I’ve always been pretty agnostic on Peterson. But this is not good. If a leftwing icon was asked “Do you believe in God” and they answered “It depends” on the meaning of “you,” “do” or “believe” (nevermind “God”) the mockery from many Peterson fans would be wild. https://t.co/ZlyQooFZmm
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) October 19, 2022
It's not just Jonah Goldberg. Peterson is trending on Twitter and it's mostly about this clip. We're living in a time when your worst few seconds will be ripped out of context and held up to discredit you. Better never to speak on camera at all than to risk creating one of these horrible clips to be used against you.
We're created a mediascape where only the cocky and reckless will speak freely. Ironically, Peterson will be one of those people. Everyone else will shrink out of public view.
पोस्ट्स
१०१ टिप्पण्या:
Academics dither a lot when speaking of God, god, gods, and g-d. There are all sorts of debates about (1) activist, conscious figures, (2) passive clockmaker, deistic figures, (3) and anthropic man-made-god-in-their-own-image figures. Academics also split between monotheism, polytheism, etc. too. These debates go back forever and forever.
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
Peterson is left of center by any historical measure of left wing. He always was -- the ignorant, anarchic, dead-end nihilists among the Woke believe this topic is right wing. But, Peterson is a bloody personality psychologist after all. That academic discipline went hard against traditional conservatism in rejecting literal Christian creationism and tradition close to 100 years ago. Personality psychologists wouldn't admit true right wingers into graduate school starting in the 1970s, nor would they ever hire true right wingers as professors.
The left puts all right wing religious figures in divinity schools, and then ignores whatever they have to say.
Fake objectivity, mind-reading, projection. Goldberg hit the liberal trifecta.
Peterson is right and it's not nonsense. It's just that non-philosophically trained minds haven't seen it before. Basically language works in everyday use but not when it's on holiday talking about things that it was not developed to talk about. You're basically then talking about a mental image you have and not anything that has no social development to ground it.
Like you know what a "chair" is and you know what marginal cases are (a tree stump can serve as a chair but is not a chair) and doubtful cases where the criteria haven't been decided. You know it's doubtful, if you know what a chair is. Here I don't know the rules, you think. It hasn't been decided because the case hasn't come up.
Believe:
575. When I sat down on this chair, of course I believed it would
bear me. I had no thought of its possibly collapsing. (Wittgenstein)
There was no actual believing, it's just a token in an account retroactively. Yet there's a picture in the mind of actual believing happening.
He should have known that he would not be understood, though.
I don't know much about Jordan Peterson so I don't understand why he is being mocked over this clip as it seems like the sort of explication one might expect from the supposed deep thinkers among us, which are usually academic types. I thought that's who he is, a professor or book writer of some kind.
I think Jonah Goldberg has been largely discredited as a meaningful arbiter of conservative or right of center opinion. He spends his days now making common cause with the useful idiots on the left. Or maybe that's Bill Kristol. I get those neocons mixed up.
"Do" is just an aux used to move a tensed verb before the subject in forming a question. Archaic doesn't need the aux:
Believe you in God?
I do not follow Jordan Peterson, and have ignored most AA posts about him.
I listened to this, and have rarely heard such gibberish in my life.
It sounds like a dope-smoking dorm conversation. In freshman year, no less.
I wonder if he could define the word "woman".
I don't see what the problem is. He's clearly emphasizing the importance of being careful about the meaning of the words you use. If he were in court, maybe this would be a "depends on the meaning of 'is'" moment, but he's not.
Reminds me of Bill Clinton explaining that it depends on what your meaning of the word is is.
The issue for Peterson's detractors is they can't get him to care about what they think of him. It's humiliating for them.
"We're living in a time when your worst few seconds will be ripped out of context and held up to discredit you. "
Yeah.
The problem with Peterson, Hitchens, Sowell, Shapiro et al is that they are so much more intelligent than the people that are criticizing them. As a consequence the people listening take the one part of the conversation/lecture/word that they do comprehend and build their understanding of what is being said around that. Think of a classroom full of mentally challenged adults and the person in front is giving a lecture on the history and recipes for apple pie. The people in the class only hear the word ,"pie". And they wonder w.hen they'll get some.
I read Peterson’s book. Peterson’s belief in a higher power is very clear. I’ve also read one of Goldberg’s books and now I have no idea if he holds an honest belief.
