Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(Jul 6, 2019 01:02 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jul 5, 2019 10:48 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]No one is responsible for the people who like them...unless they are inciting criminal behavior. Peterson's critics use them as a fallacious guilt by association. And do you have concrete examples of how you think "he panders to those groups"? Or is that just a feeling you get...after listening to the aforementioned guilt by association from his critics?

In today's society, with its prevalence of single mothers, many men may be hearing such manly advice for the first time, so it may not be fair to say they "aren't interested" in something new to them. And just about every person, man or woman, has to learn how to be a responsible adult over time. Guidance and positive role models (lacking from single mother households) help. Again, I'd like to see some examples of how he panders to their blaming behavior, when the thrust of his message is "clean your room" and "man up".

Incels and MGTOW can cherry-pick Peterson just like any loser will do when casting about for validation. That doesn't reflect on Peterson, just like cherry-picking the Bible doesn't reflect on Christianity and cherry-picking science doesn't reflect on the scientific method.


Yeah, that Cathy Newman interview was quite some time ago and transparently agenda-driven. It only helped Peterson.

True, he's not responsible for who ''gravitates'' towards him....but, why are they gravitating towards him if his message is about building up men to take responsibility for their own lives? Unfortunately, I think his bringing up that men and women shouldn't strive for the same ''outcomes'' (but should have the same equitable opportunities afforded to them) is what drives some of the attraction of certain groups. What does that really mean, when we peel back the layers? 

I agree with you though that he doesn't directly pander to their blaming behaviors, but can you see that his discussion points can be taken the wrong way, by an audience looking to pick a bone with women? As you say though, it's not his fault, but he just needs to be mindful of how he comes across. 

I hope he does help people in the end, of course.

Because they can cherry-pick his advocacy for more traditional gender roles, of which incels/MGTOW feel especially deprived, and like all other extremists, completely ignore the rest. If he was mindful of everyone who could possibly cherry-pick his message, he'd be giving in to the exact speech censorship that he rose to prominence fighting...aside from not being able to say anything but useless platitude that can't be misconstrued.

These sorts of men have been deprived of the natural value men provide. Welfare has deprived them of being providers, and with it, a beta male's ability to find a long-term monogamous relationship. Basically, they're butthurt about being betas, and instead of learning to be alphas, the easier route is to blame society...just like any self-styled victim group does.

(Jul 4, 2019 04:48 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]And then you're back to paraphrasing/straw manning without citation.  

It’s Peterson that's paraphrasing, deary. He uses the same supporting evidence time after time but never seems to get it right. He provided you with the citation, the study, and the author. Look it up yourself.

Syne Wrote:And? Where has Peterson advocated hallucinogenic use? O_o
I see why you didn't cite him there.  

I never said that he was advocating drug use. That’s a blatant strawman, but nevertheless, he has said on several occasions that the psilocybin experiments and psychedelic drugs indicate that the use of such substances is generally associated with an increment in health rather than decremental. You can look at the video that I posted earlier with the debate between him and Matt Dillahunty. (22:50)

Syne Wrote:Compare the video I just posted. A 6 min video compared to your 2 1/2 hour video. You don't even bother to give time codes, which I could readily do for mine (if you really need them). I'm not watching a 2 1/2 hour video in the vain hope of finding something that vaguely relates to your straw men.

And yet, Peterson spouts off references insisting that his audience read an entire book. I don’t want to be accused of taking something out of context or putting words in his mouth. The evidence is there. If you were truly interested in his snake oil, you’d take the time.

Syne Wrote:Cherry-picking fringe cases in the face of history is intellectually dishonest. You'd have to show that religion itself (not just human nature) has done more harm than good, throughout its entire history. Anything involving humans will necessarily have some problems, but that is inherent to humans and happens without religion as well. Nor are all religions equal. Most sane people, of any creed, would find things like female genital mutilation divisive, but that is not a feature of every religion.

I’m all for using your imagination, fantasies, hope, wishful thinking, etc. to withstand trying times or to flourish. What I’m against is it being portrayed as the truth, an absolute, something that’s universally valid, and supernatural.

Syne Wrote:First, what's with the links wholly unrelated to Peterson? Attempts to poison the well by tenuous association?  

The links are to the book that he recommended that you read in order to understand where he’s coming from in regards to the DNA and snake symbols.

Syne Wrote:And? There's little doubt that ancient people seemed to depict, in their art, things that are not known to exist at the time but of which we can now see modern correlates. UFOs, brain surgery, etc.. And there may be nothing mystic about them.
It only requires entertaining the notion that we have lost previous knowledge before, and that some ancient art still bares hints of it.
Or that some knowledge/intuition is inherent in humans. Contrary to the notion of being born a blank slate, everything from evolutionary psychology to gays claiming to be "born that way" would tend to indicate some inherent knowledge.

No, that’s not true at all.

He’s referring to Narby’s book, which investigates the connection between shamanism and molecular biology. Narby’s hypothesis is that shamans may be able to access information at the molecular level through the ingestion of ayahuasca.

Syne Wrote:And he never said the ancients knew about DNA.  :dodgy
He said they related that imagery to creation.

Uh, no! As I stated above, Narby concluded that the shamans were able to unlock genetic information through visionary worlds with the use of psychedelics.

Syne Wrote:And weren't you claiming he made an appeal to ancient wisdom? Where did he ever claim "that ancient practices or beliefs are superior to modern ones"? You know, since that's a direct quote from [url=http://believingscience.blogspot.com/2016/02/todays-logical-fallacy-is-appeal-to.html]your own link.

