Jordan Peterson's idea of god.

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So I've been watching this little bit at a time and I have to say this is the first time in a long time I've felt properly stimulated by theology. Peterson's archtypal interpretation of the bible that largely sets aside the notion of god as a physical entity and instead conceptualizes god as a metaphysical construct we use to orient ourselves into properly noble beings has given me a fresh perspective on christianity. For my own part I have never been fully satisfied with athiesm. It makes sense to not presume in a material diety sure and I don't think the idea of an anthropomorphic god in a literal heaven will ever not be silly to me, but then what does that leave us with? From whence comes a man's impetus to be noble if not from something bigger than himself? What peterson among others seem to be tapping into is that there is an underlying craving for transmaterial succor in our society that cannot be sated in a belief in nothing.

Atheism is not "nothing." Atheism is everything except gods. And because gods are not real, atheism is literally everything.

Belief in gods requires a belief in nothing - because that's allegedly what gods had before there was everything. Therefore, theologically speaking, we are still nothing, we still equate with nothing if gods are the premise.

So gods would have me as nothing.

And of course, "nothing" is as bizarre a concept as is "god." Like typical gods, it is not something demonstrable, not even as a behavior.

Allow me to further explain my meaning. Athiesm in and of itself and in the absence of religion in general is what I am referring to. Its not so much that I am referring to the concept of nothingness but more to the absense of religious/spiritual/metaphysical experience. Most of my peers were/are athiests but in the absence of theism they don't seem to have much going for them. Some of them resort to wicken parlor tricks but that's about it. The rise of athiesm is fine for me because the church power structures needed to be challenged, but what have we replaced them with in their decline? Nothing, and that has left a hole in many that they can't even seem to articulate what it is. You especially see this in the alt-right. To me the alt-right is partially a consequence of athiesm in my age-bracket. I can't quite explain that as I want to put more thought into it and find the right words but through casual observation of their social circles that really seems to be a part of it.

Okay. I understand that by "nothing" you meant an absence of religion.

Should not religion have purpose? My religious upbringing stressed that religion should make us into better people. It was exclusive, yes, but that's what one was supposed to achieve. Our eternal reward was a reward for being a social steward that made the world a more peaceful, productive place. Thing is, though we can do that without all the religious baggage. If religion doesn't make a person do this than it's religion for religion's sake, or simple selfish indulgence. It really has no purpose anymore.

We can look at it another way and ask what replaces childhood belief in ghosts, magic and Santa. Clearly religion fills that void for lots of people.

 

[LordKiran]

Allow me to further explain my meaning. Athiesm in and of itself and in the absence of religion in general is what I am referring to. Its not so much that I am referring to the concept of nothingness but more to the absense of religious/spiritual/metaphysical experience. Most of my peers were/are athiests but in the absence of theism they don't seem to have much going for them. Some of them resort to wicken parlor tricks but that's about it. The rise of athiesm is fine for me because the church power structures needed to be challenged, but what have we replaced them with in their decline? Nothing, and that has left a hole in many that they can't even seem to articulate what it is. You especially see this in the alt-right. To me the alt-right is partially a consequence of athiesm in my age-bracket. I can't quite explain that as I want to put more thought into it and find the right words but through casual observation of their social circles that really seems to be a part of it.

Okay. I understand that by "nothing" you meant an absence of religion.

Should not religion have purpose? My religious upbringing stressed that religion should make us into better people. It was exclusive, yes, but that's what one was supposed to achieve. Our eternal reward was a reward for being a social steward that made the world a more peaceful, productive place. Thing is, though we can do that without all the religious baggage. If religion doesn't make a person do this than it's religion for religion's sake, or simple selfish indulgence. It really has no purpose anymore.

We can look at it another way and ask what replaces childhood belief in ghosts, magic and Santa. Clearly religion fills that void for lots of people.

Religion absolutely should have a purpose. And I don't disagree that we don't strictly need the metaphysical aspect to utilize religious teachings in a way that allow us to become better than we were the day before. I rather like the idea of partly secularizing our religions to make them more compatible with the modern era. The value in religion to me is that it not only gives people a means to give themselves direction through life should they need it but it provides protection to the axioms upon which society is built.