The point he was making (and I didn't think it was particularly obtuse) was that even basic questions often come with a loaded foundation of assumptions on the part of the questioner. Which makes the editing of the clip and the commented responses wholly ironic.
The question about God was simply an illustrative example. People focused on it have missed the point, and made his for him.
"We're created a mediascape where only the cocky and reckless will speak freely. Ironically, Peterson will be one of those people. Everyone else will shrink out of public view."
So there are now two, generally identified, sources of "who/what we are". But neither are dominated by conservatives.
There is still room for stupid speech for those protected by both the still powerful media and hoards of the hard line, on-line left.
Peterson reminds Tank of people like Glenn Beck or Kanye West (or even Donald Trump). Sometimes they say intelligent things and other times the neurons aren't firing. You just shake your head.
Pigeon sneers when owl won't fit in pigeonhole.
Perfectly reasonable to consider the definitions of “God” and “belief”. I can’t imagine a thoughtful person not doing that. I’d be interested to know why “you” needs to be defined, however. I bet his answer to that would be interesting.
Peterson is often profound and direct in his answers. When he rambles, it is often an attack on the assumptions built into the question.
Watching the clip and knowing that Peterson is a clinical psychologist I am guessing the full context of his answer has an insight into human interaction.
Jordan Peterson doesn't want to give people an easy answer. If that makes him open to mockery, well, it seems to me that says a lot more about the mockers than it does about Peterson. What is the center square on a Peterson Bingo card? "Hey, ilook, t's complicated, eh."
Sounds like any random Democrat on the street or in office when asked "What is a woman?".
Peterson has done more good in the world in any random day than Goldberg will ever do in his entire life. Peterson is willing to think out loud, and work through things in public. That’s courageous, if not irresponsible. If you take a fragment of that, it’s not going to look very good. If you are uncharitable enough to try to take that one snippet and shove it up the man’s ass and try to discredit him for it, you are a despicable wretch.
Yesterday I listen to almost 2 hours of his conversation with Peter Kreeft. It was great.
Goldberg’s opinion is irrelevant to anything.
FWIW my, now deceased, neighbor was a Philosophy Prof. He often told me things like we can not "believe" anything. There is "know" or "do not know".
Sounded like BS to me then. Sounds like BS to me now. But I filed many of his pronouncements under mental masturbation.
I wouldn't have put it in such a Clintonesque way, but isn't that the answer many people would give? Whole libraries get written on what the self, belief, and God could possibly be without resolving the issue.
I don't know much about Peterson and don't really care enough to find out anything, but is anybody an all-purpose guru? Can anyone have all the answers to everything? Should anyone pretend to? Is everyone's conception of the Deity really something the public needs to know?
And if he didn't just say "That's above my paygrade," good for him.
Fyi, the context of the clip is Peterson answering the question of whether events in the Old Testament actually happened. And his answer, long and drawn out, is that something like the Cain and Abel story is always happening.
Prior tweet from The Man, Tim Gill, whose tweet was the source of this particular attack:
"We sociologists have been telling you about the possibility of this political crisis for YEARS. Yet, you refused to pay $129.95 to get around the paywall to access my article for 72 hours. That is on YOU."
On YOU, Althouse! And YEU and YEU and YEU....
Heh. Like the rest of us speak cogently at all times. On the other hand, there are thousands of hours on youtube of Peterson speaking very clearly and cogently. How many such hours do you or I have? Hovering around zero, I imagine.
This is a person who has helped literally thousands of people - maybe millions, I don't know. I saw a twitter feed recently of his, with comment after comment saying that he saved their lives. He says that the same thing happens when he goes anywhere at all, anywhere in the world.
But he does not support the Democratic Party so he's a villain to millions of others who care about teams more than results.
Peterson is trending on Twitter and it's mostly about this clip. We're living in a time when your worst few seconds will be ripped out of context and held up to discredit you.
I watched the clip.
I understood exactly the point that Peterson was making.
The problem here is that the people who are constantly looking up at Peterson think they have something here.
They don't. I have seen him discuss this before. At higher philosophical levels you understand that words to describe abstract concepts mean different things to different people and different groups.
"Do you believe in God" is specifically problematic. Even the word "in" makes a mess of things much less "believe" or "God." When you get into what the word "believe" actually means to you vs. what it means to someone else things get really messy.
