Jordan Peterson's view on religion: Idiotic or something of substance?


#1

After watching Peterson’s conversation with Matt Dillahunty I finally think Peterson has given some insight into how he thinks of religion. Or at least what he claims to think of the topic.

I myself began reading one his recommended readings, that is, “Beyond good and evil” and within the first 10 pages I find Peterson has almost word for word repeated the ideas put forth in this novel. Mainly that religion is "Something not explained by “Nature” and equivalent to that of an individuals motives and outlook on the world and Peterson claims such things as motives, actions, and thoughts derived by an individual are all “religious”.

Seeing how this is not the colloquial use of the word “religion” this comes off as a redefining of the term, which i’d argue it is only it was redefined back in the 1800s by the author of this recommended novel.

My point here is this. Peterson constantly brings up religion in reference to his criticisms of what he calls “celebrity atheists” those being the likes of Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet, Richard Dawkins, etc.

But the real issue here seems to be that Peterson is redirecting the argue by such Atheists, who simply argue the objective reality of such a figure as “god” and not this psychological version that Peterson suggests they fail to address. Except as I’ve stated these men have never claimed to make an argument as such.

I don’t know why Peterson does this frankly, I can understand that he is a smart man so simply excusing this as him missing their point doesn’t seem, to me at least, very likely. And further more makes me a little skeptical about his motive here.

And for the following reason

  1. He constantly mentions the interpretation a priest had told him once, mainly that the bible is not literal in any sense but actually a time table of sorts for human ethics

  2. He refuses to answer simple questions about his own views. For example he had previously asked if he thought Jesus dies and was later resurrected, long story short he didn’t answer and instead replied “That’s a difficult question” well which one is it? is it literal or a recording of human ethics in story form?

  3. He constantly cites psychology books (Books of his own field) but never actually addresses the questions asked by the likes of Sam Harris on simple questions such as his version of truth. He simply repeats himself or redefines terms.

  4. He has admitted in the past that fictional work is a powerful force in communicating human ethics and ideas yet he almost always chooses to represent the bible over other forms of religious text or even other fictional work outside his field, Minus “Crime and punishment”


#2

A short and sweet answer: he’s a pseudo-intellectual.


#3

Jordan Peterson is generally weak or hypocritical religion but provides a good analysis of western philosophical degradation…although Peterson’s a ruddy individualist, he gives the best explanation of why nihilism is destructive which I’ve been able to access. With that being said, and his position on nihilism, he should be more clear and precice when it comes to religion.