Jordan Peterson interview on C4

nkl12xtw5goz70

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There is a spectrum of beliefs among people who call themselves Roman Catholic.

At one end are the people who believe Saint Anthony found their car keys, Saint Jude helped little Johnny pass his Junior cert, and Aunty Mary's sciatica was cured at Lourdes. When these people say the Creed, they mean it in a simple and direct way: "I believe in one God...".

At the other are people who don't actually believe in God, miracles, the afterlife or anything supernatural, but do know a lot of long words.

There are certainly people who believe that St. Jude finds their car keys, etc. But those Catholics who have a more intellectual orientation tend to believe — as Pope John Paul II outlined in Fides et ratio — that philosophy and faith can be complementary forces. It doesn't mean that they are necessarily any less Catholic.

EmmetSpiceland

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Saint Jude helped little Johnny pass his Junior cert

Saint Joseph of Cupertino would be a better saint to “invoke” for the auld exams. While there may be some level of crossover he’s the one who’s “remit” it is.

Zubeneschamali

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Saint Joseph of Cupertino would be a better saint to “invoke” for the auld exams.

Little Johnny is a hopeless case, and St. Jude is the lad for them.

My favourite is St. Barbara, the patron saint of explosives.

Brian?

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

What exactly does it mean to you to "believe in God"?



Not at all. At the very least, it's been an opportunity to read lots of philosophy and theology — including Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, etc. — and talk about ideas with a willing intellectual combatant, which is fun in itself.

I'm happy for you that you're exploring philosophy and theology. Nothing wrong with it at all.

However religion has never been a space for questions or debate, in my experience. It's fundamentally anti intellectual. A framework where a supreme creator is ultimately the answer to every unknown.

One can enjoy the works of theologians without believing in god, but they're not for me. Ditto moral philosophy. If you believe all your actions will be punished/rewarded for their "goodness", why bother debating morality?

I'm happy to be informed differently here.

There's just as much blind faith involved in the current scientific outlook du jour..

Gynoid

Brian? wrote: »

I'm happy for you that you're exploring philosophy and theology. Nothing wrong with it at all.

However religion has never been a space for questions or debate, in my experience. It's fundamentally anti intellectual. A framework where a supreme creator is ultimately the answer to every unknown.

One can enjoy the works of theologians without believing in god, but they're not for me. Ditto moral philosophy. If you believe all your actions will be punished/rewarded for their "goodness", why bother debating morality?

I'm happy to be informed differently here.

I have said it elsewhere before, Atheism is a belief or creed, as much as any religion. To say one knows something DEFINITIVELY about the possibilitites of metaphysical realities is based on belief not on provable fact.
Agnosticism is the only rational stance in this position - ie I do not know, nor possibly can this ever be known. This is an unknowable. Agnosticism also allows for respect for believers. Atheists I find to be very disdainful and often callous towards people who choose faith. It is a religion, in the original sense of religion as being a firm binding to belief.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Brian? wrote: »

However religion has never been a space for questions or debate, in my experience. It's fundamentally anti intellectual. A framework where a supreme creator is ultimately the answer to every unknown.

Of course that element exists. But not all religions are the same. Raised by rigid Protestant dogmatists in the USA, my wife learned early on not to ask too many questions about the religion of her childhood. She converted to Catholicism precisely because it's more humane, tolerant, and open to an ongoing conversation between faith and reason. Even within Catholicism itself, there are debates between different schools of thought — notably between liberal and conservative Catholics — but those debates are mostly carried out respectfully.

Compare that to the secular authoritarianism of the left. Jordan Peterson cannot lecture or debate on college campuses without having his views shouted down by intolerant dogmatists who are so absolutely convinced of their own moral superiority that they feel entitled to censor different opinions. They display the same animus toward dissent that once motivated witch-hunts, inquisitions, and the execution of heretics.

I'd argue that there's more space for questioning and debate within Catholicism than there is on a modern university campus.

If you believe all your actions will be punished/rewarded for their "goodness", why bother debating morality?