I am glad that leftists are highlighting this video.
Jordan is our Tennyson.
Goldberg is a chameleon grifter who wrote “Liberal Fascism” that heaped scorn on Democrats from Wilson to Hillary Clinton but then turned into a Trump-hating fascist supporter of Hillary. IF the plump phony ever had credibility it’s gone now. The featured tweet is lame in content. What exactly is his complaint? If I have to watch a video to unpack his convoluted tweet then it ain’t effective communication. Why does every pundit that gets pulled into Bill Krystal’s orbit devolve into a babbling boob like this?
Everyone has terrible moments. Every unscripted public speaker will have moments where their synapses fire in ways that make sense within the brain in that moment, but don't make sense to listeners or even to the speaker if they read their own words. It's normal and it's why I often ignore the "gotchas" that partisans love to hype - Obama's 57 states, things like that.
Instead, look for repeat patterns. For example, Joe Biden can't speak off script without saying something that someone "clarifies" - that's a pattern that his own off the cuff thinking is fundamentally flawed and that, at best, he requires extensive brainstorming sessions to zero in. At worst, he's an illogical liar who isn't even good at it.
Peterson is a well known, well spoken speaker with tons of examples. He can afford an occasional total miss, even when it does detract from his overall works.
I can't imagine Jordan Peterson mocking Jonah Goldberg's personal tragedies.
Goldberg's intellect has been is consumed by jealousy, the fate of every Salieri.
Temujin fingers the apt comparison: the current false “confusion” over defining “woman,” as stumped Ketanji Brown. Goldberg doesn’t have the stones to turn his criticism on the newest most verbose Supreme Court Associate Justice.
This is Peterson discussing this very issue with Sam Harris.
When people like this talk about the meaning of words and the meaning of a statement people like Jonah Goldberg are left drooling like the mediocrities they are.
It is sad that Ann thinks Goldberg is in any way important or that any of these people criticizing Peterson are in a tribe she wants to be a part of.
They are pathetic people Ann. You lower yourself by giving them this kind of credence.
Instead of starting out conversations with the moronic drooling of Goldberg or the other idiots /propagandists at the NYT's we could start conversations on a higher note.
Every now and then checking on the NYT's/WAPO makes sense to understand what the globalist machine wants their pawns to think/do. But as a cultural force they are no longer the center of the culture.
Ha! I'm in agreement with rhhardin and Achilles, so they must be right!
Blogger Leland said...
I read Peterson’s book. Peterson’s belief in a higher power is very clear. I’ve also read one of Goldberg’s books and now I have no idea if he holds an honest belief.
I wonder what Goldberg would say if he was asked if he believes in God?
I doubt that he would be quick to respond & I doubt that his answer would be a simple yes or no.
This is a controversy?
How? why? Peterson is often spot on - so what he goes a little too deep in the weeds.
Big meh from me. People - esp on the left- just want to find fault. It's more cancel culture BS.
Seems like Peterson's response would have salience, for example, if the underlying question is "Are you willing to die?"
"Do you believe in God?"
When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger.
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
Goldberg is a chameleon grifter who wrote “Liberal Fascism” that heaped scorn on Democrats from Wilson to Hillary Clinton but then turned into a Trump-hating fascist supporter of Hillary. IF the plump phony ever had credibility it’s gone now. The featured tweet is lame in content. What exactly is his complaint? If I have to watch a video to unpack his convoluted tweet then it ain’t effective communication. Why does every pundit that gets pulled into Bill Krystal’s orbit devolve into a babbling boob like this?
Your problem is that you attach credibility and the perception of intelligence to people depending on whether or not they agree with you or come to the same conclusions you do.
Almost everyone does this. It is a common mistake.
Goldberg has always been a babbling boob even when he said stuff you liked. He was always an NRO Republican.
These people outed themselves in 2012 with the Romney campaign. And enough republican voters still thought the NRO was cool then. Then we all watched Romney prove he was a globalist oligarch all along and NRO support Hillary Clinton.
What you all need to do is start questioning your own assumptions more often.
"FWIW my, now deceased, neighbor was a Philosophy Prof. He often told me things like we can not 'believe' anything. There is 'know' or 'do not know.'
"Sounded like BS to me then. Sounds like BS to me now. But I filed many of his pronouncements under mental masturbation."
Your (deceased) neighbor's remark makes sense to me.
