Jordan Peterson's Religious Apologetic Arguments

[pharphis]

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.

OK this context makes your comment more clear.

That said, domestic violence is usually reciprocal (both partners being violent), and in addition involves people who are constantly around each other (duh).

The fact that women are more likely to be hurt by people close to them is unsurprising, since the same is true for things like kidnapping, child abuse, etc.

 

[Lambchops]

OK this context makes your comment more clear.

That said, domestic violence is usually reciprocal (both partners being violent), and in addition involves people who are constantly around each other (duh).

The fact that women are more likely to be hurt by people close to them is unsurprising, since the same is true for things like kidnapping, child abuse, etc.

So you agree that Petersons claim is utter BS?

As an aside; I would like to apologize for the way I went off on you in a different thread on here the other day. It was completely uncalled for, and I am sincerely sorry. I have no excuse for the way I behaved.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The problem is that when Peterson is right, it's on something that is totally obvious.
Beyond that, he is either vague or woefully uninformed.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Sorry, but this is the greatest Peterson video ever. https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/997575537089564672?lang=en

lmao Jordan Peterson actually believes the DNA double helix, discovered in 1953, is depicted in ancient Chinese, Aboriginal and Egyptian art (h/t @Lafargue & @OwenOver)

 

[pharphis]

So you agree that Petersons claim is utter BS?

As an aside; I would like to apologize for the way I went off on you in a different thread on here the other day. It was completely uncalled for, and I am sincerely sorry. I have no excuse for the way I behaved.

Sorry, but which claim are you referring to?

and no worries

 

[angrysoba]

Sorry, but this is the greatest Peterson video ever. https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/997575537089564672?lang=en

Ha ha! Classic!

 

[Tony99]

The problem is that when Peterson is right, it's on something that is totally obvious.
Beyond that, he is either vague or woefully uninformed.

This^
Listened to a couple of long-form podcasts with Peterson to see what all the fuss was about.
He seems to boil down to make your bed everyday, eat right, exercise and do something meaningful.

I think he, like many academics that suddenly find themselves in the public light; fall victim to the soundbite or short online article.
They don't adjust their language to the audience. Terms like 'enforced monogamy' may not raise an eyebrow in the context of his classroom or some academic circles, but say that in a Buzzfeed article and watch the **** storm.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I saw his chat with Dillahunty and thought it was quite interesting, because as I expected even though it wasn't a "debate" I do think Matt wiped the floor with him. Matt has 10 years of experience talking to people more sophisticated than Peterson on the topic of religion and is willing to interject as needed (and allow his opponent to speak) in a way that makes him a very formidable opponent. He's also reasonably charitable in the dozens or so debates I've seen him in (and his youtube series "Atheist Debates" where he goes in depth on a small religious topic for 15-40 mins)

I agree. You can even tell by Peterson's body language, particularly by the end of the debate, that he is uncomfortable. Almost as if Dellahunty had shaken the core of his belief system, and it was about to crumble completely.

Compare that to his body language on the interview with Cathy Newman. It's virtually the polar opposite. He sat the whole time almost motionless and relaxed, as if he was sitting on the center of his own self. Like a rough pillar that you can't knock down.

It's almost as if you can tell when someone is speaking truthfully and when they're trying to persuade you with ********, just by paying attention at their body language

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

The problem is that when Peterson is right, it's on something that is totally obvious.
Beyond that, he is either vague or woefully uninformed.

Well, to be fair, it may be obvious to you and me. But to a great deal of people around the world, it isn't. So it still is important that there's someone (in this case, Peterson) speaking about it in an articulate matter.

 

[ynot]

Well, to be fair, it may be obvious to you and me. But to a great deal of people around the world, it isn't. So it still is important that there's someone (in this case, Peterson) speaking about it in an articulate matter.

What’s the importance of well articulated crap fooling a great deal of people around the world into believing it’s not crap? Important to the success of those spinning the crap I guess.

 

[Lambchops]

Sorry, but which claim are you referring to?

and no worries

Peterson's claim that it is unmarried men who cause the greatest harm to women?

And thanks for accepting my apology. I have a sort of hair-trigger response to certain topics, but I'm trying to do better. It honestly was nothing personal.

 

[Lambchops]

Sorry, but this is the greatest Peterson video ever. https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/997575537089564672?lang=en

Yeah, this is just. Wow... Comedy gold.

 

[pharphis]

Peterson's claim that it is unmarried men who cause the greatest harm to women?

And thanks for accepting my apology. I have a sort of hair-trigger response to certain topics, but I'm trying to do better. It honestly was nothing personal.

I think that's not true based on what someone else has said and basic intuition about domestic violence.
Just to be clear I'm not here as some kind of defender of Peterson. Sometimes I will "defend" in that I will correct what he has said or provide some more context but I will openly disagree with half of what he says. Mostly but not exclusively the religious nonsense.

