whenever he can and is the perfect Poster Boy for right-wing pseudo-intellectualism.

Strike that. I do understand his popularity but it's certainly not based on his being correct nor insightful. He is a fundamentalist reactionary who makes me laugh almost as much as a stand up comedian. The difference is that he takes himself terribly seriously while the comedians do not; and that the comedians are deliberately trying to be funny while his humor comes from his arrogant Dunning-Kruger act.

I could not agree more. Like I posted in another thread, I see him as one of the greatest unintentional comedians of our time. Some of his ramblings are absolutely hilarious.

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

 

[The Norseman]

I could not agree more. Like I posted in another thread, I see him as one of the greatest unintentional comedians of our time. Some of his ramblings are absolutely hilarious.

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

I haven't seen that particular viddie, but the others I've seen, yeah... SMH

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

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

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

... of something which he knows nothing about.

 

[Lambchops]

I haven't seen that particular viddie, but the others I've seen, yeah... SMH

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

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

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

... of something which he knows nothing about.

Oh, I wasn't thinking of any particular video. Just any video that dares question the infinite wisdom of deep thinker and prophet JBP (glory be upon his name).
The comments will turn into an utter crapstorm.

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

It's comedy gold.

 

[The Norseman]

Oh, I wasn't thinking of any particular video. Just any video that dares question the infinite wisdom of deep thinker and prophet JBP (glory be upon his name).

Ah, okay. I thought you were referring to a specific video when you mentioned the Lobsterdaddy meme, but anyway, it's sometimes a sad thing to see that everyone seems to want to post their opinions no matter how based in ignorance they are.

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

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

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

hahahaha! Yes, I hadn't thought of that connection but now that you point it out, that's a classic! Also, it demonstrates the critical thinking skills his audience has.

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

And equating post modernism with "Cultural Marxism".

It's comedy gold.

True. "Cultural Marxism" is, of course, one of the current memes that are designed to demonize multiple separate ideas, concepts or philosophies with one pithy phrase.

 

[Lambchops]

I'm convinced that Peterson does not actually believe even half of the BS he spews.

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

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

And he's laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[pharphis]

I do not have a partner. I have, in fact, never had a partner. I am also one of the least violent people you could meet.


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

Questions, questions.

He has clarified that he means "social pressure" towards monogamy. I think the phrasing is stupid, and that we already have said social pressure anyway. He's normally quite careful with his phrasing so I'm surprised he used the term "enforced monogamy" in the first place.

 

[GDon]

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

* Consumption of drugs and hallucinogens is proof of the metaphysical
* You cannot quit smoking without use of mushrooms and other hallucinogens

No, Dr Peterson says it is *evidence* (but not definitive proof) of the supernatural. Matt Delahunty actually says "he's [Peterson is] right" at around 16 mins in.

* There is no such thing as Atheists. Atheists are basically closet Deists.

Not closet deists (unless I missed him saying that), but atheists suffering cognitive dissonance might be a better term.

* The proof that you are secretly a Deist is that you have a moral code (In other words: Existence of a moral code is synonym with Religious belief)

He says that actions are a reflection of beliefs. Anyone with a moral code is acting on a belief in the 'supernatural'. Part of the issue is that Peterson is using 'supernatural' and 'metaphysical' as synonyms, which can be confusing.

* (As a consequence of the previous assertion)If there were such thing as an Atheist, it would be the most immoral kind of person. One that would murder and rape under the premise that there is no such thing as morality, "so then why bother being good"?

Yes, he does say that, though maybe "amoral" rather than "immoral" (again, unless I missed him using that word).

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

I agree. Peterson shouldn't be doing this. In his defence, it is clear WHY he is doing it. But it is a passive aggressive approach that only confuses. It gets used way too much as a debating tactic: "You say you are not X! But you do Y! Therefore you really are X!" It's been used as a tactic in discussions going back 2000 years.

Regardless, as I said earlier, I think Peterson is an important voice for Social Issues. And he can be extremely brilliant and rational when it comes to these issues, and be totally on the side of science. But as soon as the discussion shifts to Religion and Morality, it's like he changes helmets, and goes from rational Peterson to irrational Peterson. It's really bizarre, kinda like a Jekyll/Mr Hyde transformation.

On the contrary, his thoughts on religion and belief in God are deep and complex. Check out analyses on his debates with Sam Harris. Here is a 17 min clip on the Think Club channel, where Peterson and Harris discuss God, with Bret Weinstein moderating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5C8Iusm6yI

 

[GDon]

He has clarified that he means "social pressure" towards monogamy. I think the phrasing is stupid, and that we already have said social pressure anyway. He's normally quite careful with his phrasing so I'm surprised he used the term "enforced monogamy" in the first place.

Dr Peterson says that he is using "well-established anthropological language".
From his blog: https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

It’s been a truism among anthropologists and biologically-oriented psychologists for decades that all human societies face two primary tasks: regulation of female reproduction (so the babies don’t die, you see) and male aggression (so that everyone doesn’t die). The social enforcement of monogamy happens to be an effective means of addressing both issues, as most societies have come to realize (pair-bonded marriages constituting, as they do, a human universal (see the list of human universals here, derived from Donald Brown’s book by that name).

