|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 20, 2018 12:53:24 GMT
I was paraphrasing Jordan Peterson in the debates he had with Sam Harris on this topic. It has to do with the definition of 'God', how our personal 'God' takes the form of our highest ideal. What's guiding us to positive ideals and behaviors, helping others and whatnot, can be called 'God'. So for example if it was our natural empathy for one another, evolved as a survival strategy, that guided us to positive behaviours and whatnot... then you are saying that by definition, evolution is god? I guess everyone has the right to their own personal definition of god if they want it. I'm not sure that one would be widely shared, though. As such, I think Mr Peterson risks being rather badly misunderstood if he uses phrases like "atheists act like they believe in god", when "atheists act like they believe in evolution" would probably make it far easier to grasp his point. I actually do think there is something divine in 'Natural selection'. The act of selecting one thing over another seems to me to be 'conscious'. As far as Jordan Peterson, I was no doubt over-simplifying his argument. That said, his debates have prompted many who previously identified with the atheist philosophy of Harris to re-think that viewpoint. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 13:13:48 GMT
So for example if it was our natural empathy for one another, evolved as a survival strategy, that guided us to positive behaviours and whatnot... then you are saying that by definition, evolution is god? I guess everyone has the right to their own personal definition of god if they want it. I'm not sure that one would be widely shared, though. As such, I think Mr Peterson risks being rather badly misunderstood if he uses phrases like "atheists act like they believe in god", when "atheists act like they believe in evolution" would probably make it far easier to grasp his point. I actually do think there is something divine in 'Natural selection'. The act of selecting one thing over another seems to me to be 'conscious'. I find that odd. I mean, the Lions will tend to catch the slowest Zebra and not the fastest one, right? Are you suggesting that this must be because there is a conscious intelligence specifically guiding the Lions to the slowest Zebra? And if there wasn't, then the slowest and fastest Zebra would both have an equal chance of outrunning the Lions? I really don't get it. It seems to me like the Lions will get the slowest Zebra... well, just because it's the slowest one so they'll get to it first. I can't imagine what the consciousness you speak of would do to make any difference. I haven't spent a huge amount of time on Peterson, because I find that after you really start thinking about what he's saying, he doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But from what I've seen, his actual argument is along the lines of the classic "There's no reason to be good unless you believe in god. So the fact that atheists don't go around raping and murdering means they're not really atheists, but believers." Now perhaps I misunderstand him - it's hard to tell because honestly when you ask him about god what you get back seems a bit of a word-salad to me. But that's how he comes across to me on that subject, from what I've seen. Okay. I've no doubt they've prompted many to go the other way, too. I certainly know that more than a few people found his discussion with Matt Dillahunty made Peterson look kind of silly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 13:23:57 GMT
Because religion is without proof, which means that consensus is the only 'evidence' that people have to support their belief. Weakening consensus makes religion harder to believe in.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 20, 2018 13:26:27 GMT
I actually do think there is something divine in 'Natural selection'. The act of selecting one thing over another seems to me to be 'conscious'. I find that odd. I mean, the Lions will tend to catch the slowest Zebra and not the fastest one, right? Are you suggesting that this must be because there is a conscious intelligence specifically guiding the Lions to the slowest Zebra? And if there wasn't, then the slowest and fastest Zebra would both have an equal chance of outrunning the Lions? I really don't get it. It seems to me like the Lions will get the slowest Zebra... well, just because it's the slowest one so they'll get to it first. I can't imagine what the consciousness you speak of would do to make any difference. I haven't spent a huge amount of time on Peterson, because I find that after you really start thinking about what he's saying, he doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But from what I've seen, his actual argument is along the lines of the classic "There's no reason to be good unless you believe in god. So the fact that atheists don't go around raping and murdering means they're not really atheists, but believers." Now perhaps I misunderstand him - it's hard to tell because honestly when you ask him about god what you get back seems a bit of a word-salad to me. But that's how he comes across to me on that subject, from what I've seen. Okay. I've no doubt they've prompted many to go the other way, too. I certainly know that more than a few people found his discussion with Matt Dillahunty made Peterson look kind of silly. I think we're both oversimplifying what Peterson says. From what I read his discussion with Matt Dillahunty got bogged down with the question on the existence of God. Not surprising given that 'God' can mean completely different things depending on who you're talking to, and nobody can definitively be proved right or wrong. I know that my opinion on natural selection being synonymous with intelligent design is strange, the best I've seen it put into words was by Simon G. Powell in the book 'Magic Mushroom Explorer'. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 20, 2018 13:33:21 GMT