Although now I'm not sure he specifically said that. Skimming through the thread again I don't see that claim, only the claim married men are less violent, which isn't exactly the same as saying that unmarried men are the greatest risk to women. I only skimmed, though, so if anyone knows where that claim was made by peterson please let me know.

 

[angrysoba]

Here's a perfect example of what I don't like about Jordan Peterson.

Sam Harris makes a statement about Peterson believing in God. Peterson refuses to answer it clearly.

Harris: "You say you believe in God..."
Peterson: "No, I say I act as though he exists, which is a much more precise claim."

But Peterson also denies Harris is a real atheist, because he too, apparently acts as though God exists.

Then he reads out some word salad about what "God" is. It's vague in such a way that the description can hardly be understood. Harris cuts through the ******** by saying, you may as well say that I believe in ghosts because ghosts can be defined the same way.

https://youtu.be/4D7VB_t0uLE?t=5001

 

[Roboramma]

Here's a perfect example of what I don't like about Jordan Peterson.

Sam Harris makes a statement about Peterson believing in God. Peterson refuses to answer it clearly.

Harris: "You say you believe in God..."
Peterson: "No, I say I act as though he exists, which is a much more precise claim."

But Peterson also denies Harris is a real atheist, because he too, apparently acts as though God exists.

Then he reads out some word salad about what "God" is. It's vague in such a way that the description can hardly be understood. Harris cuts through the ******** by saying, you may as well say that I believe in ghosts because ghosts can be defined the same way.

https://youtu.be/4D7VB_t0uLE?t=5001

Yeah, I found the first podcast where they talked about truth very revealing as Sam brought out Peterson's views very clearly.

 

[angrysoba]

Yeah, I found the first podcast where they talked about truth very revealing as Sam brought out Peterson's views very clearly.

Yes, Harris very effectively pinned him down on the issue of truth, and Peterson's claims that there is a distinction between "objective truth" and "mythical, archetypal truth that you had better bloody well believe or you will fail to get the gold from the dragon and in turn fail to propagate as a species and end up in Hell, or as Jung might say..."which is just as true as the other truth.

Harris showed time and again that Peterson's second idea of "truth" could be called "wisdom" and that various works of literature, not only Biblical stories (in fact, maybe to a lesser extent than, say, Shakespeare), have elements of wisdom to us, but they are NOT true!

Harris comes up with a good analogy and that is the wisdom that there is no such thing as an unloaded gun. It's a very good way to live, but it isn't literally true.

My suspicion has always been that Peterson wants his interlocutors to say something like, "Okay, you're right, those stories do help me fulfill my Jungian archetypal hero's journey therefore I will accept the word true! And the Bible is one of those so it is true!"

And the big reveal for Peterson is, "Aha! So you do accept the truth of religion!" or some such lame conclusion.

Anyway, I found a couple more clips. Here's one which I mentioned earlier where Peterson is talking about how he is religious with Rogan. For some reason, I had remembered it as him saying he was an Orthodox Christian. Maybe he does later, I am not that interested in listening on. But it is him "reconciling" being scientific and a "deeply religious person". To be honest, most of what he then goes on to say is more word salad for me. Rogan seems to be drinking it all in with a "whoah, blows my mind" expression, and the You Tube comments are full of people who think Peterson is their "Lord":

https://youtu.be/04wyGK6k6HE?t=7337

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Here's a perfect example of what I don't like about Jordan Peterson.

Sam Harris makes a statement about Peterson believing in God. Peterson refuses to answer it clearly.

Harris: "You say you believe in God..."
Peterson: "No, I say I act as though he exists, which is a much more precise claim."

But Peterson also denies Harris is a real atheist, because he too, apparently acts as though God exists.

Then he reads out some word salad about what "God" is. It's vague in such a way that the description can hardly be understood. Harris cuts through the ******** by saying, you may as well say that I believe in ghosts because ghosts can be defined the same way.

https://youtu.be/4D7VB_t0uLE?t=5001

Yeah, agreed. The whole "You act as if you believe" assertion is just complete meaningless jargon in the way he develops on the topic. If anything, at times Peterson acts as someone who doesn't believe in half of the stuff he says about God, and about being very precise with words. For instance, when he's talking about the Gender Pronoun issue, he does assert that we have to be very precise with the meaning of words and not manipulate them to better suit our needs, etc (I'm paraphrasing by the way), but when it comes to his Religious beliefs, he acts exactly the opposite way.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Yes, Harris very effectively pinned him down on the issue of truth, and Peterson's claims that there is a distinction between "objective truth" and "mythical, archetypal truth that you had better bloody well believe or you will fail to get the gold from the dragon and in turn fail to propagate as a species and end up in Hell, or as Jung might say..."which is just as true as the other truth.

Harris showed time and again that Peterson's second idea of "truth" could be called "wisdom" and that various works of literature, not only Biblical stories (in fact, maybe to a lesser extent than, say, Shakespeare), have elements of wisdom to us, but they are NOT true!

