Jordan Peterson's Religious Apologetic Arguments

[angrysoba]

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)

I’ve just listened to the NDT podcast where he waffles about his different ideas of truth and I found it infuriating.

Seriously, his taxonomy is out-to-lunch. Even his definition of “objective truth” is wrong because it requires a sociological component. He says that objective truth is only true when other people have verified it. And once it is true it can never become false. Huh?

No! The only relevant meaning of truth here is that it is mind-independent. For example, if another planet exists out in the Kuiper Belt then it exists regardless of whether or not it has been discovered yet.

This is why there was a great question in the Dillahunty debate when someone asked Peterson, “if humans suddenly ceased to exist, would there still be a God?” It gets to the question of whether or not Peterson is talking about a really existing being or just a human fabrication. Naturally, Peterson refused to answer the question clearly saying it was complicated.

 

[angrysoba]

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.

Um....I don’t know what “Post-Truth paradigm” exists, but the most ironic thing about Peterson’s worldview is that he adopts the very repudiation of baseline truth that he bemoans in post-modernism and which renders his worldview just as incoherent.

In the post-modern case, people such as Derrida, and to some extent Foucault, appeared to argue that classical views of truth were just tools of oppression or sources of “power” for authorities. Actually, this is BS because the truth is the truth and it has a nasty way of destroying fictions that you just wish were true and that is true not just for the weak but also the powerful. Peterson’s rear-guard defence of religion seems to be asserting that even if we can prove that the claims of religion are demonstrably false then they are still “true” just in another way. Praise the lord! Hallelujah! That is at bottom the aim of all his waffle.

 

[Roboramma]

I’ve just listened to the NDT podcast where he waffles about his different ideas of truth and I found it infuriating.

Seriously, his taxonomy is out-to-lunch. Even his definition of “objective truth” is wrong because it requires a sociological component. He says that objective truth is only true when other people have verified it. And once it is true it can never become false. Huh?

No! The only relevant meaning of truth here is that it is mind-independent. For example, if another planet exists out in the Kuiper Belt then it exists regardless of whether or not it has been discovered yet.

This is why there was a great question in the Dillahunty debate when someone asked Peterson, “if humans suddenly ceased to exist, would there still be a God?” It gets to the question of whether or not Peterson is talking about a really existing being or just a human fabrication. Naturally, Peterson refused to answer the question clearly saying it was complicated.

Yes! Well said.

 

[angrysoba]

Yes! Well said.

Having said that, I probably should have said that there is a subset of facts that is mind dependent such as "I am now thinking of a penguin." and furthermore Harris himself has argued that values are themselves facts about the world, for example, it is a fact that people prefer well-being over misery etc... or there may be some facts that will remain undiscoverable such as "John F. Kennedy's last thought before he was shot" etc..., but NDT and Peterson, in their own ways, seem to be conjuring up uses for the word "truth" which they have not justified.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

This is why there was a great question in the Dillahunty debate when someone asked Peterson, “if humans suddenly ceased to exist, would there still be a God?” It gets to the question of whether or not Peterson is talking about a really existing being or just a human fabrication. Naturally, Peterson refused to answer the question clearly saying it was complicated.

Absolutely. I agree, that was a very key point in the discussion because it seems that the person asking the question was really trying to get to the essence of Peterson's belief at the very core. And I'm not amazed that Peterson pretty much dodged the question. Because the beliefs Peterson hold seem closer to a "Consciousness creates reality" (specifically human consciousness) type of argument, than to an actual Religious belief in a God, in the formal sense.

 

[Belz...]

I'm one of the many who has been following Jordan Peterson. My first exposure to him was the famous interview with Cathy So-you're-saying Newman. Peterson always struck me as a very rational fella, and even after I first heard him talk about the Metaphysical, and after realizing that he's a Christian, I thought he could nonetheless be a very important voice in today's era.

And while he does sustain very reasonable positions on Social Issues, such as the #metoo movement, gender pronouns and freedom of speech, I must say, when it comes to Religion and the supernatural, his positions are really poor and bordering on childish.

Absolutely, and it informs us on the reasons behind his opinions. In fact, one wonders if his reasonable positions on the issues you mention aren't held because of his religious views, rather than facts and reason.

