08 Jun '19 02:41>
'Public intellectual' Jordan Peterson - whose field of expertise is psychology - does not believe in God but he admires the power of religion ~ indeed, he often talks about how religion is essential for a functioning society.
A friend of mine recently, in a sustained bout of curiosity triggered by some conversations we'd had, consumed a load of Jordan Peterson stuff on youtube - hours and hours of it - and came up with this personal summary of Peterson's definition of "God" which he texted to me:
I can subscribe to the ideas he is itemizing here [indeed, I have been talking along these lines on this forum for years], although it is - of course - taking a large measure of poetic licence with the name/term "God".
His use of the word "God" - while, I think, being acceptable to theists - essentially describes what non-believers see [and he is a non-believer, remember] as being metaphysical attributes and capacities that have evolved in human beings as a result of their social nature and their need to find ways to make communal living function successfully.
According to my friend's telling of it, he makes the eight aforementioned assertions about what he says "God" is, and yet ~ according to my telling of it ~ not one of them need there to actually be a God that exists in the conventional sense.
In the past, before he admitted that he did not believe in God, Peterson had made a lot of mileage out of suggesting that, without belief in God [and I mean God in, say, the theist/Christian sense, and not "God" in the Jordan Peterson sense], morality has no foundation.
Shouldn't he now back peddle on this in a spirit of full and honest disclosure?
If he does not believe in God then, like it or not, he is an atheist of some persuasion [I suspect he'd be more an implicit atheist, like me, than an explicit atheist]. But if he thinks that believing 'God is real' works for the masses [a.k.a. society] but he himself doesn't need to believe it [and he'll just go as far as admiring religion], then doesn't he need to stop being a hypocrite about atheism?
A friend of mine recently, in a sustained bout of curiosity triggered by some conversations we'd had, consumed a load of Jordan Peterson stuff on youtube - hours and hours of it - and came up with this personal summary of Peterson's definition of "God" which he texted to me:
"God" the father is a representation of the internal cognitive structure that gives rise to consciousness so that we can perceive the world and put form to things, to bring order out of chaos. You need to have an apriori structure i.e. a body to make sense of the world ( In 1700s, Kant maintained you can’t make sense out of sense data without an apriori structure to perceive the world e.g. your body).
"God" is truthful speech that rectifies pathological hierarchies. It confronts chaos and generates habitable order, a transcendent reality that iterates over the longest of timeframes.
"God" is how we imaginatively and collectively represent the existence and action of consciousness across time, as the most real aspects of existence manifest themselves across the longest of timeframes but are not necessarily apprehended as objects in the here and now.
"God" is that which eternally dies and is reborn in the pursuit of higher being and truth.
"God" is what calls and what responds in the eternal call to adventure.
"God" is the voice of conscience
"God" is the source of judgement and mercy in guilt
"God" is the future to which we make sacrifices.
I can subscribe to the ideas he is itemizing here [indeed, I have been talking along these lines on this forum for years], although it is - of course - taking a large measure of poetic licence with the name/term "God".
His use of the word "God" - while, I think, being acceptable to theists - essentially describes what non-believers see [and he is a non-believer, remember] as being metaphysical attributes and capacities that have evolved in human beings as a result of their social nature and their need to find ways to make communal living function successfully.
According to my friend's telling of it, he makes the eight aforementioned assertions about what he says "God" is, and yet ~ according to my telling of it ~ not one of them need there to actually be a God that exists in the conventional sense.
In the past, before he admitted that he did not believe in God, Peterson had made a lot of mileage out of suggesting that, without belief in God [and I mean God in, say, the theist/Christian sense, and not "God" in the Jordan Peterson sense], morality has no foundation.
Shouldn't he now back peddle on this in a spirit of full and honest disclosure?
If he does not believe in God then, like it or not, he is an atheist of some persuasion [I suspect he'd be more an implicit atheist, like me, than an explicit atheist]. But if he thinks that believing 'God is real' works for the masses [a.k.a. society] but he himself doesn't need to believe it [and he'll just go as far as admiring religion], then doesn't he need to stop being a hypocrite about atheism?