He’s obviously a traditionalist. There’s no proof that something is better simply because that’s the way it’s always been done.

Syne Wrote:And? You're making a straw man you haven't supported with anything but your own dubious inferences....putting words in his mouth by "reading between the lines" of what is actually said.

And you’ve just proven my point. That’s exactly why I felt the need to post his lectures in their entirety.  

Even in your video he mentions Jill Bolt Taylor, who had a stroke.

"The absence of physical boundary was one of glorious bliss."—Jill Bolt Taylor

Wasn't it you, who said that awe and bliss had nothing to do with spirituality or transcendence?

Brain damage, hallucinogens, fasting, sensory deprivation, etc., may produce religious sensations but it’s not evidence of anything supernatural.

I like how he claims in the debate with Matt Dillahunty, though, that the psilocybin doesn’t directly have an impact on smoking cessation and that it must elicit what’s described as a mystical experience.

However, in the study it plainly states that the biological or psychological mechanisms underlying this effect are unknown. The current findings are limited by the small sample, open-label design, and lack of control condition, which preclude making definitive conclusions about efficacy. Furthermore, participant self-selection bias may have played a role in observed success rates. The study enrolled only individuals motivated to quit and willing to undergo a time-intensive experimental treatment.

He says that although he’s not claiming that hallucinogens are direct proof of the supernatural, of God. It’s not completely out of the realm of the experience. The supernatural issue, that’s a different issue but people are capable of entering different experiential realms where things are qualitatively different to them. Their perceptions are different, their thoughts are different, and their response to the world is different. They feel that they’ve died an ego death and are transcending their normal mode of perception. Maybe that’s not part of the supernatural but then you’re starting to define the supernatural pretty narrowly. Do you require miracles like here and now? Something that defies the laws of physics? What’s your definition of the supernatural?

He goes on to say that throughout history people have been experiencing a set of transcendent emotions that can be evoked by various mechanisms but there’s also a profound proclivity to attribute those to some sort of supernatural agency. It’s a much more biological theory. So, it seems to be a much more credible theory. People can have these experiences and they can find them valuable. The psilocybin experiments and psychedelic drugs indicate that the use of such substances is generally associated with an increment in health rather than a decrement. He asked Matt, why do the people who have these experiences have the proclivity to attribute them to supernatural sources?

So, my question to you is, Syne, is this what you’re referring to when you’re talking about transcendence and spirituality? Have you ever taken psychedelics?

I’ll address Leigh’s concerns when I have more time. We'll start it off with lobsters.

(Jul 6, 2019 03:08 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jul 6, 2019 01:02 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jul 5, 2019 10:48 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]No one is responsible for the people who like them...unless they are inciting criminal behavior. Peterson's critics use them as a fallacious guilt by association. And do you have concrete examples of how you think "he panders to those groups"? Or is that just a feeling you get...after listening to the aforementioned guilt by association from his critics?

In today's society, with its prevalence of single mothers, many men may be hearing such manly advice for the first time, so it may not be fair to say they "aren't interested" in something new to them. And just about every person, man or woman, has to learn how to be a responsible adult over time. Guidance and positive role models (lacking from single mother households) help. Again, I'd like to see some examples of how he panders to their blaming behavior, when the thrust of his message is "clean your room" and "man up".

Incels and MGTOW can cherry-pick Peterson just like any loser will do when casting about for validation. That doesn't reflect on Peterson, just like cherry-picking the Bible doesn't reflect on Christianity and cherry-picking science doesn't reflect on the scientific method.


Yeah, that Cathy Newman interview was quite some time ago and transparently agenda-driven. It only helped Peterson.

True, he's not responsible for who ''gravitates'' towards him....but, why are they gravitating towards him if his message is about building up men to take responsibility for their own lives? Unfortunately, I think his bringing up that men and women shouldn't strive for the same ''outcomes'' (but should have the same equitable opportunities afforded to them) is what drives some of the attraction of certain groups. What does that really mean, when we peel back the layers? 

I agree with you though that he doesn't directly pander to their blaming behaviors, but can you see that his discussion points can be taken the wrong way, by an audience looking to pick a bone with women? As you say though, it's not his fault, but he just needs to be mindful of how he comes across. 

I hope he does help people in the end, of course.

Because they can cherry-pick his advocacy for more traditional gender roles, of which incels/MGTOW feel especially deprived, and like all other extremists, completely ignore the rest. If he was mindful of everyone who could possibly cherry-pick his message, he'd be giving in to the exact speech censorship that he rose to prominence fighting...aside from not being able to say anything but useless platitude that can't be misconstrued.

These sorts of men have been deprived of the natural value men provide. Welfare has deprived them of being providers, and with it, a beta male's ability to find a long-term monogamous relationship. Basically, they're butthurt about being betas, and instead of learning to be alphas, the easier route is to blame society...just like any self-styled victim group does.

True, and to be fair, MGTOW and the like, are fringe groups. So, does Peterson not believe in God, but lives his life as if he does? I ran across an article that kind of suggested that he teaches men to ''live their lives as if God exists,'' even if they don't really believe. Modern day Pascal's Wager? lol

Although, Pascal wanted to appeal more to lukewarm Christians than agnostics/atheists. 

As a funny aside, I'm half-tempted to start a thread on Peterson over at SF, but it likely will implode and I'll have to tend to it.