The question of how to live a good, ethical, rewarding, meaningful life isn't just about some mythical day of judgement where St. Peter reviews your record and decides whether you pass or fail.

If you decide that truth is illusory, that the very idea of a "self" is a fiction, and that "values" are just a mask for an oppressive social hegemony — as much of the post-Marxist left believes — then why not spend your life in your pajamas playing video games? Why face adversity, struggle to achieve anything, make good choices instead of bad ones?

Gynoid

Gynoid wrote: »

I have said it elsewhere before, Atheism is a belief or creed, as much as any religion. To say one knows something DEFINITIVELY about the possibilitites of metaphysical realities is based on belief not on provable fact.
Agnosticism is the only rational stance in this position - ie I do not know, nor possibly can this ever be known. This is an unknowable. Agnosticism also allows for respect for believers. Atheists I find to be very disdainful and often callous towards people who choose faith. It is a religion, in the original sense of religion as being a firm binding to belief.

I've always considered science to be as much a religion as the others. It's more reasonable than the others, but there's also a lot of assumptions being made due to the limited levels of our perception and technology. Explanations boil down to incomprehensible mathematical formulas which only the clergy and enlightened understand (and I suspect many fake that understanding). The rest of us mud-dwellers are left with bewilderment, and simply accepting it as fact.

Generally, people feel the need to believe in something "more" than themselves.

CtevenSrowder

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I've always considered science to be as much a religion as the others. It's more reasonable than the others, but there's also a lot of assumptions being made due to the limited levels of our perception and technology. Explanations boil down to incomprehensible mathematical formulas which only the clergy and enlightened understand (and I suspect many fake that understanding). The rest of us mud-dwellers are left with bewilderment, and simply accepting it as fact.

Generally, people feel the need to believe in something "more" than themselves.

"More reasonable" is a catastrophic understatement. Science is based in experimental fact, religion isn't.

Science is in no way akin to religion.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There's just as much blind faith involved in the current scientific outlook du jour..

No there isn't. That's a tired defence mechanism often used by the religious.

Brian?

Gynoid wrote: »

I have said it elsewhere before, Atheism is a belief or creed, as much as any religion. To say one knows something DEFINITIVELY about the possibilitites of metaphysical realities is based on belief not on provable fact.
Agnosticism is the only rational stance in this position - ie I do not know, nor possibly can this ever be known. This is an unknowable. Agnosticism also allows for respect for believers. Atheists I find to be very disdainful and often callous towards people who choose faith. It is a religion, in the original sense of religion as being a firm binding to belief.

Atheism means that on the balance of probabilities I don't believe a god exists. That does not constitute a creed.

There's also a lot that is just conveniently ignored by the scientific community when it suits..

Gynoid

Brian? wrote: »

Atheism means that on the balance of probabilities I don't believe a god exists. That does not constitute a creed.

You used the word believe.

Believe means to have faith or hold dear. It is different from the absolute conviction of knowing.
So you either have faith in religion or atheism, without proof, or you are agnostic. The balance of probabilities gives the impression of known things, things known by you. You nor I have any hope of quantifying how infinitely more unknown things there are than known. So a balance of probabilities, while it implies rational thought, a scientific method if you will, is actually obfuscation and evasion of the known existence of huge amounts of unknown externals, therefore not rational.

sbsquarepants

Gynoid wrote: »

You used the word believe.

Believe means to have faith or hold dear. It is different from the absolute conviction of knowing.
So you either have faith in religion or atheism, without proof, or you are agnostic. .

That's just not true, atheism doesn't necessitate a belief in anything, merely a lack of belief in a deity.

You could reject the idea of a god, but believe we were all made by leprechauns just for the craic, and that's perfectly fine, you won't get your atheist licence revoked.
Everyone believes all manner of things - atheism is not the abandonment of all beliefs, just the one specific belief.

CtevenSrowder

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

"More reasonable" is a catastrophic understatement. Science is based in experimental fact, religion isn't.

Science is in no way akin to religion.

