Deconstructing Jordan Peterson on Religion

[Dontaskme]

This video is hilarious, reminds me of Immanuel Can's happy clappy claptrap trap. Except that JP is a blubbering whimpering wreck.

Deconstructing Jordan Peterson on Religion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-yQVlHo4JA

[Harbal]

This video is hilarious, reminds me of Immanuel Can's happy clappy claptrap trap.

Actually, I have wondered for some time now whether Jordon Peterson and IC do have a particular set of things in common.

Jordon Peterson is an intelligent man who doesn't actually believe that God exists, but thinks the world would be a better place if the rest of us believed he did exist. I am not at all sure that this description does not also apply to IC.

[Dontaskme]

This video is hilarious, reminds me of Immanuel Can's happy clappy claptrap trap.

Actually, I have wondered for some time now whether Jordon Peterson and IC do have a particular set of things in common.

Jordon Peterson is an intelligent man who doesn't actually believe that God exists, but thinks the world would be a better place if the rest of us believed he did exist. I am not at all sure that this description does not also apply to IC.

I’m actually starting to believe they are the same person impersonating each other.

[Dubious]

Jordan Peterson is one of the many whose self-importance is only equalled by his non-importance. Self-importance relies a lot on being so abstruse by imposing such a collaboration of nonsensical terms and mutations of meaning upon what is inherently not difficult to understand but made to appear that way in pathetic attempts to come across as a guru of profundity. Among charlatans JP stands out in his striving to be more profound than the competition in his excessive vehemence in barely knowing what he's talking about.

[meno_]

I can understand his posture or gesture based need to mask questions of credibility , as to wether he is doing it consciously ,or having to contend with soothing measures of relief from the increasing concerns to meet those near paradoxes ,by comic affect?

Maybe to substantially dilute the unimaginable using the most informative manner possible to get the picture .

[godelian]

Jordan Peterson claims that "God is the ultimate fictional character". His view is anti-realist.

There is a similar dichotomy in the ontology of mathematics.

Realism:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso ... athematics

Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus, humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would presumably do the same.

Anti-realism:

Mathematical anti-realism generally holds that mathematical statements have truth-values, but that they do not do so by corresponding to a special realm of immaterial or non-empirical entities.Major forms of mathematical anti-realism include formalism and fictionalism.

What he says makes him an anti-realist but not necessarily an atheist.

Similarly, an anti-realist mathematician is still a mathematician. His belief in the anti-realist nature of mathematics does not make him a non-mathematician.

Therefore, I do not conclude that Peterson would necessarily be an atheist. His anti-realist take on the nature of God is certainly unorthodox. However, in order to be deemed an atheist, even being agnostic would not be enough. You must positively claim that God does not exist.

[meno_]

The analogy is fitting, the accountability of Christianity does not contradict Christ’s Logos, so his analogy does not give ample proof of an inherent proof of faith one way or the other, He does show deeply hidden faith without dismissing the source of it as necessarily connected , or proven mathematically by overwhelming evidence.
He is more akin to the calculus of variability of belief by someone like William James or maybe even CS Lewis not certain how though.

[godelian]

The analogy is fitting, the accountability of Christianity does not contradict Christ’s Logos, so his analogy does not give ample proof of an inherent proof of faith one way or the other, He does show deeply hidden faith without dismissing the source of it as necessarily connected , or proven mathematically by overwhelming evidence.
He is more akin to the calculus of variability of belief by someone like William James or maybe even CS Lewis not certain how though.

Yes, agreed.

God is experienced by humanity as an abstract being or even as an abstraction.

In my personal belief, both views are fine : as an abstract being or as an abstraction.

Kurt Godel argued something similar. In his view, God is the ultimate expression of the notion of good, i.e. an abstraction. Nobody ever opined on these grounds that Kurt Godel was an atheist. He clearly wasn't.