Here’s something intelligent about the issue, written by antiquark2 on reddit (after the NYT piece appeared and produced its tempest in a tea pot): “Peterson is using well-established anthropological language here: “enforced monogamy” does not mean government-enforced monogamy. “Enforced monogamy” means socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy, as opposed to genetic monogamy – evolutionarily-dictated monogamy, which does exist in some species (but does not exist in humans). This distinction has been present in anthropological and scientific literature for decades.”​

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Peterson doesn't understand evolution or social dynamics.
His "one-size-fits-all" approach to gender roles is, frankly, childish.

 

[GDon]

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

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

Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

From Dr Peterson's blog: https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

Simply put: monogamous pair bonding makes men less violent. Here are some examples of the well-developed body of basic evolutionary-biological/psychological/anthropological evidence (and theory) supporting that claim.

“men who transition to a monogamous, or less competitive, mode of sexual behavior (fewer partners since last wave), reduce their risk for violence. The same results were not replicated for females. Further, results were not accounted for by marital status or other more readily accepted explanations of violence. Findings suggest that competition for sex be further examined as a potential cause of male violence.”​

 

[Lambchops]

He has clarified that he means "social pressure" towards monogamy. I think the phrasing is stupid, and that we already have said social pressure anyway. He's normally quite careful with his phrasing so I'm surprised he used the term "enforced monogamy" in the first place.

JBP is "normally quite careful with his phrasing"? If "careful phrasing" means the same as "vague word salad", then yeah, sure.

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

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

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

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

 

[The Great Zaganza]

From Dr Peterson's blog: https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

Simply put: monogamous pair bonding makes men less violent. Here are some examples of the well-developed body of basic evolutionary-biological/psychological/anthropological evidence (and theory) supporting that claim.

“men who transition to a monogamous, or less competitive, mode of sexual behavior (fewer partners since last wave), reduce their risk for violence. The same results were not replicated for females. Further, results were not accounted for by marital status or other more readily accepted explanations of violence. Findings suggest that competition for sex be further examined as a potential cause of male violence.”​

And this is an insight how?

 

[GDon]

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

Questions, questions.

Dr Peterson explains this in a short article on his blog: https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

Simply put: monogamous pair bonding makes men less violent. Here are some examples of the well-developed body of basic evolutionary-biological/psychological/anthropological evidence (and theory) supporting that claim...

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

That’s all.

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

No arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels.

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

Just the plain, bare, common-sense facts: socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence. In addition (and not trivially) they also help provide mothers with comparatively reliable male partners, and increase the probability that stable, father-intact homes will exist for children.​

 

[GDon]

And this is an insight how?

That when describing someone's views, it's best to go to the source.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's a non-sequitur that monogamy makes men less violent.
Regular access to SEX makes men less violent.

If Peterson was right, there would be no such thing as Domestic Violence.

 

[Lambchops]

From Dr Peterson's blog: https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

Simply put: monogamous pair bonding makes men less violent. Here are some examples of the well-developed body of basic evolutionary-biological/psychological/anthropological evidence (and theory) supporting that claim.

“men who transition to a monogamous, or less competitive, mode of sexual behavior (fewer partners since last wave), reduce their risk for violence. The same results were not replicated for females. Further, results were not accounted for by marital status or other more readily accepted explanations of violence. Findings suggest that competition for sex be further examined as a potential cause of male violence.”​

Wow, he is such a moron. And people actually buy this ****...

 

[pharphis]

How did you go from "less violent" to "there would be no such thing as domestic violence"?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

How did you go from "less violent" to "there would be no such thing as domestic violence"?

Domestic violence is the no.1 cause of violence against women.
This is in direct contradiction to Peterson's claims that it is unmarried men who cause the greatest harm to women.

 

[GDon]

Wow, he is such a moron. And people actually buy this ****...

Peterson is quoting from Justice Quarterly, a peer-reviewed journal of sociology, so you might be able to get it free from an academic library rather than buy it. Here is the abstract for that paper: https://www.acjs.org/page/JQ

Sexually active men, who are not in a monogamous relationship, may be at a greater risk for violence than men who are sexually active within monogamous relationships and men who are not sexually active. The current study examines changes in sexual behavior and violence in adolescence to early adulthood. Data on male (n = 4,597) and female (n = 5,523) respondents were drawn from four waves of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent and Adult Health (Add Health). HLM regression models indicate that men who transition to a monogamous, or less competitive, mode of sexual behavior (fewer partners since last wave), reduce their risk for violence. The same results were not replicated for females. Further, results were not accounted for by marital status or other more readily accepted explanations of violence. Findings suggest that competition for sex be further examined as a potential cause of male violence.​

 

[pharphis]

JBP is "normally quite careful with his phrasing"? If "careful phrasing" means the same as "vague word salad", then yeah, sure.

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

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

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

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

Look, I think he is quite often vague and dodgy on some topics, but I think that's just how he addresses those topics (religion, philosophy). When it comes to other topics I think he is normally straight-forward (whether I agree with him or not). I think "enforced monogamy" as a term left unexplained easily implies all the worst things his critics would like to nail him with (government forcing marriages, or something). His carelessness there surprised me.

That he later clarified this doesn't undo the damage to his reputation.
*shrug*