Jordan Peterson's definition of "God"

@fmf said
Extraordinarily hardboiled hedging in a logical fallacy sauce.

Supposed secrecy about his faith, in harness with a huge strawman about how not being secret about his faith would be "triumphantly declaring" something [which no one is asking him to do] = definite signs of floundering and de facto dishonesty. Does he believe in God? 2018. No. Do you believe in God Jordan? 2019. ...

[youtube]UI_QcD030Xw[/youtube]

I believe this is what Divegeester and you guys call "waffling."

It is also certainly wrong to suggest that anyone in 2019 is going to be getting loads of praise and benefit for believing in God publicly and declaiming as much from a meaningful, conservative place. Of course, if you are going to be wishy-washy and just throw a bone to boomer Christians, then maybe you can transition your belief in God into some ungodly paycheck from Patreon & YouTube from hopeless old people that have seen their culture destroyed during their lifetime.

@deepthought said
The debate is on Petersen's YouTube channel. I think I saw Zizek do a talk about ten years ago, assuming it's the same person, he's pretty smart so I think the discussion could be well worth watching.

The moment passed me by and I got a highlight breakdown from a friend.

@philokalia said
It is also certainly wrong to suggest that anyone in 2019 is going to be getting loads of praise and benefit for believing in God publicly and declaiming as much from a meaningful, conservative place. Of course, if you are going to be wishy-washy and just throw a bone to boomer Christians, then maybe you can transition your belief in God into some ungodly paycheck from Pat ...[text shortened]... eon & YouTube from hopeless old people that have seen their culture destroyed during their lifetime.

I find his definition of "God" interesting and the value to society he places on religion, despite his woolly public agonizing.

@fmf said
Extraordinarily hardboiled hedging in a logical fallacy sauce.

Supposed secrecy about his faith, in harness with a huge strawman about how not being secret about his faith would be "triumphantly declaring" something [which no one is asking him to do] = definite signs of floundering and de facto dishonesty. Does he believe in God? 2018. No. Do you believe in God Jordan? 2019. ...

[youtube]UI_QcD030Xw[/youtube]

I am not an expert in Jordan Peterson nor in the bible for that matter. However unless I am mistaken (and I stand open to be corrected), based on this clip Peterson does not seem to know the bible as well as Deep Thought has suggested.

Peterson cites the Old Testament when defending his principle of private faith in God (or whatever he calls it), talking about being precluded from the potential moral benefits of open prayer because of the the public display of it. But this is a New Testament message about the persons motivations for open prayer (Matthew 6:8) not necessarily the forbidding of it.

In fact the Old Testament, which Peterson seems to incorrectly cite, is laced with powerful examples of open prayer by Daniel in particular who prayed openly while in Babylon, and of course Elijah who openness before God was to turn the hearts of the people back to God. There are others.

Even in the New Testament there are still plenty of examples of public displays of faith; 1 Timothy 2:8 commands open prayer. I would have thought that Peterson would have know this.

Peterson may inform himself of certain scriptures but I contend that he is not as well versed in the Bible as has been suggested, certainly he is not ‘connected’ to it and I maintain that his over-intellectualised pained expressions of his possible private faith are nothing more than him dodging an honesty bullet and, yes, maintaining a brand favourable facade with his consumers.

In his defence I will offer up the juxtaposition that personal beliefs about the supernatural should be allowed to be private; however Peterson is using the Bible to draw evidence to support that defence and he is doing so erroneously.

In my opinion.

@philokalia said
It is also certainly wrong to suggest that anyone in 2019 is going to be getting loads of praise and benefit for believing in God publicly and declaiming as much from a meaningful, conservative place. Of course, if you are going to be wishy-washy and just throw a bone to boomer Christians, then maybe you can transition your belief in God into some ungodly paycheck from Pat ...[text shortened]... eon & YouTube from hopeless old people that have seen their culture destroyed during their lifetime.

It is also certainly wrong to suggest that anyone in 2019 is going to be getting loads of praise and benefit for believing in God publicly and declaiming as much from a meaningful, conservative place.

Clearly you have absolutely no idea what you are “waffling” about. Do some basic research into the commercialisation of religion in America and specifically the marketing of ‘God’ to conservative Christians and you will find a money-making land flowing with milk and honey.

Of course, if you are going to be wishy-washy and just throw a bone to boomer Christians, then maybe you can transition your belief in God into some ungodly paycheck from Patreon & YouTube from hopeless old people that have seen their culture destroyed during their lifetime.

So, in fact, you do agree that Peterson is behaving in a brand favourable way...??

As usual you seem to be using lots of words and saying pretty much nothing at all.

@divegeester said
In his defence I will offer up the juxtaposition that personal beliefs about the supernatural should be allowed to be private; however Peterson is using the Bible to draw evidence to support that defence and he is doing so erroneously.

In that clip at the bottom of page 3, he was trying to maintain a bit of his stock in trade ambiguous self-mystification while at the same time - I think - trying a bit of virtue signalling about modesty and secrecy. If he is deeply religious, as he claims, why is his faith secret?

@fmf said
In that clip at the bottom of page 3, he was trying to maintain a bit of his stock in trade ambiguous self-mystification while at the same time - I think - trying a bit of virtue signalling about modesty and secrecy. If he is deeply religious, as he claims, why is his faith secret?

Well I feel that, as far as Christianity is concerned, there is no such thing as a secret Christian.

@fmf said
I find his definition of "God" interesting and the value to society he places on religion, despite his woolly public agonizing.

See, one reason you could not do a podcast is because you are far too minimalistic.

You do not expound on anything, and use words like "woolly" to kind of insult that attitude.

I, on the other hand, I am quite loquacious - to the point of excess, right up to the point of it perhaps being a sin.

However, you would be a master of Haiku, FMF.

@fmf said
In that clip at the bottom of page 3, he was trying to maintain a bit of his stock in trade ambiguous self-mystification while at the same time - I think - trying a bit of virtue signalling about modesty and secrecy. If he is deeply religious, as he claims, why is his faith secret?

He is so virtuous, he is secretive and does not allow his faith to be a "light to the world."

14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

Mt. 5:14-16

@philokalia said
See, one reason you could not do a podcast is because you are far too minimalistic.

Thank you for your advice. You should post as you see fit.

@philokalia said
You do not expound on anything, and use words like "woolly" to kind of insult that attitude.

I sometimes use woolly as a synonym for waffle when I encounter waffle. How is it an "insult"?

What words do you suggest for when I come across writing that does not strike me as having much or anything important or useful or pertinent to say or lengthy verbiage that is confused or unfocused?

"Waffle" is a very standard and very common British English word. How is it insulting?

@philokalia said
He is so virtuous, he is secretive and does not allow his faith to be a "light to the world."

He spent years claiming that unless one believes in the Christian God [and we are not talking about his circa 2018 agnostic atheist definition of "God"] one cannot understand logic, morality, science, and consciousness. Now, apparently he can - but to get away with the about-face - and perhaps to avoid taking responsibility for what he used to say - he has abandoned candour and opted for secrecy instead. "Virtuous" you say?

@philokalia said
However, you would be a master of Haiku, FMF.

Thanks. I see cogency, especially when it is succinct and to the point, as the appropriate way to post on a message board like this.

@fmf said
I sometimes use woolly as a synonym for waffle when I encounter waffle. How is it an "insult"?

What words do you suggest for when I come across writing that does not strike me as having much or anything important or useful or pertinent to say or lengthy verbiage that is confused or unfocused?

"Waffle" is a very standard and very common British English word. How is it insulting?

Aw, but you see, when one says that you are writing or saying something that "does not have much or anything important or useful or pertinent to say" or assesses something as having "lengthy verbiage that is confused or unfocused," you are suggesting that they are doing a very poor job of writing or speaking.

And thus yuo are calling someone else's efforts a failure.

Thus, it would be seen as insulting to ascribe these characteristics to someone's writing or speaking.

@fmf said
He spent years claiming that unless one believes in the Christian God [and we are not talking about his circa 2018 agnostic atheist definition of "God"] one cannot understand logic, morality, science, and consciousness. Now, apparently he can - but to get away with the about-face - and perhaps to avoid taking responsibility for what he used to say - he has abandoned candour and opted for secrecy instead. "Virtuous" you say?

I was being sarcastic.

Perhaps you knew that. Perhaps you didn't.