Cue the "He's the bad guy" scene from the Al Pacino Scarface, which got right an eternal human instinct that we believed we'd vanquished when public executions and punishments like the stocks were outlawed.
We also pat ourselves on the back for not being like those archaic Amish and their practice of shunning those who don't comply.
Recently, Obama waned about the left's insane buzz-kill cancel culture. Perhaps leftists should heed their master and dial it down a bit.
The left are anti-free speech and they understand that chilling free speech starts with using words like "always and never".
Peterson is often wise - and the left hate that. So - now the assholes like this Tim Gill person - will spend their time mining for blips.
This clip is generic Philosophy 101, trying to get dopey kids to think for a minute or two about how they know what they think they know. Unfortunately the professor failed, at least with the dopey kids named Jonah Goldberg and Tim Gill.
I generally enjoy Peterson's interviews. There is some banter, but he usually has less interest in what a person says than what has made them the kind of person who would say that.
The questioner in this case, was, I believe, an Islamic scholar. If I was asked by an Islamic Scholar if I believed in God, I would respond with the Apostles' Creed.
How would you respond, in a serious conversation, if you were asked if you believed in love?
Tim Gill is operating in bad faith by truncating Peterson's answer so it comes off a gibberish.
On YouTube shorts, I've listened to a number of Peterson's thoughts, and Tim Gill is lying when he says everything he says is gibberish (I know, it's a hyperbole like Mary McCarthy saying every word Lillian Hellman speaks is a lie including "and" and "it.")
But in one of those videos, Peterson answers the question "Is there a God" by saying we all have a different definition for God, from the traditional deity to those who believe in Gaia, or global warming/cooling/climate change, to multiple genders. It's a much more coherent answer than the clipped answer Tim Gill uses to slander Peterson.
"FWIW my, now deceased, neighbor was a Philosophy Prof. He often told me things like we can not 'believe' anything. There is 'know' or 'do not know.'
"Sounded like BS to me then. Sounds like BS to me now. But I filed many of his pronouncements under mental masturbation."
Robert Cook said - Your (deceased) neighbor's remark makes sense to me.
Pointing out that I agree with this should draw a line under it. Cook and I don't agree about much, but we're both honest. Seeing something that remains unseen to others is a condition we learn to live with. A lot of effort has gone into building the blind. It's been duck season for decades.
What Xmas said is what I expected.
I finally had a chance to listen to the clip, and I have questions like Peterson’s, based only on the clip. Which God? Whose concept of God? What am I suppose to believe about the God? If it is my concept of God in which I believe, how do I know that is your concept that you may or may not believe?
So the actual question edited out is specifically about believing in parts of the Old Testament. From previous reading of Peterson, I think he sees the Bible as allegory even to the extent some stories may be historical or not. So does it matter there is a Cain and Able that are the sons of the Adam and Eve, or two sons of a couple and perhaps their names were those? That two siblings took different paths in life that caused turmoil and violence between them is a story that has happened and continues to happen to this day, with lessons to be learned to avoid it; that is what Peterson likely believes, yet that’s not what the editor of the video meant by the question. I think the editor meant, do you think Adam and Eve were the first two humans, created by God, with their sons Cain and Able? Peterson could simply answer “no”, but that answer wouldn’t be his “beliefs” about the Old Testament even if that simple answer is true and honest.
Jordan Peterson is more interesting and thought provoking than at least 99% of those in the public "talking heads" realm.
"whether events in the Old Testament actually happened."
Nah, the stories have just been in our family for 3,000 years..
Well, he (Peterson) is not wrong.
Our perceptions of the universe is but a crude model of reality. We in fact do not know anything. However while all models are wrong some are useful. Dipshits are always flummoxed by ambiguity, uncertainty and duality.
This clip is quite old. Since then, he's gone through a lot, and seems to have finally settled on an answer of "Yes (with nuance)", but it's not particularly clear.
Most of the people who were interested in his answer to this question were probably really asking something like "You talk about Jesus a lot, are you a Christian?" Any response other than an emphatic "Yes!" is a very obvious tell that you're not, btw.
After this, whenever I thought of Peterson, I also thought of (paraphrasing) "You are neither cold nor hot - I will spit you out of my mouth". Your headline grabbed my attention because I guess I'm *not* agnostic about it...
