Religion And New Atheists

[Altfish]

Whatever underpinned the atheistic belief system was thus functionally equivalent to God in this regard.

I cannot accept that in any way or form; that is my basis of disliking Peterson.

We are going to have to agree to disagree

 

[Augustus]

I cannot accept that in any way or form; that is my basis of disliking Peterson.

We are going to have to agree to disagree

If he replaced the word god with 'capstone', would you still object to it?

 

[LuisDantas]

I cannot accept that in any way or form; that is my basis of disliking Peterson.

We are going to have to agree to disagree

Same here.

Peterson is doing everyone, including himself, a disservice by resorting to such half baked, disfunctional ideas.

 

[Altfish]

If he replaced the word god with 'capstone', would you still object to it?

In his debate with Sam Harris he defined religion in such a way that Sam Harris was religious, i.e. no longer an atheist. That was absurd.
So, if the Capstone has no religious connotations, it would probably suffice.

 

[Augustus]

In his debate with Sam Harris he defined religion in such a way that Sam Harris was religious, i.e. no longer an atheist. That was absurd.
So, if the Capstone has no religious connotations, it would probably suffice.

That's just the framing of the argument, could equally be framed as 'god is just a capstone'.

Both theistic and atheistic belief systems are premised on capstones, and make no sense without them.

Whether this capstone is god or something else makes little difference though. Hence Enlightenment liberalism could be premised on Christian or Deistic Providence or secular Progress. Two of these are 'religious' and theistic, one is 'irreligious' and atheistic yet they are pretty much the same belief system.

Considering that the latter is somehow completely different from the first 2 makes little sense.

 

[Altfish]

That's just the framing of the argument, could equally be framed as 'god is just a capstone'.

Both theistic and atheistic belief systems are premised on capstones, and make no sense without them.

Whether this capstone is god or something else makes little difference though. Hence Enlightenment liberalism could be premised on Christian or Deistic Providence or secular Progress. Two of these are 'religious' and theistic, one is 'irreligious' and atheistic yet they are pretty much the same belief system.

Considering that the latter is somehow completely different from the first 2 makes little sense.

Please explain what you mean. I may be being a bit thick here but not sure that I understand what you are saying.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's just the framing of the argument, could equally be framed as 'god is just a capstone'.

Both theistic and atheistic belief systems are premised on capstones, and make no sense without them.

Whether this capstone is god or something else makes little difference though. Hence Enlightenment liberalism could be premised on Christian or Deistic Providence or secular Progress. Two of these are 'religious' and theistic, one is 'irreligious' and atheistic yet they are pretty much the same belief system.

Considering that the latter is somehow completely different from the first 2 makes little sense.

You are just hammering your perception until it fits preconceived expectations.

 

[Augustus]

Please explain what you mean. I may be being a bit thick here but not sure that I understand what you are saying.

Or maybe I'm not very good at explaining it either

Forget about God as a literal supernatural being, JP is using it as a metaphor, really as a metaphorical truth. Brett Weinstein coined this term to mean "a belief that may not be factually/scientifically true, but believing it in practice turns out to be beneficial due to the behaviours it results in."

JP is using god as the metaphorical truth that underpins a worldview. He isn't doing this in a gotcha sense, but to argue that god is really just a utilitarian concept that helps transmit culture. In this sense it doesn't really matter if god exists or not as his utility draws from his functional role in underpinning culture, rather than supernatural powers.

You object to him framing it as 'SH believes in god', whereas he could equally frame the idea as 'God isn't really what you think it is. His value comes not from literal existence, but from his ability to underpin cultures and enable transference of ideas between generations. Atheistic cultures also have something which serves this role: the functional equivalent of god'.

An example:

Locke was a Christian liberal. He believed liberalism worked via Christian Divine Providence
Jefferson was a Deistic liberal. He believed liberalism worked through Deistic Divine Providence
Condorcet was a secular liberal. He believed liberalism worked through secular, teleological Progress

They basically all believed in the same thing for pretty much the same reasons. Just one happened to be atheistic, and the other 2 theistic. 2 metaphorical truths that relied on god, one that didn't. All are metaphorical truths though.

So Locke and Jefferson have 'religious' belief on this issue, and Condorcet has a 'religious-type' belief (a non-religious belief that replaces a religious belief i.e is functionally equivalent to a religious belief).

JP is saying we all have either religious, or religious-type beliefs, and that the distinction is trivial. Alternatively, we all rely on metaphorical truths.

JP also believes the Christian God is what underpins Western classical liberalism, and believes that when New Atheists attempt to destroy this foundation, this risks the entire belief system, his 'chaos'. He advocates acceptance of the metaphorical truth of the Christian god as a method for preserving Western society.

Hopefully that makes sense

 

[Augustus]

ou are just hammering your perception until it fits preconceived expectations.

Or perhaps you are.

Eye of the beholder, etc.

 

[Altfish]

Or maybe I'm not very good at explaining it either

Forget about God as a literal supernatural being, JP is using it as a metaphor, really as a metaphorical truth. Brett Weinstein coined this term to mean "a belief that may not be factually/scientifically true, but believing it in practice turns out to be beneficial due to the behaviours it results in."

JP is using god as the metaphorical truth that underpins a worldview. He isn't doing this in a gotcha sense, but to argue that god is really just a utilitarian concept that helps transmit culture. In this sense it doesn't really matter if god exists or not as his utility draws from his functional role in underpinning culture, rather than supernatural powers.

You object to him framing it as 'SH believes in god', whereas he could equally frame the idea as 'God isn't really what you think it is. His value comes not from literal existence, but from his ability to underpin cultures and enable transference of ideas between generations. Atheistic cultures also have something which serves this role: the functional equivalent of god'.

An example:

Locke was a Christian liberal. He believed liberalism worked via Christian Divine Providence
Jefferson was a Deistic liberal. He believed liberalism worked through Deistic Divine Providence
Condorcet was a secular liberal. He believed liberalism worked through secular, teleological Progress

They basically all believed in the same thing for pretty much the same reasons. Just one happened to be atheistic, and the other 2 theistic. 2 metaphorical truths that relied on god, one that didn't. All are metaphorical truths though.

So Locke and Jefferson have 'religious' belief on this issue, and Condorcet has a 'religious-type' belief (a non-religious belief that replaces a religious belief i.e is functionally equivalent to a religious belief).

JP is saying we all have either religious, or religious-type beliefs, and that the distinction is trivial. Alternatively, we all rely on metaphorical truths.

JP also believes the Christian God is what underpins Western classical liberalism, and believes that when New Atheists attempt to destroy this foundation, this risks the entire belief system, his 'chaos'. He advocates acceptance of the metaphorical truth of the Christian god as a method for preserving Western society.

Hopefully that makes sense

OK, that makes more sense, thank you.

However, I cannot accept JP's premise using (in your words) "... God as the metaphorical truth that underpins a worldview."
The problem I have is that God is, as I've previously stated, well defined and most people have a clear understanding of what you mean if you refer to "God", be it a bearded man in the sky or an omnipresent being that watches over us all.
The word 'Religion' also has specific meanings, usually something like, "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods" or "A particular system of faith and worship."
However you define it, it includes the word 'worship' - that is where his argument falls apart. As an atheist, I worship no one and no thing, 'worship' is totally against everything I do.

So I think I am saying that to make his argument against SH work he has to change the meaning of words. Words with long accepted meanings that are not in dispute. That is why I called him a fraud, maybe that was a poor choice of words but I certainly think it is a fraudulent way of putting an argument together.

 

[LuisDantas]

Or perhaps you are.

Eye of the beholder, etc.

I will take my chances and rely on the actual arguments.

 

[LuisDantas]

OK, that makes more sense, thank you.

However, I cannot accept JP's premise using (in your words) "... God as the metaphorical truth that underpins a worldview."
The problem I have is that God is, as I've previously stated, well defined and most people have a clear understanding of what you mean if you refer to "God", be it a bearded man in the sky or an omnipresent being that watches over us all.

Actually, it seems to me that it is both vague enough not to be useful for attempts at theistic ethics and at the same time too loaded with supernaturalist conotations to truly serve the role that Peterson is attempting to force it into.

At this point, I have little more than his body language and the apparent lack of motivations to conclude that he is probably acting in good faith. His claims are technically dishonest, although he probably does not mean them to be.

 

[Augustus]

I will take my chances and rely on the actual arguments.

The ones where you misrepresent his position or the ones where you don't actually make any arguments?

You keep getting caught up with the supernatural and theism yet neither are particularly relevant to his argument.