(Jul 6, 2019 05:08 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]So, does Peterson not believe in God, but lives his life as if he does? I ran across an article that kind of suggested that he teaches men to ''live their lives as if God exists,'' even if they don't really believe.

He doesn’t want to be boxed in because he’s playing both sides. [1]

"Peterson knows he doesn’t have to answer these questions because, despite all his declarations to the contrary, he isn’t bound by this tradition. In one breath, he tells the audience they live in a society that would collapse without the immovable foundation of Judeo-Christian values. In the next, he reminds them that his God is a modern God, unsullied by the barbarism of ancient texts and unencumbered by the immense weight of history. There’s just one problem: Jordan Peterson’s God is nobody else’s God." [2]

Believing in the resurrection of the dead is one of the basic tenets of Christianity. That is their big claim to fame—their evidence for an afterlife. That’s their central proof that Jesus was in fact the son of god (god himself) and that he is the only way. Eternal life is achieved through him and him alone. Take that away and it all crumbles.

There are numerous passages that describe people being brought back to life. Take Matthew 27:51-53, for example. It describes many bodies of saints rising from the dead and lots of witnesses. Here's another one.

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Bible

You cannot consider yourself a true Christian without believing in the objective realty of Christ’s death and resurrection.

Peterson is manipulating people in a manner which benefits the manipulator. Like I said earlier, he’s playing both sides. When asked if he believed that Jesus rose from the dead. He said that I cannot answer that question because it depends on what you mean by Jesus. The man said, a historical human being that existed in a physical body on earth and that was literally dead and came back to life. Peterson said that he was agnostic about that issue, which is a lot different than saying I don’t believe that it happened. 

Here’s the transcription. It’s a doozy…

(Jul 6, 2019 02:48 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jul 6, 2019 05:08 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]So, does Peterson not believe in God, but lives his life as if he does? I ran across an article that kind of suggested that he teaches men to ''live their lives as if God exists,'' even if they don't really believe.

He doesn’t want to be boxed in because he’s playing both sides. [1]

Peterson is manipulating people in a manner which benefits the manipulator. Like I said earlier, he’s playing both sides. [...] Here’s the transcription. It’s a doozy…

The world is a very strange place. It’s far stranger than we think. We don’t understand about consciousness and its relationship to the body. I don’t understand the structure of being well enough to make my way through the complexities of the resurrection story. I would say that it’s the most mysterious element of the biblical stories to me and perhaps I’m not alone in that. It’s the central drama in the Christian Corpus let’s say but I don’t believe that it’s reasonable to boil it down to something like, do you believe that or do you not believe it? I don’t know the limits of human possibility. In order to stay alive, it is necessary to get the balance between death and life right in your psyche and your physiology because death keeps you alive. Your cells die and regenerate all the time. And if you die too much then you die. And if you don’t die enough then you also die. You end up with cancer or something like that. You have to get the balance between death and life right in order to survive. I don’t know what would happen if you got the balance between death and life exactly right. I don’t know what the upper limits are to human possibility and neither does anyone else. We don’t know what we’re capable of. I’m unwilling to rule out the existence of heaven. I’m unwilling to rule out the existence of life after death. I’m unwilling to rule the idea of universal redemption and the defeat of evil. [3]

Expressing an agnostic position about those items would set him apart from the "philosophical Christianity" of Thomas Jefferson or today's Christian atheism in general. Both reject the supernatural claims of the Bible in contrast to Peterson's self-proclaimed suspended belief about the possibility of such "miracles" in whatever ambiguous context he's alluding to (including super-technology, like Frank Tipler at the bottom?).

OTOH, he'd apparently qualify as a member of Cultural Christianity, since that arguably doesn't entail a rejection of occult elements. Although the latter can contingently apply, as in the case of Richard Dawkins below.

Q: Do you think there are any elements of religion that we do need? Are there any salvageable bits of the world's religions that you say we should hang on to?

DAWKINS: Not insofar as they attempt to answer the big questions of existence and science, no. People may have a certain need for fellowship, for ritual, for getting together in groups, and religion seems to provide that, but it seems to me a rather odd thing to have to tie that to a belief about the cosmos. I mean, many people call themselves Jews, including Herb Silverman. He's a Jewish atheist. He identifies with Jewish culture, believes he's a part of the Jewish tradition, and that's valuable. I guess I'm a cultural Christian.

Q: Cultural Anglican, right? [narrowing to specifics]

DAWKINS: Yes, I guess I'm a cultural Anglican. But to tie that to belief about the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the nature of life, et cetera, is clearly ridiculous, and I don't think that the advantages of getting together once a week and singing together or something like that ­— insofar as that has community-building advantages, it most certainly does not need to go with fundamental beliefs about the cosmos. Those are separate and to be treated separately. --Q&A with Richard Dawkins: ‘I guess I’m a cultural Christian’

Having a vague "Christian Identity" is definitely out as a label for any mainstream folk.

Quote:Believing in the resurrection of the dead is one of the basic tenets of Christianity. That is their big claim to fame—their evidence for an afterlife. That’s their central proof that Jesus was in fact the son of god (god himself) and that he is the only way. Eternal life is achieved through him and him alone. Take that away and it all crumbles. There are numerous passages that describe people being brought back to life. [...] You cannot consider yourself a true Christian without believing in the objective realty of Christ’s death and resurrection.

A "true" Christian would apparently be movement toward and beyond Bob Harrison's dissatisfaction with philosophical Christianity.