It's tough. A lot of people are out to "get" him. And it does sound odd. But it comes down to "Do I believe in God?" What they are asking is do you believe in either "my God" or "the Strawman God I am talking about"? It is a freaking hard question to answer accurately, concisely and unambiguously.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w
Series 1: Introduction to the idea of God by Jordan Peterson
I don’t know who Gill is. I know who Goldberg is.
Obviously neither of them has listened to Peterson about anything.
And yet they feel compelled to bleat their ignorance.
If you are speaking with a geologist, and you ask him if what “sand” is, you will get a complicated answer.
And not because the geologist is evasive or dishonest.
Are Jonah Goldberg and David French still a couple?
I think “do you believe in God” is what we mean when we say “that’s a loaded question “.
Achilles is making assumptions about what I believe. Like many assumptions they are wrong. Maybe he believes all “NRO Republicans” are babbling boobs and always were. That’s far too broad an approach for me to sweep Jay Nordlinger and Goldberg together into the dustbin of dumbassery. Goldberg book that I referenced was well researched and argued effectively that Fascism while always forecast as about to be imposed by the Right was historically and contemporaneously embraced enthusiastically by the Left. He should be doing victory laps and booking his “See I Told You So” tour during the Biden era but he’s not. He’s actually become a fascist. So before attempting to impute wrongthink on me, Achilles, deal with what I wrote not what you think I should write.
Perhaps he should have started by saying, first we need to define terms because it is almost certain that we each have a different understanding and concept of what these words mean. Then go from there.
Otherwise, his questioners sound like Judge Smalls:
there's a lot of, uh, well, badness in the world today. I see it in court today.... The most important decision you can make right now is what do you stand for? Goodness... or badness?
Tina Trent said...
Goldberg's intellect has been is consumed by jealousy, the fate of every Salieri.
Goldberg is like David Brooks or David Frum; every position he adopts is colored by the need to walk the correct line lest he lose his spots on the Sunday morning news shows and the guest list for the good DC cocktail parties.
The clip is extracted from a discussion in a mosque where Peterson is being questioned by an Islamic scholar. Peterson says we need to have hard conversations with the Muslims who live in our midst, including those who hold strong religious beliefs. He makes the point repeatedly that these will be awkward and there almost certainly going to be misunderstandings and offense taken. This is the context for the question. Historically, the wrong answer to the question "Do you believe in God?" could have grave repercussions. Peterson did the best he could.
In tweeting out snide commentary, I think that Goldberg, similarly, did the best he could.
Reminds me of when the press, en masse, called Donald Rumsfeld stupid for his "What we don't know that we don't know" statement. I was flabbergasted that in the entirety of journalism, no one could understand what he was saying. Anyone who has ever been involved in group competition, like sports or business or national intelligence, would know exactly what Rumsfeld was saying. But not Journalists apparently.
Same here with criticizing Peterson: these people have entire areas of knowledge that are blank blind spots to them. Journalism used to have people called editors who were elevated to that position because they lacked blind spots.
"From previous reading of Peterson, I think he sees the Bible as allegory even to the extent some stories may be historical or not."
Well, of course. It is allegory, myth, and philosophy, mixed with some historical events, most likely, but not at all any sort of true account of the creation of the world or life on earth.
"Reminds me of when the press, en masse, called Donald Rumsfeld stupid for his "What we don't know that we don't know" statement. I was flabbergasted that in the entirety of journalism, no one could understand what he was saying. Anyone who has ever been involved in group competition, like sports or business or national intelligence, would know exactly what Rumsfeld was saying. But not Journalists apparently."
Did they call Rumsfeld "stupid" for that remark? The statement certainly makes sense and can be applicable to many real life situation. Do you have any links or snippets of reporting from that time to illustrate this? To the extent he may have been criticized for the remarks, was it all journalists taking him to task, or most, or less than most, or a few? Was their objection that he was being "stupid," or could they have been criticizing him for another reason, (e.g., the perception that he was obfuscating to avoid honestly answering their questions, etc.)?
Jonah Golberg attacking someone on the Center-right. That *is* suprising.
When I crash landed on the swamp planet Dagobah the Jedi master told me "Do or do not. There is no try."
I'm inclined to think there is only "Believe or do not believe," for what you "know" today may be disproved tomorrow, so did you ever really "know" it?
And yes, Jonah was never a very serious thinker. The clownishness got in the way. But so it does for many of us.