Is there any reason complete self interest is irrational? Take what I can fuck the rest is perfectly reasonable utilizing only logic. After all self interest is no less valid a system of value than communal interest if we're being relative about it. So why not? What's wrong with Walmart not paying its employees a living wage really? Because in some people's opinion it's wrong to exploit labor and deprive them of a dignified living? So what? What gives any of this value if not something above and beyond it? How can anything have value if we can't decide who the arbitrator(s) is/should be? You know its kind of like age restrictions on driving. You know fundamentally that its certainly arbitrary and yet it needs to be there because if it isn't bad things happen.

I don't think we should look to war against absurdity, rather we should understand that the axiomatic absurdities that are apart of the way we have structured the world need to be in place for the system of function. Hell even our best sciences fundamentally rely on a set of axioms which are taken for granted.

 

[Treedbear]

...
Is there any reason complete self interest is irrational? Take what I can fuck the rest is perfectly reasonable utilizing only logic. After all self interest is no less valid a system of value than communal interest if we're being relative about it. So why not? What's wrong with Walmart not paying its employees a living wage really? Because in some people's opinion it's wrong to exploit labor and deprive them of a dignified living? So what? What gives any of this value if not something above and beyond it? How can anything have value if we can't decide who the arbitrator(s) is/should be? You know its kind of like age restrictions on driving. You know fundamentally that its certainly arbitrary and yet it needs to be there because if it isn't bad things happen. ...

There are obviously many reasons to act in the interest of society. Hell, it works pretty well for the rest of the natural world. Cultural values are based on what works. Corporate values tend to do the same. The arbiter is their customers, society, elected governments. No God necessary. In fact God often gets in the way of people making the rational, logical choices. If you want an ultimate arbiter look no further than Darwin's principle of survival of the fittest. It's in the science section.

 

[LordKiran]

...
Is there any reason complete self interest is irrational? Take what I can fuck the rest is perfectly reasonable utilizing only logic. After all self interest is no less valid a system of value than communal interest if we're being relative about it. So why not? What's wrong with Walmart not paying its employees a living wage really? Because in some people's opinion it's wrong to exploit labor and deprive them of a dignified living? So what? What gives any of this value if not something above and beyond it? How can anything have value if we can't decide who the arbitrator(s) is/should be? You know its kind of like age restrictions on driving. You know fundamentally that its certainly arbitrary and yet it needs to be there because if it isn't bad things happen. ...

There are obviously many reasons to act in the interest of society. Hell, it works pretty well for the rest of the natural world. Cultural values are based on what works. Corporate values tend to do the same. The arbiter is their customers, society, elected governments. No God necessary. In fact God often gets in the way of people making the rational, logical choices. If you want an ultimate arbiter look no further than Darwin's principle of survival of the fittest. It's in the science section.

What works for "Me" is not the same as what works for "Us". Selfishness that benefits myself at the expense of the world I live in is a perfectly viable way to live and many who choose to live that way find material success in doing so. So why not? Maybe society suffers but that's only a problem if you value society which many don't and honestly is just another moral imperative anyway right? I mean if there's no higher value that eclipses your own personal notions of right and wrong then why not permit everything because who is to say? It's all relative.

Also using Darwin's work as a basis for society is fine if you like the idea of living in a might makes right eat or be eaten society because that seems to be what Darwin's work lends itself to politically.

 

[Treedbear]

...
Is there any reason complete self interest is irrational? Take what I can fuck the rest is perfectly reasonable utilizing only logic. After all self interest is no less valid a system of value than communal interest if we're being relative about it. So why not? What's wrong with Walmart not paying its employees a living wage really? Because in some people's opinion it's wrong to exploit labor and deprive them of a dignified living? So what? What gives any of this value if not something above and beyond it? How can anything have value if we can't decide who the arbitrator(s) is/should be? You know its kind of like age restrictions on driving. You know fundamentally that its certainly arbitrary and yet it needs to be there because if it isn't bad things happen. ...