On being a philosopher and a Christian: ... there is one glaring problem for anyone wanting to build a religious faith (at least a Judaeo-Christian one) on it [philosophical arguments for God]. If it succeeds at all, it doesn’t prove nearly enough. At best it suggests an intelligence and a power. It just doesn’t take us far enough to establish the love of God, or even suggest the fall of man, the divine nature of Jesus Christ… If you are already a convinced believer, this sort of argument can reassure you that the facts of the Universe do seem to be much what your faith would entitle you to expect; that at least some part of your belief can muster some rational support. I wouldn’t want to deprive anyone of that comfort, but I would not want to build my faith on it, far less try to convert anyone else on the strength of it.

I had an interesting experience recently. Frank Tipler, mathematical-physicist and author of the book The Physics of Immortality, gave a talk to the New Philosophical Society at Edinburgh University entitled “I can prove that God exists”. His maths were beyond me, but his argument was clearly ingenious. There will come a point at which time will come to an end. Since, (argued Tipler) time moves toward this point, we can take a teleological view (that the meaning of all things can be understood in terms of where they are going; their purpose, or destination in time) and we can say that this end point of time is God – the aim and object of the Universe. Taking this argument further, he claimed that this entailed that we have eternal life and will one day be resurrected. Now, I fear I have hardly done Tipler’s account justice – as I admit, his maths were too much for me, and I can’t remember all he had to say, but I am certain of one thing. Tipler’s God is not the loving father who sent his Son to save me, which, as a Christian, I find essential to my belief.

If I am not impressed by the classic ‘proofs of God’, and if people like Tipler have failed to do any better for me, why didn’t my exposure to philosophy capsize my faith? Partly because I had already been wrestling with these problems for years, so formal study came as no great shock, and partly because my philosophical studies have positively helped me to clarify issues and to form at least a plan of action to deal with my own crises of faith. What is this plan? Well…

(Jul 6, 2019 04:03 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jul 4, 2019 04:48 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]And then you're back to paraphrasing/straw manning without citation.  

It’s Peterson that's paraphrasing, deary. He uses the same supporting evidence time after time but never seems to get it right. He provided you with the citation, the study, and the author. Look it up yourself.

Again:

"He never implies that wishful thinking is beneficial. He actually contrasts hallucination (knowing your experience is not reality) with delusion (not knowing your experience is not reality). And he quotes Jung as saying "beware of unearned wisdom" as it pertains to mystical experiences induced by drugs, where a substance-free religious experience would be earned wisdom." - https://www.scivillage.com/thread-7241-p...l#pid29684

You have not supported these straw man claims of yours, and now you're avoiding addressing them entirely. That's intellectually dishonest. Arm waving is not a valid argument.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:And? Where has Peterson advocated hallucinogenic use? O_o
I see why you didn't cite him there.  

I never said that he was advocating drug use. That’s a blatant strawman, but nevertheless, he has said on several occasions that the psilocybin experiments and psychedelic drugs indicate that the use of such substances is generally associated with an increment in health rather than decremental. You can look at the video that I posted earlier with the debate between him and Matt Dillahunty. (22:50)

If you're claiming that anyone denied that "the positive or negative experiences that people have when taking a hallucinogenic are characterized by fallacious thinking, in which reality-testing is disavowed, and thoughts are easily biased by either wishes or anxieties", you're arguing your own straw man.

And? What's your point?
Or was stating the completely uncontroversial just an excuse for your condescending "I can’t believe that I’m having to point this out"? O_o

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Compare the video I just posted. A 6 min video compared to your 2 1/2 hour video. You don't even bother to give time codes, which I could readily do for mine (if you really need them). I'm not watching a 2 1/2 hour video in the vain hope of finding something that vaguely relates to your straw men.

And yet, Peterson spouts off references insisting that his audience read an entire book. I don’t want to be accused of taking something out of context or putting words in his mouth. The evidence is there. If you were truly interested in his snake oil, you’d take the time.

Peterson explains the relevant parts of his references (as a public speaker, where more specific citations are not feasible without being tedious). Not everyone is going to run out to buy every book he mentions in passing.
Making people watch an entire 2 1/2 hour video in the vain hope of piecing together whatever point you're trying to make is a red herring, especially in a text format where you can readily give precise time codes, pages, etc..

You're refusal to support your own claims without wasting other's time is intellectually dishonest. Either you have an argument you're readily willing to support, or you're just trolling because you have no argument. You're choice.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Cherry-picking fringe cases in the face of history is intellectually dishonest. You'd have to show that religion itself (not just human nature) has done more harm than good, throughout its entire history. Anything involving humans will necessarily have some problems, but that is inherent to humans and happens without religion as well. Nor are all religions equal. Most sane people, of any creed, would find things like female genital mutilation divisive, but that is not a feature of every religion.

I’m all for using your imagination, fantasies, hope, wishful thinking, etc. to withstand trying times or to flourish. What I’m against is it being portrayed as the truth, an absolute, something that’s universally valid, and supernatural.

You have made zero arguments to show it has no value (I don't think Peterson makes claims about its "truth"). You have made claims that it is harmful by the fallacy of cherry-picking, without any valid argument.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:First, what's with the links wholly unrelated to Peterson? Attempts to poison the well by tenuous association?  

The links are to the book that he recommended that you read in order to understand where he’s coming from in regards to the DNA and snake symbols.