Science evolves through a range of assumptions, based on facts determined by the level of technology available and the wonderful minds around. Basically, science is constantly pushing previous "facts" into the background, and producing newer theories to be termed as fact because they have been "proved" by the same people promoting the facts. No bias involved there at all.

Oh, I'm not disputing science or scientific achievements, but there's loads connected to science which isn't based on hard provable science, and rests on foundations of assumptions. Belief. Well argued beliefs within constructs developed by scientists..

It's like priests who create a framework of rules and ways to understand the universe, and then explain everything within that framework... but do so in a manner that most normal people can't understand without becoming priests..

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There's also a lot that is just conveniently ignored by the scientific community when it suits..

Some examples?

Gynoid

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's just not true, atheism doesn't necessitate a belief in anything, merely a lack of belief in a deity.

You could reject the idea of a god, but believe we were all made by leprechauns just for the craic, and that's perfectly fine, you won't get your atheist licence revoked.
Everyone believes all manner of things - atheism is not the abandonment of all beliefs, just the one specific belief.

It is exactly the 'belief-y-ness' of it that makes it a faith. Non belief is a belief. Atheists dont say I do not know, they say I do not believe. I do not know is agnostic.

Brian?

Gynoid wrote: »

You used the word believe.

Believe means to have faith or hold dear. It is different from the absolute conviction of knowing.
So you either have faith in religion or atheism, without proof, or you are agnostic. The balance of probabilities gives the impression of known things, things known by you. You nor I have any hope of quantifying how infinitely more unknown things there are than known. So a balance of probabilities, while it implies rational thought, a scientific method if you will, is actually obfuscation and evasion of the known existence of huge amounts of unknown externals, therefore not rational.

Ok. Let's swap "believe" with "accept".


It's completely rational to not accept the existence of something without proof. If some day proof of the existence of a god is presented I will assess it and either accept or reject it based on the probability of it being correct.

There are huge amounts we don't know about the universe, so there is a slim possibility a god exists. But I wholeheartedly reject the notion of a heliocentric universe, where the earth is a chose planet full of chosen people. Which is what most religions present.

It's irrational to believe in any of the religions on earth. It's completely rational to reject them.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Some examples?

Well, like, the whole middle ages warming thing for instance, in some cases science has become subservient to politics..

Why is it that man has pretty much always had a God/collection of gods do you think?..
I know you'll probably say it's down to their primitive mindset, but surely a materialistic nature is the more obvious answer..

nkl12xtw5goz70

Brian? wrote: »

It's completely rational to not accept the existence of something without proof.

Does that statement also apply to the notion of women trapped in male bodies?

Children are being prescribed puberty-blockers, hormonal treatments, and some girls are having double mastectomies at age 14. Where's the "proof" that these children are experiencing anything more than temporary adolescent confusion about their identity?

Gynoid

Brian? wrote: »

Ok. Let's swap "believe" with "accept".


It's completely rational to not accept the existence of something without proof. If some day proof of the existence of a god is presented I will assess it and either accept or reject it based on the probability of it being correct.

There are huge amounts we don't know about the universe, so there is a slim possibility a god exists. But I wholeheartedly reject the notion of a heliocentric universe, where the earth is a chose planet full of chosen people. Which is what most religions present.

It's irrational to believe in any of the religions on earth. It's completely rational to reject them.

And at present you do not know if such proof will emerge or even can emerge, so it is most reasonable and honest to say you are agnostic. Also I don't know why those who call themselves atheists always make a caricature of religions as being utterly imbecilic, the heliocentral chosen etc etc..it is like drawing in crayons.
I am an agnostic intellectually who emotionally chooses to believe in a divine reality, though I have no religion. Perhaps at a push a seeker on the via negativa or the avadhoots path of not this, not that. I just don't know what is unknown or unknowable. Neither do you. You just think you are making a smart guess.

ancapailldorcha

Gynoid wrote: »

And at present you do not know if such proof will emerge or even can emerge, so it is most reasonable and honest to say you are agnostic. Also I don't know why those who call themselves atheists always make a caricature of religions as being utterly imbecilic, the heliocentral chosen etc etc..it is like drawing in crayons.
I am an agnostic intellectually who emotionally chooses to believe in a divine reality, though I have no religion. Perhaps at a push a seeker on the via negativa or the avadhoots path of not this, not that. I just don't know what is unknown or unknowable. Neither do you. You just think you are making a smart guess.