There are obviously many reasons to act in the interest of society. Hell, it works pretty well for the rest of the natural world. Cultural values are based on what works. Corporate values tend to do the same. The arbiter is their customers, society, elected governments. No God necessary. In fact God often gets in the way of people making the rational, logical choices. If you want an ultimate arbiter look no further than Darwin's principle of survival of the fittest. It's in the science section.

What works for "Me" is not the same as what works for "Us". Selfishness that benefits myself at the expense of the world I live in is a perfectly viable way to live and many who choose to live that way find material success in doing so. So why not?

It works until it doesn't. In nature it leads to extinction. In society it leads to new laws and regulations, unrest, activism, and revolution. I'd rather put my faith in the might of an informed public than in a recalcitrant God.

Maybe society suffers but that's only a problem if you value society which many don't and honestly is just another moral imperative anyway right? I mean if there's no higher value that eclipses your own personal notions of right and wrong then why not permit everything because who is to say? It's all relative.

Civic values can be taught. There are real advantages from being an active member of society, just as there are advantages to being part of a religious community. And there is generally a price to pay for selfish behavior. Besides, in the real world the most adaptable and resilient societies are not purely selfish or purely altruistic, but a combination of both.

Also using Darwin's work as a basis for society is fine if you like the idea of living in a might makes right eat or be eaten society because that seems to be what Darwin's work lends itself to politically.

Not within a species. Inter-species it will always be might makes right.

 

[ruby sparks]

In English, the adverb 'maybe' usually indicates possibility.

Ruby Sparks is a nazi who hates babies puppies and candy and wants to destroy the earth to appease his immortal god hitler...Or is he?

See, I'm just asking a question, nothing wrong with that!

Indeed. Ask away.

I'm not telling you the answer straight away, but I will give you a clue. One of those things is true.

But seriously, was I wrong? Do you have another reason, other than a desire to make your life better in some way?

ps I hope you noticed that I gave you a bye ball on the missing comma, at least until my ps.

 

[LordKiran]

What works for "Me" is not the same as what works for "Us". Selfishness that benefits myself at the expense of the world I live in is a perfectly viable way to live and many who choose to live that way find material success in doing so. So why not?

It works until it doesn't. In nature it leads to extinction.[1] In society it leads to new laws and regulations, unrest, activism, and revolution. I'd rather put my faith in the might of an informed public than in a recalcitrant God.

Maybe society suffers but that's only a problem if you value society which many don't and honestly is just another moral imperative anyway right? I mean if there's no higher value that eclipses your own personal notions of right and wrong then why not permit everything because who is to say? It's all relative.

Civic values can be taught.[2] There are real advantages from being an active member of society, just as there are advantages to being part of a religious community. And there is generally a price to pay for selfish behavior. Besides, in the real world the most adaptable and resilient societies are not purely selfish or purely altruistic, but a combination of both.

Also using Darwin's work as a basis for society is fine if you like the idea of living in a might makes right eat or be eaten society because that seems to be what Darwin's work lends itself to politically.

Not within a species. Inter-species it will always be might makes right.[3]

1. What do you base this assertion on? European civilization has gone through frequent bouts of political and economic theories that enable predation and deprevation on the societal level and yet those societies did not collapse and their peoples did not go extinct. Chinese society continues to truck along just fine abusing and exploiting its people to the benefit of a privileged few as it has for thousands of years. They haven't died out yet.

2. Civic values can be taught but what gives those values impetus if not the idea that they're elevated above and beyond you? How can this be done without a source of value arbitration? You can teach people values but that doesn't mean they won't weigh those values relative to other values in the absence of one set being favored axiomatically.

3. Sorry? Not 'within a species?' Humans predate upon each other all the time out of self interest. What are you talking about?

 

[Juma]

Take what I can fuck the rest is perfectly reasonable

No it isnt. Why do you believe it is?
And it is not our instincts to do so. So why would we?

