Jordan Peterson

[Mary's Confidant]

He's just on the way to figuring out that he is a Pantheist. Pantheists are frustrating to both atheists and traditional theists, because Pantheists both agree and disagree with both camps, depending on definitions/semantics.

As a Pantheist myself, I can find myself having excellent discussions with both atheists and traditional theists - but only up to a certain point and then I lose them (but for different reasons). These two groups may consider me to be "wishy-washy" from their limited perspectives, but this assessment merely informs me of their ignorance and/or lack of objectivity.

Most Pantheists are particularly interested in the function (and resulting conscious states) of entheogens, as Peterson is.

Peterson's description of the Bible as a "meta-story" is bang on, in my opinion. It is important to understand what the pre-fix "meta" means in this context.

Given everything I've read and listened to from Peterson (albeit it was months ago now), I think you're right. I thought he was moving towards the theism camp but he doesn't ascribe to a particular religion, he finds value in the religions at large with an emphasis on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Although, I haven't listened to his various multi-part lecture series' so maybe he addresses other religions in them? I've heard him casually reference them but I haven't seen whole lectures/articles devoted to them.

 

[cogitech]

@Mary's Confidant if you found what I just wrote interesting, you may enjoy reading (if you haven't already):

The Perennial Philosophy - Aldous Huxley

Mysticism and Philosophy - W.T. Stace (not easy to find, but very much worth the effort)

Also, this http://nautil.us/blog/the-case-for-cosmic-pantheism

And if you are really ambitious, check out the writings of Baruch Spinoza. You don't want to be too high when you tackle that stuff.

 

[cogitech]

Given everything I've read and listened to from Peterson (albeit it was months ago now), I think you're right. I thought he was moving towards the theism camp but he doesn't ascribe to a particular religion, he finds value in the religions at large with an emphasis on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Although, I haven't listened to his various multi-part lecture series' so maybe he addresses other religions in them? I've heard him casually reference them but I haven't seen whole lectures/articles devoted to them.

His whole approach to the Bible is academic and practical, as far as I have seen. I have never seen any indication that he "believes" in an anthropomorphic creator, yet he is more than willing to say the name "God" and discuss the stories of the Bible for their insight and wisdom. For theists and atheists alike, this makes him "wishy-washy" - because they simply don't get it. As a Pantheist, it is entirely consistent and coherent to me.

 

[UncleBuck]

He mixes the bull with facts.

yeah but have you watched the youtube video?

 

[UncleBuck]

Most Pantheists are particularly interested in the function (and resulting altered states of consciousness) of entheogens, as Peterson is.

cults too

 

[Beefbisquit]

He's just on the way to figuring out that he is a Pantheist. Pantheists are frustrating to both atheists and traditional theists, because Pantheists both agree and disagree with both camps, depending on definitions/semantics.

As a Pantheist myself, I can find myself having excellent discussions with both atheists and traditional theists - but only up to a certain point and then I lose them (but for different reasons). These two groups may consider me to be "wishy-washy" from their limited perspectives, but this assessment merely informs me of their ignorance and/or lack of objectivity.

Most Pantheists are particularly interested in the function (and resulting altered states of consciousness) of entheogens, as Peterson is.

Peterson's description of the Bible as a "meta-story" is bang on, in my opinion. It is important to understand what the pre-fix "meta" means in this context.

The fact that you assume anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant is somewhat telling. There are people who have heard your arguments, or similar ones but just don't believe them due to lack of evidence or some other reason.

Not everything is an argument from incredulity\ignorance just because they don't agree with you.

 

[cogitech]

The fact that you assume anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant is somewhat telling. There are people who have heard your arguments, or similar ones but just don't believe them due to lack of evidence or some other reason.

Not everything is an argument from incredulity\ignorance just because they don't agree with you.

In my experience, 100% of the time when I reach an impasse with an atheist or classical theist, it is they who lack the objectivity and/or intellect to carry on the discussion. I can only draw my own conclusions based on my experiences. I never stated it as a fact (and I did include "lack of objectivity" as a possible cause).

My general point is, atheists and classic theists are often content with simply arguing (over and over again) the same old arguments about an anthropomorphic creator (just look at all the boring threads around here that are focused specifically on that ages-old argument). It has been done to death, and there is never any progress. To me, this represents ignorance (and/or stubbornness, and/or subjectivity and/or low intellect) on both sides. You may disagree with me, of course. I did not mean any offense to you personally.