 

[Belz...]

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?

I had to import mine.

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.

I thought, so long as he was arguing against the very far left, he had some good points, but as soon as he stepped out of that territory, his biases and factless opinions became apparent.

 

[Belz...]

He uses the term "enforced monogamy" to appeal to Incels and various other bottom of the barrel right-wing losers.

Er... that's not what an incel is. "Incel" means involuntary celibate, meaning, you're single but would rather not. Have we not all been there?

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

Well, is it true or not?

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.

You could say that about anyone's claims, though.

I think he, like many academics that suddenly find themselves in the public light; fall victim to the soundbite or short online article.

True.

 

[The Norseman]

Well, is it true or not?

Real truth or Peterson truth?

Real truth has spoken and says, "oh, not even wrong!"

 

[Belz...]

Real truth or Peterson truth?

Real truth has spoken and says, "oh, not even wrong!"

Objectively true. I'm seriously asking the question. It's one thing to call something ridiculous, but sometimes what we think is ridiculous is true.

 

[ahhell]

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.

I think its a bit more complex than that. Its not just sex, though that's important, but also access to permanent mates. There's likely a status issue and proximity to children(its been shown to reduce testosterone production) that play a role in reducing violence perpetrated by young men. Its also not just monogamy, that's a more than a little

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*

That's a criticism of him I've heard elsewhere, that he's vague and dodgy while presenting himself as certain.

Yeah, I listened to the first Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson debate after having heard Peterson making it pretty clear on a Joe Rogan podcast that he is an Orthodox Christian.

Which one - Eastern or Oriental? One suspects he has no actual doctrinal beliefs just whatever supports whatever criticism he is making today.

"O"rthodox or "o"rthodox? Those things aren't always the same. I suspect he meant small "o".

 

[angrysoba]

"O"rthodox or "o"rthodox? Those things aren't always the same. I suspect he meant small "o".

Actually, I am suspecting more and more that I was completely wrong. I haven't listened to the rest of that Rogan podcast where he starts talking about how he is religious because so much of it is just meaningless to me, so it is possible that he says so in the rest of that conversation. I decided to go to Wikipedia instead and see if it would be cleared up there. It sent me to this video (yes, another one! Sorry!) in which he says he is a Christian but then goes into waffle mode again about what he means by that...

 

[The Norseman]

Objectively true. I'm seriously asking the question. It's one thing to call something ridiculous, but sometimes what we think is ridiculous is true.

I don't know about others, but I've seen enough of his videos and video snippets to know just how wrong he is. I've also seen many others point out the fallacies and so forth that he makes about all kinds of topics so, for me personally, he's full of crap.

I'm sure others here have had similar experiences either by watching Peterson's videos and thinking critically or watching others do the same.

Thing is, it's really not difficult if you have any experience at critical thinking or if you approach his stuff with a little skepticism. As far as I've seen, he pretty much uses the same talking points as religious conservative/right wing people do so it's natural that they would agree with him; this is my basis for harping on the 'fantasy' aspect so much earlier.

He's a big proponent of Jungian archetypes but only if they're Christian or Christian-like; he uses the same tired and debunked claims of socialism and Marxism (I ran across him first during my own studies of same which is why I know he's full of crap on this one); he makes rather misogynistic claims about the role and status of women indicative of the conservative viewpoint**; and I know others here can fill in the blanks.










** One example is that he said outright that men can never truly talk with women because when a man talks with another man, there is always the threat of physical violence hovering under the mask of civility (like if a person says something terrible or whatever, a man can smack another man because that's what masculine men do) so therefore there is always at least a hint of respect for one another (you respect someone who can beat the snot out of you apparently) and since you cannot hit women any longer because feminism, there is no longer the same underlying thread (not threat but thread) of respect that a man has when in conversation with women.

I've been halfheartedly trying to find some of these videos pointing this stuff out to post here but since I've seen so many, it's been difficult.

 

[mumblethrax]

I've watched a few more minutes of Jordan Peterson, and man, this guy is full of **** up to his eyeballs.