 

[abaddon]

NM. Left a while, missed the progress of the convo, then hit Submit ... then found the OP's angle is way different from what I thought. Oops.

 

[ruby sparks]

Sorry? Not 'within a species?' Humans predate upon each other all the time out of self interest. What are you talking about?

Well, humans are arguably a bit of an exception, and more intraspecies-nasty than most. Kinda odd, if made in the image of a perfect god, but there you go. Maybe the big elf in the sky had a reason for making us relatively not very nice to each other compared to his other supposed creations. Something to do with a test to see if we qualify for his afterlife or something.

But anyways, the general point is that intraspecies, co-operation is arguably as useful as competition, especially for social species such as human apes. And among species, it isn't always might that wins. Being a good hider or run-awayer also work pretty well.

 

[LordKiran]

Take what I can fuck the rest is perfectly reasonable

No it isnt. Why do you believe it is?
And it is not our instincts to do so. So why would we?

reasonable as in logically sound. Rational. And it is! Valuing yourself and the things/people you specifically care about and giving little value to everyone else is perfectly sound. Stratified societies are based on this in fact.

The idea of human instinct as being the ultimate source of morality and virtue is the sort of argument used to support social darwinism. It also makes the mistake of assuming human beings as being inherently moral and virtuous on account of their instinctual nature. I don't agree with that at all.

 

[ruby sparks]

The idea of human instinct as being the ultimate source of morality and virtue is the sort of argument used to support social darwinism.

By the same token the idea of a gord-elf as being the ultimate source of morality and virtue is the sort of argument used to support wiping out everyone in the world who disagrees with you.

Look, if you personally believe that humans need a higher source of morality or value or whatever, if that's 'your bag' and makes your nipples go all hard, fine. You're not the only person who thinks that, by any means, especially in less well-educated societies. But it's not possible to say in general terms whether you're correct or incorrect.

 

[LordKiran]

Sorry? Not 'within a species?' Humans predate upon each other all the time out of self interest. What are you talking about?

Well, humans are arguably a bit of an exception, and more intraspecies-nasty than most. Kinda odd, if made in the image of a perfect god, but there you go. Maybe the big elf in the sky had a reason for making us relatively not very nice to each other compared to his other supposed creations. Something to do with a test to see if we qualify for his afterlife or something.

But anyways, the general point is that intraspecies, co-operation is arguably as useful as competition, especially for social species such as human apes. And among species, it isn't always might that wins. Being a good hider or run-awayer also work pretty well.[1]

What exactly do you think this thread is about? Because I can't possibly see how the bolded relates to it.

Do people value what works for "me" or what works for "us" and if "us" then whom does they consider to be "us"?

- - - Updated - - -

The idea of human instinct as being the ultimate source of morality and virtue is the sort of argument used to support social darwinism.

By the same token the idea of a gord-elf as being the ultimate source of morality and virtue is the sort of argument used to support wiping out everyone in the world who disagrees with you.

Sure but then that was never what I am actually talking about. You'd know that if you actually read the OP

 

[ruby sparks]

Sure but then that was never what I am actually talking about. You'd know that if you actually read the OP

So what sort of 'bigger than himself' were you asking about then, in the OP? Because I don't seem to be the only one who thinks it might have been alluding to a you know what.

 

[ruby sparks]

Do people value what works for "me" or what works for "us" and if "us" then whom does they consider to be "us"?

Imo, on the occasions when people do consciously think about it, which some say is only a small minority of occasions, they mostly operate on 'me' considerations, with others, such as 'us' and 'them' in a sort of descending order of priority, possibly starting with the younger and therefore fertile little 'uns who are transporters for their genes, followed perhaps by other family members, friends, members of the tribe and then, possibly, depending on how 'not us' they view them, other humans generally. It's probably more complicated than that, and some people get very attached to other species for instance.

In the final analysis, I think 'me', as a strategy, generally tends to operate much more than the others.