And where does he take the step of accepting any appeal to ancient wisdom they may make? If he doesn't, those links are red herrings to poison the well.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:And? There's little doubt that ancient people seemed to depict, in their art, things that are not known to exist at the time but of which we can now see modern correlates. UFOs, brain surgery, etc.. And there may be nothing mystic about them.
It only requires entertaining the notion that we have lost previous knowledge before, and that some ancient art still bares hints of it.
Or that some knowledge/intuition is inherent in humans. Contrary to the notion of being born a blank slate, everything from evolutionary psychology to gays claiming to be "born that way" would tend to indicate some inherent knowledge.

No, that’s not true at all.

He’s referring to Narby’s book, which investigates the connection between shamanism and molecular biology. Narby’s hypothesis is that shamans may be able to access information at the molecular level through the ingestion of ayahuasca.

And? Where does Peterson explicitly accept that notion? O_o

Citing something is not a wholehearted endorsement of its every word. Otherwise we'd be led to believe that your citations of Bible verses makes you a Christian.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:And he never said the ancients knew about DNA.  :dodgy
He said they related that imagery to creation.

Uh, no! As I stated above, Narby concluded that the shamans were able to unlock genetic information through visionary worlds with the use of psychedelics.

And unless you can quote Peterson explicitly endorsing that idea, you're just trying to make him guilty by association.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:And weren't you claiming he made an appeal to ancient wisdom? Where did he ever claim "that ancient practices or beliefs are superior to modern ones"? You know, since that's a direct quote from your own link.

He’s obviously a traditionalist. There’s no proof that something is better simply because that’s the way it’s always been done.

Where has he claimed it was? Being traditional can be about the practicality of something having a long track record of working well, without any claim that something new could never improve upon it.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:And? You're making a straw man you haven't supported with anything but your own dubious inferences....putting words in his mouth by "reading between the lines" of what is actually said.

And you’ve just proven my point. That’s exactly why I felt the need to post his lectures in their entirety.  

But you have to tell us which lines you are reading what into. Otherwise, you're just wasting our time.

Quote:Even in your video he mentions Jill Bolt Taylor, who had a stroke.

"The absence of physical boundary was one of glorious bliss."—Jill Bolt Taylor

Wasn't it you, who said that awe and bliss had nothing to do with spirituality or transcendence?

No. I've told you explicitly that awe can be a component of a transcendent/spiritual experience, but that awe or bliss, themselves, do not transcendence/spirituality make:

(Jul 15, 2017 08:01 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jul 15, 2017 05:47 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]The word itself is riddled with connotations.  I have experienced awe, though, where my attention is directed away from myself and towards the environment or other individuals.

And I've agreed that awe can be a factor in many types of experience...including transcendence. But this thread specifically addresses religious transcendence, of which simple awe alone does not entail.

Quote:Brain damage, hallucinogens, fasting, sensory deprivation, etc., may produce religious sensations but it’s not evidence of anything supernatural.

From the same thread I just quoted:

(Jul 11, 2017 02:19 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]The first question either of you should have asked is why neither of my related experiences seem to have anything to do with religion/spirituality. I can only guess that they are so far beyond your experience that you can only either attempt to interpret them through things you (or others like you) could experience or deride them with faulty assumptions.

Just as awe does not entail transcendence, transcendence doesn't entirely entail spirituality. Although, apparently, some openness to religion/spirituality seems necessary for true transcendence...as you and MR have made abundantly clear.

Quote:I like how he claims in the debate with Matt Dillahunty, though, that the psilocybin doesn’t directly have an impact on smoking cessation and that it must elicit what’s described as a mystical experience.

However, in the study it plainly states that the biological or psychological mechanisms underlying this effect are unknown. The current findings are limited by the small sample, open-label design, and lack of control condition, which preclude making definitive conclusions about efficacy. Furthermore, participant self-selection bias may have played a role in observed success rates. The study enrolled only individuals motivated to quit and willing to undergo a time-intensive experimental treatment.

He says that although he’s not claiming that hallucinogens are direct proof of the supernatural, of God. It’s not completely out of the realm of the experience. The supernatural issue, that’s a different issue but people are capable of entering different experiential realms where things are qualitatively different to them. Their perceptions are different, their thoughts are different, and their response to the world is different. They feel that they’ve died an ego death and are transcending their normal mode of perception. Maybe that’s not part of the supernatural but then you’re starting to define the supernatural pretty narrowly. Do you require miracles like here and now? Something that defies the laws of physics? What’s your definition of the supernatural?

He goes on to say that throughout history people have been experiencing a set of transcendent emotions that can be evoked by various mechanisms but there’s also a profound proclivity to attribute those to some sort of supernatural agency. It’s a much more biological theory. So, it seems to be a much more credible theory. People can have these experiences and they can find them valuable. The psilocybin experiments and psychedelic drugs indicate that the use of such substances is generally associated with an increment in health rather than a decrement. He asked Matt, why do the people who have these experiences have the proclivity to attribute them to supernatural sources?

You've again reverted to citing a 2 1/2 hour video without time codes.  

Quote:So, my question to you is, Syne, is this what you’re referring to when you’re talking about transcendence and spirituality? Have you ever taken psychedelics?

I have, and that's why I know the difference.

---

(Jul 6, 2019 05:08 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]So, does Peterson not believe in God, but lives his life as if he does? I ran across an article that kind of suggested that he teaches men to ''live their lives as if God exists,'' even if they don't really believe. Modern day Pascal's Wager? lol

(Jul 6, 2019 02:48 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]He doesn’t want to be boxed in because he’s playing both sides. [1]

"Peterson knows he doesn’t have to answer these questions because, despite all his declarations to the contrary, he isn’t bound by this tradition. In one breath, he tells the audience they live in a society that would collapse without the immovable foundation of Judeo-Christian values. In the next, he reminds them that his God is a modern God, unsullied by the barbarism of ancient texts and unencumbered by the immense weight of history. There’s just one problem: Jordan Peterson’s God is nobody else’s God." [2]

No one's personal god is anyone else's. So that's a meaningless distinction.