Harris comes up with a good analogy and that is the wisdom that there is no such thing as an unloaded gun. It's a very good way to live, but it isn't literally true.

My suspicion has always been that Peterson wants his interlocutors to say something like, "Okay, you're right, those stories do help me fulfill my Jungian archetypal hero's journey therefore I will accept the word true! And the Bible is one of those so it is true!"

And the big reveal for Peterson is, "Aha! So you do accept the truth of religion!" or some such lame conclusion.

Anyway, I found a couple more clips. Here's one which I mentioned earlier where Peterson is talking about how he is religious with Rogan. For some reason, I had remembered it as him saying he was an Orthodox Christian. Maybe he does later, I am not that interested in listening on. But it is him "reconciling" being scientific and a "deeply religious person". To be honest, most of what he then goes on to say is more word salad for me. Rogan seems to be drinking it all in with a "whoah, blows my mind" expression, and the You Tube comments are full of people who think Peterson is their "Lord":

https://youtu.be/04wyGK6k6HE?t=7337

There's something very interesting I found yesterday, and at the risk of derailing my own thread, I was listening to a Joe Rogan podcast with Neil Degrasse Tyson, and Tyson said that he had 3 definitions of True

Objective Truth: Which is the sum of facts that we know about the world, and which we can measure and demonstrate using the tools of science

Personal Truth: Which is things that you strongly believe in, that are true for you (In other words, personal religious experiences for individual people)

Political Truth: Something that has been repeated so much through the crowds, that it starts becoming accepted as if it were true

He then adds that the problem is when someone tries to force other people to accept/enforce their personal truths.

Then of course, Rogan mentioned the interview between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris discussing about the meaning of the word truth.


While I'll agree that this is sounding very close to Peterson's alternative usage of the word True, I would say that the main difference is, first of all, that Tyson isn't negating that there's an objective truth that has nothing to do with your subjective experiences ("Personal Truth") In fact, he's not actually making a claim that there is actually more than one type of truth (not in the objective sense) He's creating sub-categories of the word to define other ways of understanding the world that a lot of people have defined as "truth" over Centuries. Because of this long tradition of the usage of the word, he concludes that it's a waste of energy to try to take away people's alternative use of a word, while at the same time being very clear that someone's "Personal Truth" is not the same from the Objective Truth. He's being very clear about which place each truth deserves.

The difference is that Peterson uses different definitions of the word interchangeably, so that there's no consistency about which definition of the word he's using at any given time, making it for an intellectually dishonest discourse; which is a typical manipulation of words that Religious people do: They'll change back and forth between definitions of words such as "truth", "God", "Real", etc, to suit their needs. So Peterson jumps the shark by saying things such as, for instance, that a fictional story with a strong moral message is more real than real (in this case, the word "real" is the one that starts losing meaning thanks to his use of sophistry)

 

[mumblethrax]

There's something very interesting I found yesterday, and at the risk of derailing my own thread, I was listening to a Joe Rogan podcast with Neil Degrasse Tyson, and Tyson said that he had 3 definitions of True

Objective Truth: Which is the sum of facts that we know about the world, and which we can measure and demonstrate using the tools of science

Personal Truth: Which is things that you strongly believe in, that are true for you (In other words, personal religious experiences for individual people)

Political Truth: Something that has been repeated so much through the crowds, that it starts becoming accepted as if it were true

That's just Tyson fumbling around in the dark because he refuses to take philosophy seriously. I particularly like that he elevated what the rest of us call conventional wisdom to a species of truth, and then bakes "It's not necessarily true" into the definition. He also expresses a crude scientism that elevates science to the only source of epistemically sound truth. "All bachelors are unmarried" isn't a proposition we need to measure and demonstrate, isn't scientific in any way, but it's certainly true.

There are people who can give you good information on these subjects, so why turn to the people who palpably have no idea what they're talking about? Probably because they take on the right targets. Jordan Peterson appeals to the same kind of person who watches YouTube compilation videos with titles like "Seven times atheists DESTROYED religious arguments", except he goes after "post-modern cultural Marxists" and other...Jungian archetypes.

In addition to Peterson's tenuous relationship with the truth (treating it tactically, rather than as the end of rational inquiry), he's just kind of insufferably whiny. I recall a debate where he threw a tantrum about how he'd go to jail before paying a fine for using the wrong pronoun. His opponent, a Canadian law professor (I think?) cannily responded with "Sorry, you don't get to go to jail for that."

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah, agreed. The whole "You act as if you believe" assertion is just complete meaningless jargon in the way he develops on the topic. If anything, at times Peterson acts as someone who doesn't believe in half of the stuff he says about God, and about being very precise with words.

I've sort of halfway developed a theory that many traditional concepts of faith are being effected by the Post-Truth world paradigm shift almost as much as more rational ways of thought are and are trying to re-invent itself via about a half dozen methods.

That's why so much... Woo these days seems less like someone being wrong and someone trying to convince others (and themselves) that being wrong doesn't matter.