Some people idolized Ann Coulter and then turned angrily against her when they disagreed with her, never having noticed that she was always unstable and too provocative.
Same here with criticizing Peterson: these people have entire areas of knowledge that are blank blind spots to them. Journalism used to have people called editors who were elevated to that position because they lacked blind spots.
I agree. Journalism used to be a trade learned by experience. Everybody did their turn on the police desk. Now these kids go to Journalism school and think that tells them everything they need to know in life. It's like the writing about guns. When Biden says a 9mm bullet will blow the chest apart they believe it because they know nothing about guns or chests.
Well, of course. It is allegory, myth, and philosophy, mixed with some historical events, most likely, but not at all any sort of true account of the creation of the world or life on earth.
Cook is deep into the religion of atheism, complete with heretics and beliefs based on no knowledge at all. I am agnostic but I guess I am not as smart as Cook who has proof of all he believes.
"Dad, what does deconstruction mean?"
"Here, watch this."
"The common people must love God. They made so many of Him."
Howard said...
Ha! I'm in agreement with rhhardin and Achilles, so they must be right!
I know this is tongue in cheek.
But it has to be said that "right" is so oblique, especially in the context of this post, as to be meaningless.
There really is no such thing.
It is the mistake the person hood begins at conception crowd makes.
So Peterson presents the basis of philosophy and it confuses the liberal art majors. I learned that as a teenager, that if you really dig, you have to investigate into what you mean by even the simplest of words. Of course, we all got that from the legal perspective with Bill Clinton's deposition and "is".
I also wrestled with what we meant by time when learning celestial navigation. Time is not so simple if you slip outside the unthinking norms.
It is funny, what Peterson is presenting are the never ending questions that professors use to provoke thought in students, the Socratic method, and the "educated" rush to try to ridicule what they can't comprehend.
"Cook is deep into the religion of atheism...."
Anyone who uses the old "atheism is a religion" canard is either ignorant, a fanatic, or arguing in bad faith, (or some combination of these).
Dismissed.
Lurker21 said...
And yes, Jonah was never a very serious thinker. The clownishness got in the way. But so it does for many of us.
Some people idolized Ann Coulter and then turned angrily against her when they disagreed with her, never having noticed that she was always unstable and too provocative.
I haven't seen anything from Coulter for a few years.
She became tedious. The way she supports someone then turns on them with crazy vitriol made no sense. At some point I could not figure out what she was trying to accomplish outside of selling books. Selling books is fine, but there has to be something else to go with it.
I think Coulter's problem was she was performing for other people. I think we all do this to one degree or another, but she seems extreme in that regard.
Her clip when she told someone on Maher's show that their relative working for the government was worse than useless was an all time great clip though.
Robert Cook said...
"Cook is deep into the religion of atheism...."
Anyone who uses the old "atheism is a religion" canard is either ignorant, a fanatic, or arguing in bad faith, (or some combination of these).
Dismissed.
Atheism is a religion Cook. You have no idea how the universe originated or how life started.
And you certainly have no evidence of either that is conclusive.
You have a belief.
You have to be stupid or dishonest to say otherwise.
Lexington: "Peterson is willing to think out loud, and work through things in public. That’s courageous"
Well, yes, and I sympathize with the effort and I despise his despisers, but it also gives some of his public pronouncements a scattershot quality that I find hard to deal with.
The question, one question anyway, is how the anti-woke find their way back to a coherent alternative worldview, even if they cannot commit to any traditional faith. My impression is that Peterson is trying to answer the question but hasn't succeeded, at least in a philosophical sense. Hence he is vulnerable.
Robert Cook, what do you mean by "anyone"? What do you mean by "canard"? What do you mean by "atheism"?
"Atheism is a religion Cook. You have no idea how the universe originated or how life started."
I never claimed I do, contrary to those who believe in a god, though the more science learns about the cosmos and the beginning of life, the more religious myths can be seen clearly as such.
"And you certainly have no evidence of either that is conclusive."
I never claimed I do, contrary to those who believe in a god, though the more science learns about the cosmos and the beginning of life, the more religious myths can be seen clearly as such.
"You have a belief."
No, I disbelieve religious myths are true, as no evidence supports the their reality. In short, religious myths are the projection and invention of human minds, seeking to answer questions to which we had/have no ultimate knowledge, and a means to impose meaning and order on a meaningless and brief mortal existence.