Quote:Believing in the resurrection of the dead is one of the basic tenets of Christianity. That is their big claim to fame—their evidence for an afterlife. That’s their central proof that Jesus was in fact the son of god (god himself) and that he is the only way. Eternal life is achieved through him and him alone. Take that away and it all crumbles.

The question was not whether Peterson was a Christian, who believes in the Abrahamic god and all its mythos. It was simply whether he believes in god. So you're arguing a straw man.

(Jul 6, 2019 05:36 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jul 6, 2019 02:48 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jul 6, 2019 05:08 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]So, does Peterson not believe in God, but lives his life as if he does? I ran across an article that kind of suggested that he teaches men to ''live their lives as if God exists,'' even if they don't really believe.

He doesn’t want to be boxed in because he’s playing both sides. [1]

Peterson is manipulating people in a manner which benefits the manipulator. Like I said earlier, he’s playing both sides. [...] Here’s the transcription. It’s a doozy…

The world is a very strange place. It’s far stranger than we think. We don’t understand about consciousness and its relationship to the body. I don’t understand the structure of being well enough to make my way through the complexities of the resurrection story. I would say that it’s the most mysterious element of the biblical stories to me and perhaps I’m not alone in that. It’s the central drama in the Christian Corpus let’s say but I don’t believe that it’s reasonable to boil it down to something like, do you believe that or do you not believe it? I don’t know the limits of human possibility. In order to stay alive, it is necessary to get the balance between death and life right in your psyche and your physiology because death keeps you alive. Your cells die and regenerate all the time. And if you die too much then you die. And if you don’t die enough then you also die. You end up with cancer or something like that. You have to get the balance between death and life right in order to survive. I don’t know what would happen if you got the balance between death and life exactly right. I don’t know what the upper limits are to human possibility and neither does anyone else. We don’t know what we’re capable of. I’m unwilling to rule out the existence of heaven. I’m unwilling to rule out the existence of life after death. I’m unwilling to rule the idea of universal redemption and the defeat of evil. [3]

Expressing an agnostic position about those items would set him apart from the "philosophical Christianity" of Thomas Jefferson or today's Christian atheism in general. Both reject the supernatural claims of the Bible in contrast to Peterson's self-proclaimed suspended belief about the possibility of such "miracles" in whatever ambiguous context he's alluding to (including super-technology, like Frank Tipler at the bottom?).

OTOH, he'd apparently qualify as a member of Cultural Christianity, since that arguably doesn't entail a rejection of occult elements. Although the latter can contingently apply, as in the case of Richard Dawkins below.

Q: Do you think there are any elements of religion that we do need? Are there any salvageable bits of the world's religions that you say we should hang on to?

DAWKINS: Not insofar as they attempt to answer the big questions of existence and science, no. People may have a certain need for fellowship, for ritual, for getting together in groups, and religion seems to provide that, but it seems to me a rather odd thing to have to tie that to a belief about the cosmos. I mean, many people call themselves Jews, including Herb Silverman. He's a Jewish atheist. He identifies with Jewish culture, believes he's a part of the Jewish tradition, and that's valuable. I guess I'm a cultural Christian.

Q: Cultural Anglican, right? [narrowing to specifics]

DAWKINS: Yes, I guess I'm a cultural Anglican. But to tie that to belief about the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the nature of life, et cetera, is clearly ridiculous, and I don't think that the advantages of getting together once a week and singing together or something like that ­— insofar as that has community-building advantages, it most certainly does not need to go with fundamental beliefs about the cosmos. Those are separate and to be treated separately.  --Q&A with Richard Dawkins: ‘I guess I’m a cultural Christian’

Having a vague "Christian Identity" is definitely out as a label for any mainstream folk.

Quote:Believing in the resurrection of the dead is one of the basic tenets of Christianity. That is their big claim to fame—their evidence for an afterlife. That’s their central proof that Jesus was in fact the son of god (god himself) and that he is the only way. Eternal life is achieved through him and him alone. Take that away and it all crumbles.  There are numerous passages that describe people being brought back to life. [...] You cannot consider yourself a true Christian without believing in the objective realty of Christ’s death and resurrection.

A "true" Christian would apparently be movement toward and beyond Bob Harrison's dissatisfaction with philosophical Christianity.

On being a philosopher and a Christian: ... there is one glaring problem for anyone wanting to build a religious faith (at least a Judaeo-Christian one) on it [philosophical arguments for God]. If it succeeds at all, it doesn’t prove nearly enough. At best it suggests an intelligence and a power. It just doesn’t take us far enough to establish the love of God, or even suggest the fall of man, the divine nature of Jesus Christ… If you are already a convinced believer, this sort of argument can reassure you that the facts of the Universe do seem to be much what your faith would entitle you to expect; that at least some part of your belief can muster some rational support. I wouldn’t want to deprive anyone of that comfort, but I would not want to build my faith on it, far less try to convert anyone else on the strength of it.