Either way, I think I am in good company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pantheists

 

[ginjawarrior]

In my experience, 100% of the time when I reach an impasse with an atheist or classical theist, it is they who lack the objectivity and/or intellect to carry on the discussion. I can only draw my own conclusions based on my experiences. I never stated it as a fact (and I did include "lack of objectivity" as a possible cause).

your asking people for objectivity when you yourself "draw my own conclusions based on my experiences"

I.E your subjective experiences..

there are no "facts" in respect to theism or pantheism. there is nothing to be objective about...

i've had more than my fair share of entheogens and i've been around more than my fair share of pantheists

its is nothing but "subjective"

 

[Beefbisquit]

In my experience, 100% of the time when I reach an impasse with an atheist or classical theist, it is they who lack the objectivity and/or intellect to carry on the discussion. I can only draw my own conclusions based on my experiences. I never stated it as a fact (and I did include "lack of objectivity" as a possible cause).

My general point is, atheists and classic theists are often content with simply arguing (over and over again) the same old arguments about an anthropomorphic creator (just look at all the boring threads around here that are focused specifically on that ages-old argument). It has been done to death, and there is never any progress. To me, this represents ignorance (and/or stubbornness, and/or subjectivity and/or low intellect) on both sides. You may disagree with me, of course. I did not mean any offense to you personally.

Either way, I think I am in good company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pantheists

I'd love to discuss it. Just not here, in the JP thread.

 

[cogitech]

your asking people for objectivity when you yourself "draw my own conclusions based on my experiences"

I.E your subjective experiences..

there are no "facts" in respect to theism or pantheism. there is nothing to be objective about...

i've had more than my fair share of entheogens and i've been around more than my fair share of pantheists

its is nothing but "subjective"

I was talking about my experiences of discussions with other people, on this specific topic.

When it comes to Pantheism, there definitely are facts involved. It is entirely coherent and consistent with modern science.

I highly recommend "Mysticism and Philosophy" by W.T. Stace. Among other things, he does an amazing job of identifying a common experience among mystics from all traditions, eras, and walks of life. Each has their own "subjective" experience, but when analyzed across time and cultures it becomes evident that the experiences are identical - universal. Furthermore, the experience itself transcends the distinction between subjective and objective. This is where the atheists and classical theists always bow out of the conversation, and the Pantheists all look at each other and nod.

 

[ginjawarrior]

I was talking about my experiences of discussions with other people, on this specific topic.

When it comes to Pantheism, there definitely are facts involved. It is entirely coherent and consistent with modern science.

what facts?

I highly recommend "Mysticism and Philosophy" by W.T. Stace.

not interested

Furthermore, the experience itself transcends the distinction between subjective and objective.

you use the word "objective" i dont think it means what you think it means

This is where the atheists and classical theists always bow out of the conversation, and the Pantheists all look at each other and nod.

what you are talking about is "faith"

the athiests bow out because faith is nonsense

the theists bow out because they have their own particular faith

go into a church and watch all the religous there nod together in agreement about their shared experiances


anyway enough of that i want to hear what facts you talk about...

 

[cogitech]

what facts?

not interested
you use the word "objective" i dont think it means what you think it means

what you are talking about is "faith"

the athiests bow out because faith is nonsense

the theists bow out because they have their own particular faith

go into a church and watch all the religous there nod together in agreement about their shared experiances


anyway enough of that i want to hear what facts you talk about...

Your confrontational approach to this reminds me of someone else in this thread, and I have no interest in that tone of discourse.

I am not talking about faith at all. I have no room for faith in my life, and no pantheist or mystic that I know talks about faith.

Facts? Every known fact of science (pick as many or as little as you like) is 100% consistent with pantheism. Discover a new fact - it too will be consistent with pantheism. It can be no other way, unless the fact that you discover is that there really is a separate, anthropomorphic God who rules over the heavens and the earth. Until then, any scientific fact that is discovered simply increases science's coherence with pantheism.

Surely this idea will frustrate and anger you, as you have shown the propensity for already, so I will refrain from commenting further.

Happy trails.

 

[ginjawarrior]

I am not talking about faith at all. I have no room for faith in my life, and no pantheist or mystic that I know talks about faith.

you say this but the next paragraph you post does not agree

Facts? Every known fact of science (pick as many or as little as you like) is 100% consistent with pantheism. Discover a new fact - it too will be consistent with pantheism. It can be no other way, unless the fact that you discover is that there really is a separate, anthropomorphic God who rules over the heavens and the earth. Until then, any scientific fact that is discovered simply increases science's coherence with pantheism.

that whole paragraph is nothing but your faith

its kinda circular

the universe = god so everything in that universe confirms god

its a fact that i am here questioning your faith

how does that prove to you that everything is god?

and what reason would you have from shying away from a conversation from myself who in your own eyes is nothing but a part of god experiancing the universe and reality just like yourself?