This can of course, as has been said, result in a mix of both competitive and co-operative behaviour. And I tend to think that a lot of what we call moral right or wrong (which I sometimes think of as being largely emotional, even if not only that) comes out of that.

Just my personal take on it. Possibly at least partly wrong.

 

[Juma]

Take what I can fuck the rest is perfectly reasonable

No it isnt. Why do you believe it is?
And it is not our instincts to do so. So why would we?

reasonable as in logically sound. Rational. And it is! Valuing yourself and the things/people you specifically care about and giving little value to everyone else is perfectly sound. Stratified societies are based on this in fact.

The idea of human instinct as being the ultimate source of morality and virtue is the sort of argument used to support social darwinism. It also makes the mistake of assuming human beings as being inherently moral and virtuous on account of their instinctual nature. I don't agree with that at all.

Gee man... no it isnt, and that is why we helping people during catastrophies. Not because of some sky-dad.

 

[LordKiran]

reasonable as in logically sound. Rational. And it is! Valuing yourself and the things/people you specifically care about and giving little value to everyone else is perfectly sound. Stratified societies are based on this in fact.

The idea of human instinct as being the ultimate source of morality and virtue is the sort of argument used to support social darwinism. It also makes the mistake of assuming human beings as being inherently moral and virtuous on account of their instinctual nature. I don't agree with that at all.

Gee man... no it isnt[1], and that is why we helping people during catastrophies.[2] Not because of some sky-dad.[3]

1. why not?

2. What does that prove? I think its a stretch to assume people are inherently altruistic just because some among us donate to people in need.

3. Do you think children learn how to behave on their own just fine without any influence from their peers or parents/guardians?

 

[Treedbear]

It works until it doesn't. In nature it leads to extinction.[1] In society it leads to new laws and regulations, unrest, activism, and revolution. I'd rather put my faith in the might of an informed public than in a recalcitrant God.

Civic values can be taught.[2] There are real advantages from being an active member of society, just as there are advantages to being part of a religious community. And there is generally a price to pay for selfish behavior. Besides, in the real world the most adaptable and resilient societies are not purely selfish or purely altruistic, but a combination of both.

Also using Darwin's work as a basis for society is fine if you like the idea of living in a might makes right eat or be eaten society because that seems to be what Darwin's work lends itself to politically.

Not within a species. Inter-species it will always be might makes right.[3]

1. What do you base this assertion on? European civilization has gone through frequent bouts of political and economic theories that enable predation and deprevation on the societal level and yet those societies did not collapse and their peoples did not go extinct.

Logic. When species (biologically) or societies (culturally) evolve in ways that run counter to the good of the species they tend towards extinction. It simply makes sense. How can it be any other way? Have those European societies survived? I think they were subsumed by a more evolved set of moral standards.

Chinese society continues to truck along just fine abusing and exploiting its people to the benefit of a privileged few as it has for thousands of years. They haven't died out yet.

China is a great example of how cultures grow and decay and merge. And it was at the brink of extinction more than once. Today it probably maintains a higher standard of living and less oppression than ever before. The perfect is not the enemy of the good.

2. Civic values can be taught but what gives those values impetus if not the idea that they're elevated above and beyond you? How can this be done without a source of value arbitration? You can teach people values but that doesn't mean they won't weigh those values relative to other values in the absence of one set being favored axiomatically.

I keep going back to the idea that the highest ideal must be survival of the human race. That becomes more self-evident by the day. Like any axiom though the devil is in the details. It is seldom a simplistic formula for how this is best served. The same can be said of religious values. There are moral responsibilities one owes to the global community, as well as one's country, city, organization, neighborhood, family, and not least one's self. All have potential value in principle to the species as a whole. All decisions are essentially moral choices whether it's buying groceries or voting. All of one's responsibilities are potentially in the balance. So teach children about each of these relationships and let them figure it out for themselves. But don't make it all about self interest by promising them a place in heaven.

3. Sorry? Not 'within a species?' Humans predate upon each other all the time out of self interest. What are you talking about?