In the video I just watched, he does his standard equivocation about a simple question like "Do you believe in God?" (he doesn't want to be "boxed in" by, you know, answering honestly), but then he gives a breathtaking response when asked about the resurrection, saying that he doesn't know what happens when someone is in "total alignment", and attempts to throw up a smokescreen for this ******** by saying that we understand so little about the world. Is this guy about to try to sell me some ******* crystals?

I think he's just your standard faithful conservative Christian who is willing to embrace whatever nonsense he thinks will rationalize his views to while minimizing the threat to his academic drag show.

 

[Belz...]

I don't know about others, but I've seen enough of his videos and video snippets to know just how wrong he is.

I know he's very often wrong, but the broken clock principle applies. Most people are right sometimes. So if a specific claim is made, a person's track record has no bearing on whether the claim is true.

 

[The Norseman]

I know he's very often wrong, but the broken clock principle applies. Most people are right sometimes. So if a specific claim is made, a person's track record has no bearing on whether the claim is true.

As I said, if he is right about stuff, it hasn't been in the videos I've seen.

I haven't read the clean your room book so I can't comment. He could very well be right that keeping your room clean is a generally good thing. So, if you like, we can all agree his self-help book is true in the real sense of being true.

 

[SOdhner]

As I said, if he is right about stuff, it hasn't been in the videos I've seen.

Yeah, nothing comes to mind. There are things where it's a matter of opinion, and in those cases I virtually always disagree with him. Also even though you can't really call an opinion wrong, he often states his opinions as if they're irrefutable and objective truths and then cites "facts" to support them that are at least partially wrong. Likewise with any non-opinion things he says, he's at least partially wrong on a factual level and if you try to diagram one of his sentences there's a good chance you'll be lost forever because he relies on vague meandering nonsense that sounds like folksy wisdom but is actually complete nonsense.

I cannot understand why anyone takes him seriously on anything at all.

 

[The Norseman]

Yeah, nothing comes to mind. There are things where it's a matter of opinion, and in those cases I virtually always disagree with him. Also even though you can't really call an opinion wrong, he often states his opinions as if they're irrefutable and objective truths and then cites "facts" to support them that are at least partially wrong. Likewise with any non-opinion things he says, he's at least partially wrong on a factual level and if you try to diagram one of his sentences there's a good chance you'll be lost forever because he relies on vague meandering nonsense that sounds like folksy wisdom but is actually complete nonsense.

I cannot understand why anyone takes him seriously on anything at all.

You just answered yourself. As I keep harping on, in this case he is selling fantasy and I believe that some people --- especially Americans --- are being told that reality doesn't matter and fantasy rules. It happens with religion, advertising, 'evidence' manufacturing, plausible deniability, and now fake news.

It's not just limited to that but these examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Peterson is finding out that it's easy to scam Americans if you say what they want to hear.

I think it's not really the mechanism, in a sense, of how he says it, but what the conclusions are he is drawing. For example, he can yap on and on about (carefully Christianized) Jungian archetypes which sound all sciency and philosophical (and also reinforce the idea that Christians are right and have been right all along) but he eventually gets down to the message that masculine men control their women who must stay at home barefoot and preggers.

He could just come right out and say the latter but then he's not providing all the other feel-good structure that simultaneously can be used as obfuscation for detractors as well as dog whistling to the people who he knows will pay good money to hear what he is saying.

So in that sense, he's fairly intelligent and now I read another thread where he and his daughter are doing the diet-guru thing. That tells me he's again pushing fantasy ("you too will look and feel great if you just follow my advice and pay me money every month!") in order to rip people off.

The sad part of all of this is that the people themselves don't recognize they're being ripped off and will even pay money to defend Petersen on his behalf.

 

[I Am The Scum]

So in that sense, he's fairly intelligent and now I read another thread where he and his daughter are doing the diet-guru thing. That tells me he's again pushing fantasy ("you too will look and feel great if you just follow my advice and pay me money every month!") in order to rip people off.

And that's the cue for the second greatest Peterson clip ever!

Apologies for the obnoxious images spliced in.

 

[The Norseman]

And that's the cue for the second greatest Peterson clip ever!

Apologies for the obnoxious images spliced in.

I love the comment, "apple cider is postmodern neomarxism confirmed"

I lol'ed.