Comments by "Curious Crow" (@CuriousCrow-mp4cx) on "Jordan Peterson's Most Confusing Argument | We Who Wrestle With God" video.

  1. But as a communicator he has a duty to communicate clearly and straightforwardly as possible, in order to get his message across. And by playing hopscotch with ideas, he himself is playing a game. And breaking the rules to boot, often to bolster his own agenda. It is a test of one's own knowledge to clearly explain oneself simply and directly in one's own language. Peterson often falls at that hurdle.
    9
  2. But what you miss is that the word God is commonly used to mean "sky daddy", and as atheism is a direct challenge to established religion, i.e., an institution claiming an overriding cultural and social hierarchical exercise of power, it imperative to acknowledge this existing tension. For me, being a potterer through this landscape, I begin with the question who or what is God? If I cannot find an answer to that, then it makes it difficult to proceed further. Peterson avoids that question, and thus misrepresents atheism in an honest way. Atheism is all about the "Sky Daddy". It denies that the Sky Daddy is real, but to deny the Sky Daddy is not to say the moral values in the Bible has no import. Indeed, rejecting the Sky Daddy leaves the Bible to stand or fall on its own ideas and moral lessons. And that's leaves it stronger IMO.
    2
  3. I agree with your observations, but he really should have said those things, but as usual he plays hopscotch. Lol.
    2
  4. Unsolicited Advice from a stranger: don't confuse the map with the territory. Always compare the map with your experience on your journey. Maps, categories, frameworks, or descriptive theories, are abstractions of reality, designed to be useful within certain contexts, no more, no less. A famous British Statistician said: "All models are wrong, but some are useful." A very astute observation, because abstraction deliberately includes and excludes information. They are analytic tools, but limited because they are designed to be so. Before you subscribe to any typology, framework, or model, always put it through a SWOT analysis - investigate its Strengths, it's Weaknesses, the opportunities it provides to who and where, and its Threats or shortcomings - what it doesn't tell you. Then you'll be able to decide how useful any such framework really is. Humans have a fondness for pigeonholing, simply because our brains evolved to cognitively organise things to make them easier to remember. Yet, one should never forget that the only constant is change.
    2
  5. But then Jesus himself was a Jew, and spoke from those traditions? To separate Jesus from his background is to ignore what his teachings actually aimed to do, which was to bring his people back to the spirit of God, rather than the letter.
    1
  6. I think as I understand your argument is that Peterson fails to truly understand atheism as a metaphysical rejection of of a God. It might have been helpful if he had not skipped over in his argument. Indeed the etymology of the word God is an interesting avenue of inquiry itself. What does he actual understand God to be? Without that, it's an interesting diversion, but I wonder if he had consulted any theologians or philosophers about the question. I'm not sure. Nevermind the issues that follow with the Bible itself. I am reminded of the film "The Book of Eli", and I hope Peterson is fearful too in this current age, where religious fundamentalism in the West is being aligned with power.
    1