There is a necessary level of competition entailing rules and ethics and then there are aberrations that society has to deal with. I have faith in my country's ability to deal with that. If I lose that faith I'll work against it or else vote with my feet.

 

[LordKiran]

1. What do you base this assertion on? European civilization has gone through frequent bouts of political and economic theories that enable predation and deprevation on the societal level and yet those societies did not collapse and their peoples did not go extinct.

Logic. When species (biologically) or societies (culturally) evolve in ways that run counter to the good of the species they tend towards extinction. It simply makes sense. How can it be any other way? Have those European societies survived? I think they were subsumed by a more evolved set of moral standards.

Chinese society continues to truck along just fine abusing and exploiting its people to the benefit of a privileged few as it has for thousands of years. They haven't died out yet.

China is a great example of how cultures grow and decay and merge. And it was at the brink of extinction more than once. Today it probably maintains a higher standard of living and less oppression than ever before. The perfect is not the enemy of the good.[1]

2. Civic values can be taught but what gives those values impetus if not the idea that they're elevated above and beyond you? How can this be done without a source of value arbitration? You can teach people values but that doesn't mean they won't weigh those values relative to other values in the absence of one set being favored axiomatically.

I keep going back to the idea that the highest ideal must be survival of the human race.[2]That becomes more self-evident by the day. Like any axiom though the devil is in the details. It is seldom a simplistic formula for how this is best served. The same can be said of religious values. There are moral responsibilities one owes to the global community, as well as one's country, city, organization, neighborhood, family, and not least one's self. All have potential value in principle to the species as a whole.[3] All decisions are essentially moral choices whether it's buying groceries or voting. All of one's responsibilities are potentially in the balance. So teach children about each of these relationships and let them figure it out for themselves. But don't make it all about self interest by promising them a place in heaven.

3. Sorry? Not 'within a species?' Humans predate upon each other all the time out of self interest. What are you talking about?

There is a necessary level of competition entailing rules and ethics and then there are aberrations that society has to deal with[4]. I have faith in my country's ability to deal with that. If I lose that faith I'll work against it or else vote with my feet.

1. Better also doesn't mean good. Neither of us would choose to live there.

2. Why must it be so? Under what obligation are other human beings to adhere to your set of values versus merely pursuing their own?

3. That's true, but values are only meaningful as a hierarchy otherwise it's all relative and without any structure, so they become pointless.

4. It wasn't so long ago that human beings in the new world routinely bought and sold each other on the basis of human greed. Those societies are still fine. They didn't collapse and die out because their collective actions somehow contradicted human nature. There is absolutely no reason human society cannot function at the expense of some to the benefit of others. It works fine that way currently and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think its a stretch to assume people are inherently altruistic....

No one is suggesting that. There is a mix of behaviours, competitive and co-operative.

Do you think children learn how to behave on their own just fine without any influence from their peers or parents/guardians?

Personally, I don't. Behaviour is most probably due to a mix of influences, including learning, instinct, genetics and circumstances. That may be an incomplete list and there may be overlap between the items on it. In a social species such as ours and others, peers would have a particular sort of influence. Ditto for parents in a species with extended parenting roles, such as ours and others.

But he did say 'not because of some sky-dad', specifically, which I presume would also cover belief in a sky-dad, because that apparently isn't necessary either, given that as far as I know, the full range of human behaviours are exhibited by people of all sorts of religious or theistic belief and none, and without a clear pattern to suggest that one of them (the religious or theistic beliefs or lack of them) functions much differently than another in general terms.

As to whether adding in a belief in a god (or at a pinch any sort of similar superstition or set of superstitions) to all the other influences makes a difference, I suspect it does, but probably differently for different individuals (possibly also different groups) in ways that depend on the particular features of the belief or belief system and other factors (such as circumstance and all the others on the list above) and in a mix of ways, some of which we might label 'good' and others 'bad'. It doesn't have to be a god. You could believe in ghosts, and if these ghosts are thought to be ancestors supposedly still watching you, it might affect (regulate) your behaviour.

As a wise man once said, when some people say we need god, what they really mean is that we need police.