Series on the bible

[Wootah]

If you haven't heard of Jordan Peterson then today you have.

But more importantly and my reasoning for posting is that one source of frustration for me is anyone disregarding the Bible as stupid or the writings of cave men. Ie: simplistic

You simply can't hold that view after watching this series.



Enjoy and at least know what you are letting go of if you dismiss the bible.

[Wootah]

Has no one gotten into Jordan Peterson?

Surely he is the atheist's friend.

[Bust Nak]

My opinion on him is soured by his thesis that morality has to be based on a transcendence source, predicated on the idea of God. He claims that you cannot take the idea of God away and expect morality to remain as is without foundational support.

[ttruscott]

My opinion on him is soured by his thesis that morality has to be based on a transcendence source, predicated on the idea of God. He claims that you cannot take the idea of God away and expect morality to remain as is without foundational support.

Sartre propounded there was no GOD and no meaning to life. When he tried to build a reason for moral definition or action based upon existentialism, he failed miserably causing much anguished suffering. Evolutionary thought did nothing to support existentialism though many tried. It is also (inevitably?) the champion of godless communism:

at https://www.marxists.org/archive/novack ... y/ch12.htm
In his [Sartre's] latest philosophical treatise, The Critique of Dialectical Reason (1960), the first section of which has been published in English as Search for a Method , he declares that existentialism has become a subordinate branch of Marxism which aspires to renew and enrich it. Thus the phenomenologist of existence who condemned dialectical materialism as false and a foe to human freedom in the 1940s now proposes to marry Marxism and existentialism.

But at least he did show that without a proper foundation there can be no true morality.

[Wootah]

My opinion on him is soured by his thesis that morality has to be based on a transcendence source, predicated on the idea of God. He claims that you cannot take the idea of God away and expect morality to remain as is without foundational support.

I don't think he believes in God at all as I do.



from youtube

- he acts as if God exists
- he believes the logos is divine (of ultimate value)
- he says he does not know if Jesus resurrected and that we don't know what might really be possible in reality

I would say he is an evolutionary biologist that sees key religious concepts as hard-won evolutionary knowledge.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 4 by ttruscott]

None of that matters because the vast majority of theists would remain moral if they are 100% convinced there are no divine watchman to punish them in an after life. You are making the same kind of claims as Peterson is by suggesting that "true morality" needs a philosophical grounding, when biology has hardwired morality into us long before any capacity to think abstractly. "Key religious concepts" being hard-won evolutionary knowledge is exactly my point - removing religion from the picture and you would still be left with the same key concepts as hard-won evolutionary knowledge.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 4 by ttruscott]

None of that matters because the vast majority of theists would remain moral if they are 100% convinced there are no divine watchman to punish them in an after life. You are making the same kind of claims as Peterson is by suggesting that "true morality" needs a philosophical grounding, when biology has hardwired morality into us long before any capacity to think abstractly. "Key religious concepts" being hard-won evolutionary knowledge is exactly my point - removing religion from the picture and you would still be left with the same key concepts as hard-won evolutionary knowledge.

I would debate Peterson here.

Since we can be certain that some of our ancestors were murderers or rapists surely that makes murder and rape moral.

It's arbitrary to say X is moral and Y isn't when both X and Y helped us to survive and reproduce.

[Bust Nak]

Since we can be certain that some of our ancestors were murderers or rapists surely that makes murder and rape moral.

It's arbitrary to say X is moral and Y isn't when both X and Y helped us to survive and reproduce.

But it doesn't though. We say X is moral and Y isn't because X helped us to survive and reproduce, but Y harms our chances. Had X and Y both been helpful then sure, both are moral.

I'll however grant you that it was arbitrary that murder and rape just happens to be harmful to our species. It's worked out just fine for other species.