I'm one of the many who has been following Jordan Peterson. My first exposure to him was the famous interview with Cathy So-you're-saying Newman. Peterson always struck me as a very rational fella, and even after I first heard him talk about the Metaphysical, and after realizing that he's a Christian, I thought he could nonetheless be a very important voice in today's era.
And while he does sustain very reasonable positions on Social Issues, such as the #metoo movement, gender pronouns and freedom of speech, I must say, when it comes to Religion and the supernatural, his positions are really poor and bordering on childish.
It was this particular interview with Matt Dellahunty that really began shedding some light on how ignorant he can be on the subject:
[yt]FmH7JUeVQb8[/yt]
He makes a lot of fallacious claims here, but just to highlight his worst ones:
* Consumption of drugs and hallucinogens is proof of the metaphysical
* You cannot quit smoking without use of mushrooms and other hallucinogens
* There is no such thing as Atheists. Atheists are basically closet Deists.
* The proof that you are secretly a Deist is that you have a moral code (In other words: Existence of a moral code is synonym with Religious belief)
* (As a consequence of the previous assertion)If there were such thing as an Atheist, it would be the most immoral kind of person. One that would murder and rape under the premise that there is no such thing as morality, "so then why bother being good"?
It is clear that some of these claims are very old, long-time debunked assertions that are not only false, but insulting. To say to an atheist, either that you know better than them whether or not they're an atheist, or then to say "If you actually are an atheist, you're an immoral person" is extremely insulting.
Regardless, as I said earlier, I think Peterson is an important voice for Social Issues. And he can be extremely brilliant and rational when it comes to these issues, and be totally on the side of science. But as soon as the discussion shifts to Religion and Morality, it's like he changes helmets, and goes from rational Peterson to irrational Peterson. It's really bizarre, kinda like a Jekyll/Mr Hyde transformation. Matt Dellahunty even called it out on the debate by saying that he was trying to be very careful not to do to Peterson what Cathy Newman did on the famous BBC interview, and now instead Peterson is doing that to him, by constantly interrupting him and putting words in his mouth.
My take on the Peterson phenomena: He became a popular figure because of his tenacity to fight against Social Justice Warriors and the PC Culture. But with his fame and amount of exposure, we're not seeing the other side of him that we didn't know of.
What is your personal take on the Peterson Phenomena?
And while he does sustain very reasonable positions on Social Issues, such as the #metoo movement, gender pronouns and freedom of speech, I must say, when it comes to Religion and the supernatural, his positions are really poor and bordering on childish.
It was this particular interview with Matt Dellahunty that really began shedding some light on how ignorant he can be on the subject:
[yt]FmH7JUeVQb8[/yt]
He makes a lot of fallacious claims here, but just to highlight his worst ones:
* Consumption of drugs and hallucinogens is proof of the metaphysical
* You cannot quit smoking without use of mushrooms and other hallucinogens
* There is no such thing as Atheists. Atheists are basically closet Deists.
* The proof that you are secretly a Deist is that you have a moral code (In other words: Existence of a moral code is synonym with Religious belief)
* (As a consequence of the previous assertion)If there were such thing as an Atheist, it would be the most immoral kind of person. One that would murder and rape under the premise that there is no such thing as morality, "so then why bother being good"?
It is clear that some of these claims are very old, long-time debunked assertions that are not only false, but insulting. To say to an atheist, either that you know better than them whether or not they're an atheist, or then to say "If you actually are an atheist, you're an immoral person" is extremely insulting.
Regardless, as I said earlier, I think Peterson is an important voice for Social Issues. And he can be extremely brilliant and rational when it comes to these issues, and be totally on the side of science. But as soon as the discussion shifts to Religion and Morality, it's like he changes helmets, and goes from rational Peterson to irrational Peterson. It's really bizarre, kinda like a Jekyll/Mr Hyde transformation. Matt Dellahunty even called it out on the debate by saying that he was trying to be very careful not to do to Peterson what Cathy Newman did on the famous BBC interview, and now instead Peterson is doing that to him, by constantly interrupting him and putting words in his mouth.
My take on the Peterson phenomena: He became a popular figure because of his tenacity to fight against Social Justice Warriors and the PC Culture. But with his fame and amount of exposure, we're not seeing the other side of him that we didn't know of.
What is your personal take on the Peterson Phenomena?
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2OZw2tQ
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire