angrysoba
Philosophile
I bet nobody could refute my God is oxygen argument, providing you accept my first move that God is oxygen, then you bloody well better not be an atheist (as JP might say!).
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Jordan Peterson's Religious Apologetic Arguments
- Thread starter Ron_Tomkins
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jordan peterson
I bet nobody could refute my God is oxygen argument, providing you accept my first move that God is oxygen, then you bloody well better not be an atheist (as JP might say!).
"His argument is so meaningless and self-contradictory that you can't refute it!"
Stunning. Simply stunning.
Let me try an analogy:
I like J.S. Bach's music very much. As a matter of fact, his music is the world to me. I have an old record here which is just awesome.
I therefore define "earth" as being said record.
Now I can unequivocally state that, based on first-hand observation, the earth is indeed flat.
Check mate, spheroid earthers. Now GDon, please refute my argument. Or explain how you think Jordan Petersen would.
I like J.S. Bach's music very much. As a matter of fact, his music is the world to me. I have an old record here which is just awesome.
I therefore define "earth" as being said record.
Now I can unequivocally state that, based on first-hand observation, the earth is indeed flat.
Check mate, spheroid earthers. Now GDon, please refute my argument. Or explain how you think Jordan Petersen would.
GDon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,567
You know, I did actually agree with your statement earlier, when you wrote: "It is hard to refute an argument that is based on a very self-serving so-called "definition" of a god. Based on screwed up definitions, everything seems to make sense somehow." And I also agreed that you made a fair point when you used your "define god as air pollution" analogy just above.
Are you now disagreeing with your earlier statement? Where exactly are we disagreeing, such that your flat earth analogy adds to the discussion?
Last edited:
And I also agreed that you made a fair point when you used your "define god as air pollution" analogy just above.
Are you now disagreeing with your earlier statement? Where exactly are we disagreeing, such that your flat earth analogy adds to the discussion?
I don't understand your question at all. The flat earth analogy, as well as the air pollution analogy, is supposed to demonstrate how absurd definitions of god or anything else then invalidate any conclusions drawn from them.
Your reply should have been "I cannot refute your argument based on your definition of "earth", however your definition is nonsensical and therefore your conclusion has no argumentative value".
This is a "gotcha" that Woo Slingers (and as often Woo Apologist) seem to have become oddly in love with in recent years; the "You can't argue against a poorly defined thing" cop-out.
After a certain point not clearly defining something is obviously just a dirty argumentative tactic, one that shouldn't hand the other side the win.
If someone keeps hording the fact that I can't disprove his belief in Fleerns over my head because he refuses to define what a Fleern is that's just silly word games and argumentative, and laughably transparent ones at that.
It grants absolutely zero intellectual weight to the actual possibility of Fleerns existing.
After a certain point not clearly defining something is obviously just a dirty argumentative tactic, one that shouldn't hand the other side the win.
If someone keeps hording the fact that I can't disprove his belief in Fleerns over my head because he refuses to define what a Fleern is that's just silly word games and argumentative, and laughably transparent ones at that.
It grants absolutely zero intellectual weight to the actual possibility of Fleerns existing.
GDon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,567
Yes, I've already said you had a fair point on the air pollution analogy. Was your flat earth analogy showing something different? If not, what was the point?
Since I've already agreed with you on that point, I have no idea why you want me to agree again. But anyway: I cannot refute your argument based on your definition of "earth", however your definition is nonsensical and therefore your conclusion has no argumentative value.
What were you expecting me to reply with? Where, in your mind, do you think we disagree?
You seem to think that Peterson has something meaningful to say when he says that Sam Harris believes in God, but on the other hand you say you agree that he's just playing games with the definition of the word. So which is it?
GDon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,567
I think that Peterson has something meaningful to say when he says that Sam Harris in effect believes in God. I don't agree with how Peterson frames it. It is a little insulting and inaccurate to call Harris some kind of secret theist.
I also agree with Tommok that "It is hard to refute an argument that is based on a very self-serving so-called "definition" of a god."
IF Peterson is playing games with the definition of "god", then his argument is "hard to refute". Is that a fair conclusion, based on the above premise?
"Hard to refute" doesn't mean that Peterson is making a GOOD argument, which is how everyone seems to be trying to read what I'm saying.
The whole thing seems to have originated with your comment "I think Tommock refuted his views pretty clearly", and my response "Where did he do that?" That's because I'm interested in seeing if Peterson's views have been refuted.
Saying Peterson's views are "based on a very self-serving so-called "definition" of a god" is a reasonable basis for REJECTING his views, but it is not a refutation by any means.
The difference is this: I give an argument that an omni-benevolent God exists. Person X rejects the existence of the supernatural, so rejects the grounds of my argument. Has Person X refuted my argument? No. It is reasonable for him to REJECT my argument, but it isn't a refutation. Then another person, Person Y, says that gratuitous suffering is inconsistent with an omni-benevolent God, therefore an omni-benevolent God can't exist. Has Person Y refuted my argument? Yes!
Since I believe I understand where Peterson is coming from, I'm interested in any refutations of his views. Harris and Dillahunty haven't provided it, since they either don't understand it or they don't accept Peterson's view of God, even for the sake of argument. They are in their rights to reject Peterson's view of God (in which case they are doing theology), but it doesn't engage with Peterson's arguments.
Hitchen's razor is "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". It is not "What can be asserted without evidence can be refuted without evidence".
It is reasonable for people to reject Peterson's view of God for all kinds of reasons: they don't understand his views, or they think it is self-serving, or they prefer a more standard definition of God. I'm not saying that any argument that is "hard to refute" is necessarily a good one. I'm just interested if anyone has given a refutation. I'm making a distinction between "refute" and "reject".
Last edited:
What meaningful thing would that be?
Am I correct in assuming that you want us to test Peterson's arguments for consistency within his rather unhelpful set of definitions?
We will probably end up referring any conclusion back to the lack of meaning of the original definition. So calling Harris a "theist", for starters, makes perfect sense within the definition, but since the definition is flawed has no argumentative value. The same applies to the air pollution or flat earth examples.
But let's assume for the sake of argument that his definition makes a lot of sense. What exact arguments or conclusions are we therefore supposed to accept or rather examine for validity?
I would see little sense in refuting anything that has been successfully dismissed. But let's give it a try.
GDon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,567
It's up to you. Yes, if you want to refute his arguments. No, if you want to reject his arguments because you have dismissed his definition of God. Either is reasonable in my opinion.
This whole part of the thread was generated by Roboramma's comment that Peterson had been refuted here. I'm not here to defend Peterson, only explain what he means, since it seems some people weren't sure.
Whatever you find reasonable and understandable. If you find Peterson's views neither, then cool.
I've read various examinations of Peterson's and Harris's debates. Those with a grounding in philosophy generally understand where Peterson is coming from, even if they disagree.
Here is partial transcript from someone at one of the debates between Peterson (JP), Harris (SH) and Bret Weinstein (BW), who was the moderator and is (I think) an atheist:
https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPete...y_moments_from_jordan_peterson_vs_sam_harris/
SH: I believe you’ve said you believe God exists
JP: No, I’ve said I act as if he exists
Later:
SH: Can you define God in under 2 minutes? (It was supposed to go to questions after this)
JP: No, but I’ve made a long list of parts of the definition of God and will have to do my best in 2 minutes:
‘God is what sits at the top of the hierarchy of values’
‘God is what brings order out of chaos through the Logos’
‘God is the selection mechanism which judges which men are worthy’ and gives a few more definitions that I can’t remember
SH: That’s not at all what God is believed to be. Just about all people think he’s the Big Man in the Sky
JP: No that’s not at all true, people have been arguing over this exact question for millennia. Just about all traditions place God as something beyond your understanding
BW: I actually listened to what JP was saying and his definitions make perfect sense to me and I can relate to that
JP: No, I’ve said I act as if he exists
Later:
SH: Can you define God in under 2 minutes? (It was supposed to go to questions after this)
JP: No, but I’ve made a long list of parts of the definition of God and will have to do my best in 2 minutes:
‘God is what sits at the top of the hierarchy of values’
‘God is what brings order out of chaos through the Logos’
‘God is the selection mechanism which judges which men are worthy’ and gives a few more definitions that I can’t remember
SH: That’s not at all what God is believed to be. Just about all people think he’s the Big Man in the Sky
JP: No that’s not at all true, people have been arguing over this exact question for millennia. Just about all traditions place God as something beyond your understanding
BW: I actually listened to what JP was saying and his definitions make perfect sense to me and I can relate to that
Peterson is right. His definition or something like it has been around for millenia, predating Christianity. I recommend Karen Armstrong's "History of God", who goes into the evolution of beliefs in God.
But does Harris or you have to accept Peterson's definition of God? No, not at all. Harris can continue to define God as "the Big Man in the Sky", and continue debating with that definition. As I said, I'm not trying to defend Peterson here, just clarify what he is arguing, as some on this thread seemed interested in where he was coming from.
Exactly.
Last edited:
Then we're done here?
Whether or not you or I think that his definitions make a lot of sense, any sense, or no sense at all is irrelevant as long as nothing is derived from them.
So as long as Peterson or anyone referring to Peterson doesn't make any claims based on these so-called definitions, such as "god answers prayers" or "you should worship god" or "you can only have sex in certain positions with certain people" or "there is life after death" or any others, then we are just playing word games, right?
Whether or not you or I think that his definitions make a lot of sense, any sense, or no sense at all is irrelevant as long as nothing is derived from them.
