I did 7 mins and I’m satisfied. I might finish. But this is what I see: Jordan brings up blank slate then denies it, while sliding religion into the shell game when there are other plausible reasons. Something like: If there was blank slate, then if you start with no religion, (and you do not acquire religion or you do then deny it), you will be only rational. But since you are raised in a society whose values are based on values that stem from religion, true denial of religion is impossible as your values will correspond to religious values (humanism). Maybe I’m reading it wrong. But if correct, he’s playing a shell game. a) By assuming society has all of the power, he asserts blank slate. b) If he brings up “god / religious feeling is hard-wired”, this does not mean god or religion but “awe” and “wow”,which you can get from many things – and that’s biological but not necessarily anything to do with religion or belief in god, but rather an experience. c) MOST IMPORTANTLY: What’s not said is what makes this a shell game. Where’s biological causes for these things instead of religion or belief in god? I guess if he doesn’t mention, it doesn’t exist. I’ll finish it now. I’m 1/2 way through his long Dostoyevsky-atheist juggling and tbh, I never thought Dostoyevsky’s view of atheism was correct but I also wasn’t much into him.

I did 7 mins and I’m satisfied. I might finish. But this is what I see:
 
Jordan brings up blank slate then denies it, while sliding religion into the shell game when there are other plausible reasons.
 
Something like:
If there was blank slate, then if you start with no religion, (and
you do not acquire religion or you do then deny it),
you will be only rational.
 
But since you are raised in a society whose values are based on values that stem from religion, true denial of religion is impossible as your values will correspond to religious values (humanism).
 
Maybe I’m reading it wrong. But if correct, he’s playing a shell game.
 
a) By assuming society has all of the power, he asserts blank slate.
b) If he brings up “god / religious feeling is hard-wired”, this does not mean god or religion but “awe” and “wow”,which you can get from many things – and that’s biological but not necessarily anything to do with religion or belief in god, but rather an experience.
c) MOST IMPORTANTLY: What’s not said is what makes this a shell game.
 
Where’s biological causes for these things instead of religion or belief in god?
 
I guess if he doesn’t mention, it doesn’t exist.
 
I’ll finish it now. I’m 1/2 way through his long Dostoyevsky-atheist juggling and tbh, I never thought Dostoyevsky’s view of atheism was correct but I also wasn’t much into him.
====
  What’s sad is, I PROBABLY would have loved Peterson once. I was into Jung, Power of Myth, believed, “there’s no atheist in a foxhole” stuff. It’s standard background American thinking, and presumably Canadian and perhaps elsewhere. If you’re religious, EVERYBODY must be — they just don’t know it, right?

Peterson’s not much older than me – about 10 yrs older. Raised on similar TV and news, a similar generation. US got Canadian TV exports and Canada got US TV exports.

What I’ve heard of him sound very familiar because I said similar things once upon a time.

But I’ve grown.

=====

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


three − = 2

Leave a Reply