If he had stuck to what he trained for, [Dawkins]would be a freaking genius. Unfortunately he took it upon himself to be primarily known as a moron in relation to religious belief. One assumes this is just hyperbole from a Christian who resents Dawkins' notable effectiveness as a polemicist, for I can find no mention of such a negative view on, say, the scientist's Wiki page lol To which I entirely concur, and indeed is something creationists or intelligent design proponents often forget when they mistake their religious beliefs for 'science'. While Dawkins, as we have just agreed, is not a top-drawer scholar in everything, what he is good at is more than good enough. I remember how his famous analogy, say, of the 'sky hook' vs evolution method in bringing life along in The God Delusion is compelling, and relies entirely on his knowledge of evolutionary biology. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 20, 2018 13:39:42 GMT
I was paraphrasing Jordan Peterson in the debates he had with Sam Harris on this topic. It has to do with the definition of 'God', how our personal 'God' takes the form of our highest ideal. What's guiding us to positive ideals and behaviors, helping others and whatnot, can be called 'God'. Since human beings can no more fathom 'God' than a fruit fly can fathom how a jet engine works (my analogy), any debate about belief in God will get bogged down and restricted by the limitations of our human senses. I don't think your last paragraph goes with the idea above it. One's "highest ideal," what one uses as a guide to positive ideals and behavior isn't something that people can't fathom. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 20, 2018 13:39:42 GMT
If he had stuck to what he trained for, [Dawkins]would be a freaking genius. Unfortunately he took it upon himself to be primarily known as a moron in relation to religious belief. One assumes this is just hyperbole from a Christian who resents Dawkins' notable effectiveness as a polemicist, for I can find no mention of such a negative view on, say, the scientist's Wiki page lol To which I entirely concur, and indeed is something creationists or intelligent design proponents often forget when they mistake their religious beliefs for 'science'. While Dawkins, as we have just agreed, is not a top-drawer scholar in everything, I remember how his famous analogy, say, of the 'sky hook' vs evolution method in bringing life along in The God Delusion is compelling, and relies entirely on his knowledge of evolutionary biology. He's not good at debating religious views. In fact he's very careful in regards to who he argues with. What he is is an effective orator to people who think like him which is like saying Jesus' message is effective for Christians. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 20, 2018 13:47:05 GMT
He's not good at debating religious views. In fact he's very careful in regards to who he argues with. If you mean he has taken to avoid meeting the challenges of the fundamentalists who have no idea of the science he represents I would agree with you. If you mean Dawkins only preaches to the converted, then why have there been so many, generally failed, attempts at answering (with all its faults) The God Delusion? If you are going to criticise people in the public debate over religion today you would be better off targeting the frequently mendacious, ill-informed opponents of modern science (and, very often academic freedom) on the fundamentalist right. But one supposes you have your reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 20, 2018 13:51:20 GMT
He's not good at debating religious views. In fact he's very careful in regards to who he argues with. If you mean he has taken to avoid meeting the challenges of the fundamentalists who have no idea of the science he represents I would agree with you. If you mean Dawkins only preaches to the converted, then why have there been so many, generally failed, attempts at answering (with all its faults) The God Delusion? If you are going to criticise people in the atheist-religious wars you would be better off targeting the frequently mendacious, ill-informed opponents of modern science (and, very often academic freedom) on the fundamentalist right. But one supposes you have your reasons. "He's not good at debating religious views. In fact he's very careful in regards to who he argues with."
He doesn't just debate scientifically illiterate creationists, which I'm guessing is what you're referring to.:
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 20, 2018 14:57:16 GMT
I’m sorry I turned this into a Dawkins Support group thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 21, 2018 1:16:22 GMT
I was paraphrasing Jordan Peterson in the debates he had with Sam Harris on this topic. It has to do with the definition of 'God', how our personal 'God' takes the form of our highest ideal. What's guiding us to positive ideals and behaviors, helping others and whatnot, can be called 'God'. Since human beings can no more fathom 'God' than a fruit fly can fathom how a jet engine works (my analogy), any debate about belief in God will get bogged down and restricted by the limitations of our human senses. I don't think your last paragraph goes with the idea above it. One's "highest ideal," what one uses as a guide to positive ideals and behavior isn't something that people can't fathom. A lot of my posting the past few weeks is during night shift. It's amazing it's not all word salad. But it seems to me people could have endless debates on what 'God' means and the truth could be different for each person so it's pretty much a pointless question. Just he differences between the idea of 'God' separate from creation and one that is a fundamental part of that creation are as large as the gap between atheists and believers. |
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Jul 21, 2018 1:28:19 GMT
Because most people who say they don't believe in God act like they do. And most people who say 'I don't believe in God' fail to define what their definition of what 'God' is, so it's essentially a meaningless statement. And you took a survey that proves this? |
|
|
|
Post by Roberto on Jul 21, 2018 1:36:19 GMT
You should be more specific and change "God" to "their deity".
Because it can cause confusion, as there's God (the fictional character in Christianity) and there's our God (The one who created our world and made all this possible. Possibly)
|
|