 

[cogitech]

you say this but the next paragraph you post does not agree

that whole paragraph is nothing but your faith

its kinda circular

the universe = god so everything in that universe confirms god

its a fact that i am here questioning your faith

how does that prove to you that everything is god?

and what reason would you have from shying away from a conversation from myself who in your own eyes is nothing but a part of god experiancing the universe and reality just like yourself?

Just one final set of statements.

1) Pantheism has nothing to do with faith. Your continued focus on faith shows that you are refusing to acknowledge this.

2) It is not circular - God is identical to the Universe. This identification does not add any new attributes to the Universe, or vice versa.

3) You are not questioning my faith. I have no faith.

4) You are not understanding what I am saying when I state that scientific facts are consistent with pantheism. I am not saying that these facts "prove" that god exists (the existence of the Universe needs no proof), only that the facts are consistent with the statement that God=Universe.

5) I shy away from this discussion because your approach is both aggressive and assumptive. You will continue to claim that I have some sort of "faith", despite me repeatedly explaining that I do not. No good will come of it. I do not feel any cosmic compulsion to convince you otherwise. So farewell.

 

[UncleBuck]

So Peterson tweeted the whole white supremacist canard bemoaning multiculturalism in Europe today in “Jordan Peterson is an obvious racist” news

 

[Beefbisquit]

Your confrontational approach to this reminds me of someone else in this thread, and I have no interest in that tone of discourse.

I am not talking about faith at all. I have no room for faith in my life, and no pantheist or mystic that I know talks about faith.

Facts? Every known fact of science (pick as many or as little as you like) is 100% consistent with pantheism. Discover a new fact - it too will be consistent with pantheism. It can be no other way, unless the fact that you discover is that there really is a separate, anthropomorphic God who rules over the heavens and the earth. Until then, any scientific fact that is discovered simply increases science's coherence with pantheism.

Surely this idea will frustrate and anger you, as you have shown the propensity for already, so I will refrain from commenting further.

Happy trails.

The mental gymnastics you use to justify your faith is very similar to anyone else who holds unjustified belief.

Southern Baptists often speak in tongues, does that verify their experiences are real just because they feel the same things, and do the same things?

How is it surprising when humans take the same entheogens, they have similar experiences? Most people feel relaxed when they smoke pot, most people see shimmery objects when they take acid.

The commonalities between these experiences do not suggest a group experience.

Likewise, taking DMT and having similar experiences as other people does not validate those experiences as real. You have to accept, on faith, that you have no actual evidence except your "personal revelation" to present to anyone seeking evidence.

I've heard most of if not all of the arguments for pantheism before and they might convince you, but they're simply not compelling to me.

Also, suggesting that because "famous" people or "a lot" of people were pantheists is an appeal to authority and an appeal to popularity. Both poor arguments.

 

[UncleBuck]

The mental gymnastics you use to justify your faith is very similar to anyone else who holds unjustified belief.

Southern Baptists often speak in tongues, does that verify their experiences are real just because they feel the same things, and do the same things?

How is it surprising when humans take the same entheogens, they have similar experiences? Most people feel relaxed when they smoke pot, most people see shimmery objects when they take acid.

The commonalities between these experiences do not suggest a group experience.

Likewise, taking DMT and having similar experiences as other people does not validate those experiences as real. You have to accept, on faith, that you have no actual evidence except your "personal revelation" to present to anyone seeking evidence.

I've heard most of if not all of the arguments for pantheism before and they might convince you, but they're simply not compelling to me.

Also, suggesting that because "famous" people or "a lot" of people were pantheists is an appeal to authority and an appeal to popularity. Both poor arguments.

the first person to use "virtue signalling" unironically on this website was a guy with a "white power" tattoo on his back

the second was a nazi. a literal nazi

 

[UncleBuck]

 

[UncleBuck]

he's posting climate change denial vids from the white supremacist, right wing, pragerU fake college

LOL

 

[ginjawarrior]

View attachment 4175329

i'm unsure what you are expecting us to hate about that tweet...

how abouts you go read the article and tell us in your own words what we should hate about it