I had an interesting experience recently. Frank Tipler, mathematical-physicist and author of the book The Physics of Immortality, gave a talk to the New Philosophical Society at Edinburgh University entitled “I can prove that God exists”. His maths were beyond me, but his argument was clearly ingenious. There will come a point at which time will come to an end. Since, (argued Tipler) time moves toward this point, we can take a teleological view (that the meaning of all things can be understood in terms of where they are going; their purpose, or destination in time) and we can say that this end point of time is God – the aim and object of the Universe. Taking this argument further, he claimed that this entailed that we have eternal life and will one day be resurrected. Now, I fear I have hardly done Tipler’s account justice – as I admit, his maths were too much for me, and I can’t remember all he had to say, but I am certain of one thing. Tipler’s God is not the loving father who sent his Son to save me, which, as a Christian, I find essential to my belief.

If I am not impressed by the classic ‘proofs of God’, and if people like Tipler have failed to do any better for me, why didn’t my exposure to philosophy capsize my faith? Partly because I had already been wrestling with these problems for years, so formal study came as no great shock, and partly because my philosophical studies have positively helped me to clarify issues and to form at least a plan of action to deal with my own crises of faith. What is this plan? Well…

In essence, Peterson somewhat comes off as a fence sitter...which is exactly who Pascal was appealing to, when he came up with his ''wager.'' Pascal wasn't trying to attract atheists, although they could certainly join the experiment, but he was more so considering lukewarm Christians. 

Peterson seems like a lukewarm Christian in the sense that he cherry picks the Bible, and seems to like the traditional views of men and women that are often characterized. I've been reading the Bible again from an objective, historical view point...and I'm coming away with a different understanding, than when I read it for religious reasons. In certain passages, women were esteemed, and held jobs outside the home. They weren't dutifully waiting on their husbands, as beckoned call girls. Of course, there are other stories that contradict those stories. Such is the Bible, it is a complex read because it was written by ancient people in a time that we simply can't relate to. 

So, when Peterson plucks certain passages for the sake of illustrating his points to his audiences, it isn't wrong per se, as much as I question...why Christianity? Why not Islam or Judaism? If you don't believe that the end game of it all, is about a man named Jesus coming to save the world from its sins, and rising from the dead to bring us everlasting life...why come across as a Christian apologist?

To broaden his audience, perhaps. I'm tempted to read his book, ''12 Rules for Life,'' so I can actually take a deeper dive into what he espouses. For the sake of this discussion, maybe I'm a bit of a fence sitter when it comes to my like/dislike of Peterson. 

(Jul 6, 2019 08:58 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]In essence, Peterson somewhat comes off as a fence sitter...which is exactly who Pascal was appealing to, when he came up with his ''wager.'' Pascal wasn't trying to attract atheists, although they could certainly join the experiment, but he was more so considering lukewarm Christians. 

Peterson seems like a lukewarm Christian in the sense that he cherry picks the Bible, and seems to like the traditional views of men and women that are often characterized. I've been reading the Bible again from an objective, historical view point...and I'm coming away with a different understanding, than when I read it for religious reasons. In certain passages, women were esteemed, and held jobs outside the home. They weren't dutifully waiting on their husbands, as beckoned call girls. Of course, there are other stories that contradict those stories. Such is the Bible, it is a complex read because it was written by ancient people in a time that we simply can't relate to. 

So, when Peterson plucks certain passages for the sake of illustrating his points to his audiences, it isn't wrong per se, as much as I question...why Christianity? Why not Islam or Judaism? If you don't believe that the end game of it all, is about a man named Jesus coming to save the world from its sins, and rising from the dead to bring us everlasting life...why come across as a Christian apologist?

To broaden his audience, perhaps. I'm tempted to read his book, ''12 Rules for Life,'' so I can actually take a deeper dive into what he espouses. For the sake of this discussion, maybe I'm a bit of a fence sitter when it comes to my like/dislike of Peterson. 

I don't remember Peterson ever calling himself a Christian. He just accepts that Western society is fundamentally built on Judeo-Christian values.


Nor have I seen him cherry-pick the Bible. He just practices Biblical hermeneutics (interpretation).
He likes the traditional gender roles because, as a psychologist, he's well-aware of the unavoidable evolutionary psychology behind them.

I'd be interested in which Bible stories you find especially troublesome about women's role/place. Perhaps some hermeneutics is due there.

He's lives and was raised in a Western society, so Christianity is the go-to. I don't know that I believe in the literal death and bodily resurrection of Jesus, but I see the immense value of Christianity and have no problem being an apologist for it. Even though I don't smoke pot and wouldn't advise others to, if I believed the tax revenue generated by legalizing it was a net good (but more money in the hands of government isn't), I'd advocate for that.

I doubt that you are a Christian-chauvinist, and would disparage him solely for not believing as you do. And I assume you see some value in him broadening the audience and making the case for Christian values. So...I'm having trouble seeing your reservations.

(Jul 6, 2019 08:58 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]In essence, Peterson somewhat comes off as a fence sitter...which is exactly who Pascal was appealing to, when he came up with his ''wager.'' Pascal wasn't trying to attract atheists, although they could certainly join the experiment, but he was more so considering lukewarm Christians. 

Peterson seems like a lukewarm Christian in the sense that he cherry picks the Bible, and seems to like the traditional views of men and women that are often characterized. I've been reading the Bible again from an objective, historical view point...and I'm coming away with a different understanding, than when I read it for religious reasons. In certain passages, women were esteemed, and held jobs outside the home. They weren't dutifully waiting on their husbands, as beckoned call girls. Of course, there are other stories that contradict those stories. Such is the Bible, it is a complex read because it was written by ancient people in a time that we simply can't relate to. 

So, when Peterson plucks certain passages for the sake of illustrating his points to his audiences, it isn't wrong per se, as much as I question...why Christianity? Why not Islam or Judaism? If you don't believe that the end game of it all, is about a man named Jesus coming to save the world from its sins, and rising from the dead to bring us everlasting life...why come across as a Christian apologist?

Why he's not cross-cultural with regard to other mythos material is up for grabs. But it seems clear-cut with regard to Islam. (EDIT: To clarify, if he had not had reservations or been cautious about Islam in the past, being in proximity to the shirt would have been a far more ridiculous reason for Cambridge to uphold.)

According to Cambridge University, he was rejected because of his Islamophobia: Dr Jordan Peterson: 'Anti-Islam shirt' behind fellowship U-turn. Of course, they did need to find a specific offense to serve as their reason (if not that, then something else). Plus, any overt stance about Islam other than indifference, superficial multicultural interest, or bubbling enthusiasm would be interpreted as hostile or phobic with regard to anybody. (A card-carrying member of Woke Church or the Para-Marxism Institute excluded, up to a limited number of exempted incidents. )

This piece claims (via a quote of his at the start and other statements) that he wanted to open up a dialogue with Muslims, who were interested in him despite their curiosity being unintentional on his part. But it's asserted that he didn't follow through (up to the time it was written), and he is claimed to have ventured quite the opposite direction: http://www.bliis.org/essay/jordan-peterson-islam/

Bottom line is that he's at least a cultural Christian (regardless of more serious accusations being tacked-on). So he's simply promoting and sticking to what he's comfortable/familiar with for the time being. (Opportunism can always wait around the corner if that restricted territory or audience doesn't yield enough profit in the future.)

Quote:To broaden his audience, perhaps. I'm tempted to read his book, ''12 Rules for Life,'' so I can actually take a deeper dive into what he espouses. For the sake of this discussion, maybe I'm a bit of a fence sitter when it comes to my like/dislike of Peterson. 

He tentatively reminds me of some West cultural version of Deepak Chopra, minus "alternative medicine" bottles and probably some other traveling sideshow accoutrements. On my own, separate from other people's evaluations, I can't really say much about him one way or another since there's only so much I can watch or read before getting drowsy. But judging from his own supposed statements he again falls within an active cultural "Christian" (Judeo-?) classification at minimum. There are all kinds of Jesus folk besides those endeavoring to be an "authentic" species of Christian that lack suspended belief or no belief about miracles and amazing promises.

(Jul 6, 2019 10:55 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]I don't remember Peterson ever calling himself a Christian.

When interviewed by British author, Tim Lott, Peterson was asked "are you a Christian?" and responded "I suppose the most straight-forward answer to that is yes". [1]

Let's get back to the lobsters now, shall we? Why lobsters?

He says that there’s biological and behavioral continuity across the animal kingdom. He chose lobsters to indicate that there’s so much continuity in the systems that allow us to estimate status positions that we share it with creatures that are a third of a billion years old. Lobsters are arthropods but there are older living arthropods, take the horseshoe crab for instance, it’s been around for 445 million years. He said that we’ve divulged from lobsters in evolutionary history about 350 million years ago but that’s inaccurate. He cherry picked a species that has a trait that he wants to claim as universal. If Peterson thinks that all hierarchies are identical to humans then he’s sorely mistaken. The social behavior of lobsters and humans are not the same at all.

At one point, he gets all cocky with British journalist, Helen Lewis, and says, "I know my neurochemistry. So, if you’re going to play neurochemistry let’s go and do it."

Well, okay, let's do it then.

He says that, "lobsters exists in hierarchies and they have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy and that nervous system runs on serotonin just like our nervous systems do."

Serotonin is a single neurotransmitter. It’s just one of many. It’s a common amino acid. Bananas even have serotonin. Oh, yeah, he really knows his neurochemistry all right. Ha-ha! Maybe he could collaborate with Ray Comfort, eh? 

You might be asking yourself at this point, why didn’t he simply go with one of our closest living relatives? He probably wanted to steer clear of the bonobos for obvious reasons. They’re more matriarchal and egalitarian, but what about chimpanzees?

Well, that really wouldn’t fit with Peterson’s hypothesis that fundamental human hierarchies are not based on power, but on competence, and male chimpanzees are aggressive towards male and female chimpanzees. Mate preferences might exist among female chimpanzees. Male-male competition is one of the leading theories for sexual dimorphism, but supposedly, males are more promiscuous, compared to the greater choosiness of females. However, there are plenty of studies showing that female chimpanzees are actually quite promiscuous. Male-male competition and sexual coercion most likely limits their mate choices.

Since male aggression against females both constrained female mate choice and imposed costs on females, we conclude that such aggression functioned as sexual coercion. Coercive aggression could increase male copulation rates through at least two mechanisms: by overcoming female resistance (direct coercion), and/or by limiting female promiscuity (mate guarding). Whether the benefits lie primarily in overcoming female resistance or in constraining female promiscuity, these data represent the strongest evidence found that in a wild primate, male aggression against females functions as part of a mating strategy. As such, they represent the best demonstration of male coercion as a mechanism of sexual selection distinct from male–male competition and female choice in primates. [2]

Nonetheless, if I was to conflate the two behaviors with domestic violence, I’d be accused of committing an anthropomorphic fallacy. In fact, when I mentioned this to Syne before, he said…

(May 30, 2018 05:34 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Why, do you feel comparable to an ape?

Well, do you feel comparable to a lobster, deary?