"You have to be stupid or dishonest...."
Ahem.
DISMISSED.
"Your (deceased) neighbor's remark makes sense to me."
Of course it does. Believe leaves room for gray areas, even a degree of uncertainty.
"Well, he (Peterson) is not wrong."
@Freeman Hunt: You are among my top two favorite Althouse commenters for many years now along with MadisonMan. So I have a habit, when I make the rare foray into the comments section, that when I see your name I stop and take notice. I'm not a Jordan Peterson fan, but I do think of him as being a net good for society, especially for young men. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good as they say. After having read a book or two of his and listened to hours of him I find that sometimes I have a hard time understanding what he is getting at. And this is one of those times. I do understand that we are only seeing a snippet and with a minimum of effort I could get the context and one of the other commenters mentioned that the environment he was in would incentivize him to have this type of push back on the question. But you seem to understand what he means here. Would you be kind enough to flesh out what you understand?
Oh Gosh, I'm going to take to this opportunity to attack Ann coulter. Even though she has nothing to do with the post. Y'see she just isn't up to my standards. So, unserious my dear. Not a DEEP THINKER, like y'know what's their names. The whoseits that set me to thinking - Deep thoughts. Which usually agree with the NYT/Wapo.
And I say that as as a life-long Republican and a TRUE CONSERVATIVE. Who reads the Dipatch and the Bulwark.
I think Peterson is showing the difficulty of a non-believer starting up a respectful discussion of religion with a devout Muslim. He's interested in history, philosophy, psychology and anthropology. To his interlocutor that's all blasphemy. Which is not to say that Peterson doesn't love the sound of his own voice too much.
Its amazing Goldberg is still being quoted and part of the conversation. You'd think after dropping the mask and showing he's been paid off by Google and is a total fake conservative, who was A-OK with Hillary and Biden getting elected, people would've written him off.
But it seems like david french and Bill Kristol, being a fraud is not a disqualification for a True Conservative pundit.
No, I disbelieve religious myths are true, as no evidence supports the their reality.
To be an atheist you would have to be certain, not just that no evidence supports the reality of religion, you would also have to be certain that there will never be evidence that supports the reality of religion.
DISMISSED.
The very lazy Jonah Goldberg, "pride of Goucher College!", is overpaid by lefty millionaires to produce articles attacking conservatives. Jonah drags himself out of bed each morning and identifies which conservative he will attack and no matter how non-sequitor-ish it is, Jonah will squeeze that conservative into the pro-dem piece, much like how he squeezes into his baggy pants.
In this case, Coulter is sufficiently disliked by Jonah's far left paymasters so the butt-boy made sure to wedge her into the piece so, voila! In she goes!
Jonah will then spend the rest of the day hoping against hope that fellow lefty-funded Steve Hayes will have his college roommate, Bret Baier, call Jonah to make an appearance on Brets Fox show.....
......huh? What's that?......Oh. That's right. Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg both, on "principle" (wink wink) decided to "quit" their Fox News contributor contracts AFTER it was made clear to them both that neither was going to have their Fox News contributor contract renewed.
Both Jonah and Li'l Steve lied about the departure being all about Tucker Carlson's Jan 6 discussions.
Uh huh.
And Jonah's excuse for not picking up his room is that he was just too darn busy being "principled" to actually get around to actual work. Plus there were the 7 PB&J sandwiches to consume as well.
So much "intellect". So much "principle". So much "Muh republican party has gone off the rails!".
Not every conversation needs to be dumbed down for the uninterested.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
"Cook is deep into the religion of atheism...."
Anyone who uses the old "atheism is a religion" canard is either ignorant, a fanatic, or arguing in bad faith, (or some combination of these).
Dismissed.
A characteristic of fanatics is the heat with which they refuse to consider alternate viewpoints. Atheism is a religion, just like leftism. Both are fanatically supported with belief as the only support.
That's why I said I am agnostic.
As an atheist, I don't see the value of non-Muslims trying to explain reality to Muslims.
The only person I know anything much about in this whole conversation is Peterson, and only because I've watched a few vids of him since being introduced at Althouse. I've read bits of the other peoples' work over the years too.
Peterson ought to develop the ability to tell people to kiss his ass. That Canuck civility is painful to watch, even for a mild-mannered Southerner like me.