By the same token, I can depict religious people as intolerant bigots but that's not helpful.

Telling people what they really believe is just condescending to be honest.

nkl12xtw5goz70

I love how some people reject religion because there's no scientific proof than any of it is true — while simultaneously basing their entire world-view on the nonsensical witterings of Slavoj Žižek, Judith Butler, and other obscurantist cultural theorists. It's a remarkable double standard.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

There's just as much blind faith involved in the current scientific outlook du jour..

That's why I say a little prayer before sending every text message.

Zubeneschamali

Gynoid wrote: »

Non belief is a belief.

Bald is a hair colour.


Not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's why I say a little prayer before sending every text message.

Thank the I Ching for that text message..

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well, like, the whole middle ages warming thing for instance, in some cases science has become subservient to politics..

Brilliant. Scientists don't ignore the warming in the middle ages. If it wasn't for scientists you wouldn't know it exists.

Why is it that man has pretty much always had a God/collection of gods do you think?..
I know you'll probably say it's down to their primitive mindset, but surely a materialistic nature is the more obvious answer..

I've read several theories. I think most likely that it helped create a common bond, allowing larger groups to form.

Why do you think it was?

CtevenSrowder

Deleted User wrote: »

Science evolves through a range of assumptions, based on facts determined by the level of technology available and the wonderful minds around. Basically, science is constantly pushing previous "facts" into the background, and producing newer theories to be termed as fact because they have been "proved" by the same people promoting the facts. No bias involved there at all.

No, the theory (and experimental evidence for it) will undergo peer review, where those involved in the area will attempt to pick apart the theory and find weaknesses in the experiment(s) conducted to prove the theory. Au contraire, new facts are not proven by those promoting the new theory, but those trying to disprove it.
This is how it works in the hard sciences. The social sciences are a different kettle of fish but that is why they are considered soft (I don't consider much of it science at all). Don't confuse the two!

Also, with the likes of physics, previous "facts" are not necessarily pushed into the background, but they are seen to be special cases of a more general model eg Newtonian mechanics and Quantum mechanics.

Again, this is nothing like religion at all. Religion evolves primarily based on what is now considered morally acceptable and can flip-flop as such.

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh, I'm not disputing science or scientific achievements, but there's loads connected to science which isn't based on hard provable science, and rests on foundations of assumptions. Belief. Well argued beliefs within constructs developed by scientists..

Such as?

Deleted User wrote: »

It's like priests who create a framework of rules and ways to understand the universe, and then explain everything within that framework... but do so in a manner that most normal people can't understand without becoming priests..

Science is very understandable if you bother to learn it.

Brian?

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Does that statement also apply to the notion of women trapped in male bodies?

I accept the medical evidence that transsexuals exist and gender transition is the treatment. That’s it. That’s a completely rational stance.

I snipped the rest of your post as it’s an appeal to emotion and not rational. Must be all the Kierkegaard.

Brian?

Gynoid wrote: »

And at present you do not know if such proof will emerge or even can emerge, so it is most reasonable and honest to say you are agnostic. Also I don't know why those who call themselves atheists always make a caricature of religions as being utterly imbecilic, the heliocentral chosen etc etc..it is like drawing in crayons.
I am an agnostic intellectually who emotionally chooses to believe in a divine reality, though I have no religion. Perhaps at a push a seeker on the via negativa or the avadhoots path of not this, not that. I just don't know what is unknown or unknowable. Neither do you. You just think you are making a smart guess.

I’m making a very well educated guess based on he evidence available.

We don’t know what we don’t know, so I won’t factor that into my decision. To do so would be irrational.