So as long as Peterson or anyone referring to Peterson doesn't make any claims based on these so-called definitions, such as "god answers prayers" or "you should worship god" or "you can only have sex in certain positions with certain people" or "there is life after death" or any others, then we are just playing word games, right?
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 44,024
Ok, so I'm almost finished watching the latest (I think it's the latest, if not one of the latest) debates between Sam and Jordan. This time with DOuglas Murray.... (By the way, I was about to link the debate here and I can't find it!!!! Did they delete it from youtube?)
This last debate is much "better" in that Jordan doesn't make as many fallacious claims as he does in previous debates.
However, his main argument seems to be basically this (and I'm using my own words to synthesize his claim. This is NOT a quote in any form):
"Without Religion, we are left with nothing. Not morally. Not culturally. There's no music, architecture, literature, philosophy that comes with not believing in God. There's no inspirational message that leads us to give ourselves in to something bigger than us"
So my refutal of that argument goes basically like this: While it is true that Atheism, because it's not a Church, doesn't come with any iconic set of artistic representations in painting, music, literature, etc; this does not mean that without Religion we would be left in a world devoid of art and of epic fantasy stories that inspire people. It would just mean that these stories and these artistic creations would not come with the underlying claim that a Divine Creator was behind all of this. Just like when we watch a great fantasy movie which can inspire us, we don't need to believe that those characters are real, nor that the conception of such movie was product of a Divine Intervention.
And, more importantly, because the art we would make would have no association with the Divine and with God, there would be less of a fear to criticize it and question it if necessary. There would be no need to indoctrinate people into following the word of Tolkien. And in fact, you do have some sort of Tolkien Religion anyway, where Tolkien fans gather and speak in elvish and dress like the characters, etc. So that is proof that social events where people gather and socialize, and share stories and connect at an emotional level, can happen without a Religious belief.
As far as "inspirational messages that leads us to give ourselves to something bigger than us", Jordan only needs to look at people such as Carl Sagan and Neil Degrasse Tyson. Their delivery of science education and their ability to inspire, can and has created the same sense of awe at the grandiosity of the Universe, without ever having to claim that there's something other than the mere laws of physics operating behind all of this.
This last debate is much "better" in that Jordan doesn't make as many fallacious claims as he does in previous debates.
However, his main argument seems to be basically this (and I'm using my own words to synthesize his claim. This is NOT a quote in any form):
"Without Religion, we are left with nothing. Not morally. Not culturally. There's no music, architecture, literature, philosophy that comes with not believing in God. There's no inspirational message that leads us to give ourselves in to something bigger than us"
So my refutal of that argument goes basically like this: While it is true that Atheism, because it's not a Church, doesn't come with any iconic set of artistic representations in painting, music, literature, etc; this does not mean that without Religion we would be left in a world devoid of art and of epic fantasy stories that inspire people. It would just mean that these stories and these artistic creations would not come with the underlying claim that a Divine Creator was behind all of this. Just like when we watch a great fantasy movie which can inspire us, we don't need to believe that those characters are real, nor that the conception of such movie was product of a Divine Intervention.
And, more importantly, because the art we would make would have no association with the Divine and with God, there would be less of a fear to criticize it and question it if necessary. There would be no need to indoctrinate people into following the word of Tolkien. And in fact, you do have some sort of Tolkien Religion anyway, where Tolkien fans gather and speak in elvish and dress like the characters, etc. So that is proof that social events where people gather and socialize, and share stories and connect at an emotional level, can happen without a Religious belief.
As far as "inspirational messages that leads us to give ourselves to something bigger than us", Jordan only needs to look at people such as Carl Sagan and Neil Degrasse Tyson. Their delivery of science education and their ability to inspire, can and has created the same sense of awe at the grandiosity of the Universe, without ever having to claim that there's something other than the mere laws of physics operating behind all of this.
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 44,024
Yup. Essentially.
Update on the actual debate: Apparently Pangburn Philosophy removed it so you can't find it on the youtube search bar. However, it is still "hidden" in youtube. Here's the link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqpYxD71hJU&list=PLO5yKBJVJlJ4SzRMVusuAFsd56zTr160w
Belz...
Fiend God
Plus, just looking at the large number of artworks depicting scenes from The Lord of the Rings, Dragonball and Superman, clearly you don't need religion.
angrysoba
Philosophile
It doesn’t matter to Peterson. He just says all of it is religion in disguise.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
The devout followers of Fred Phelps, Tomás de Torquemada and Osama bin Laden listened to inspirational messages which led them to give themselves to a holy cause bigger than themselves.
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 44,024
True. Peterson keeps going back to the argument that everything that is moral or beautiful, or inspiring, or insightful, etc, comes from the Judeo-Christian tradition. It has been pointed out to him several times that this is factually incorrect, but he just keeps ignoring it.