Ironically, I don't know how that extra "is" got into my comment. It is has no meaning, religious or otherwise.
Robert Cook said...
"Atheism is a religion Cook. You have no idea how the universe originated or how life started."
I never claimed I do, contrary to those who believe in a god, though the more science learns about the cosmos and the beginning of life, the more religious myths can be seen clearly as such.
Yes you do. You claim there is no god and are no gods.
"And you certainly have no evidence of either that is conclusive."
I never claimed I do, contrary to those who believe in a god, though the more science learns about the cosmos and the beginning of life, the more religious myths can be seen clearly as such.
This is garbage. You are either Agnostic or you don't even know the definition of atheist.
"You have a belief."
No, I disbelieve religious myths are true, as no evidence supports the their reality. In short, religious myths are the projection and invention of human minds, seeking to answer questions to which we had/have no ultimate knowledge, and a means to impose meaning and order on a meaningless and brief mortal existence.
That is a belief you fucking idiot. Do you even read your posts before you post them?
"You have to be stupid or dishonest...."
Ahem.
DISMISSED.
God you are stupid.
atheism : religions
zero : numbers
Narr: lately you have become more voluble. I find it valuable.
Okay so let's just stipulate that atheism is indeed a religion. What about the uncertain belief that is commonly called agnosticism? Clearly not a religion or religious belief.
Christians are atheists with regard to the thousands upon thousands of other gods invented by humans. Therefore atheism is a religion.
Not knowing the context of Peterson's comments, there is no way I can fully appreciate what he is saying here. More to the point, I have no idea why Goldberg thinks he knows enough to ridicule it, since that is all he is doing here without providing any context -- in a tweet, of course. I have to wonder how it is Goldberg thinks he has the credibility to ridicule in a tweet a clip that he is content to pass on as itself a totally out-of-context tweet.
But actually, Goldberg is not the least bit interested in what Peterson has to say. It is clear he is using Peterson to do something else entirely. His opening is about what he assumes are Peterson's right-wing fans and how outrageously inconsistent he assumes they are for accepting from Peterson what they would not accept from any left-winger. Of course, he has no way of knowing what they would or would not accept here. He assumes it. Why? Because he real agenda here is to smugly mark himself off as above and looking down with contempt on right-wingers. Something he has built his entire career on doing ever since he stopped being one.
The jurist Richard Posner has written in a number of places about his lack of religion. He sounds sensible to me. Once:
"I’m an atheist, but the word has two distinct meanings. The first is a person who does not have a sense that there is a God—who, in short, is not a religious person. The second is a person who adheres to the doctrine that there is no God. That is a metaphysical proposition that does not interest me." He also wrote:
"I am not an agnostic, if by that is meant (and this is the sense I have of the term, though it may be an idiosyncratic sense) someone who is perplexed as to whether or not there is a God; who regards this as an interesting question to which he happens not to have the answer. I am someone who simply doesn't feel the presence of God in my life. That I think is the typical state of the nonreligious person ...."
I thought you religious-spiritual types were all about love and understanding. Or Love and Understanding.
Maybe atheists should adopt the Satanic Temple dodge, agree that Atheism is a religion (by God!), and start claiming exemptions from taxes and other duties of citizenship by way of being special, and oh so virtuous.
Old O'Hair set up a non-profit and published The American Atheist until she, her son, and granddaughter were murdered (by an ex-con she hired). Used to hold conventions and everything, and probably still do.
I think she missed organized fellowship with the like-minded, and started her own little cult. Sad.
Achilles offers a sneer of condescension:
"What you all need to do is start questioning your own assumptions more often."
Thanks a warm, wet pantload.
"Not every conversation needs to be dumbed down for the uninterested."
Exactly, This short clip reminded me of what I heard in the classroom many years ago. It is a method of bringing the student down to a point where she realizes that the definition of the words used bounds the argument. People who laugh at him are just midwits.
I resemble Posner's remarks.
"Not every conversation needs to be dumbed down for the uninterested."
I find that in most conversations I have that involve Jordan Peterson I feel the need to come to his defense. The way he was portrayed in early media was extremely unfair. I could be biased though since I agreed with him on those early views.
I have been toying with the idea, since he can keep a serious face on so easily, that in some of these interviews he is trolling the interviewer. My respect for him would certainly go up if that were the case.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा