Skip to contentWillowOne's PositionsTagsWhat’s newMediaStatisticsSearch
WillowOne's Positions

Jordan Peterson vs 20 Atheists -Surrounded - Jubilee

Jordan Bernt Peterson

Media

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwk5MPE_6zE

Notes

  • Jordan starts off grumpy/hostile.
  • Could be uncharitable editing, or the result of some offscreen issues but not a good look.

Claim: Atheists reject god, but they don't understand what they are rejecting

The wording of this claim is unbelievably loaded; and absolutely not conducive to a practical productive conversation.

It fails to define what is meant by "god," allowing for equivocation between the idea or claim of God's existence and the entity of God. By rejecting the former, atheists are not thereby committed to holding a coherent view of the latter. This equivocation enables Jordan to imply that there is a real thing being misunderstood, which, from an atheist standpoint, amounts to begging the question.

Additionally, while the claim does not explicitly assert that one must fully understand a concept in order to reject it, it strongly implies this. By phrasing the statement as he does, Jordan avoids the burden of defending that implication directly, while still framing atheists as lacking in comprehension.

Furthermore, the statement presumes a privileged position of understanding. something Peterson does a lot in his speech. To assert that someone "does not understand" entails, implicitly, that the speaker does understand to a greater degree. Thus, Jordan’s phrasing functions rhetorically to position himself as holding a more complete grasp of the concept of God, without having to make that claim explicitly avoiding the need to justify or defend it.

  • Cade Bradley - Strong opening.
  • "There is always the possibility that [your aim] is still off now."
  • This is redundant, and obnoxious. There is, of course, always the possibility we are making a mistake, unless you wish to claim infallibility (Fallibilism). By saying this, a reasonable implication is that Peterson thinks his aim is still off, i.e. he is making a mistake, but has not provided any justification for the implied assertion.
  • Atheist challenges this, good job.
  • When challenged to explain what was wrong he respond "I don't know, it might take a long time to figure out." again, implying that there is no doubt that there is something wrong, but providing no evidence to support that claim.
  • Peterson acknowledges the claim is "generic" and asserts that the claim that there is no god is a generic claim.
  • This frames his view of Atheism as Hard Atheism; a much less common position and one that is much harder to defend as it makes the affirmative claim to know that god doesn't exist. I think this functionally straw-mans the Atheism most people hold, which is simply a rejection of the claim that god does exists.
  • Peterson claims that in his experiences "Atheist have a "very reductive notion" of what constitutes god in, let's say, the Judeo-Christian tradition..."
  • According to his view of what god is, and why are we now limiting this to the Judeo-Christian tradition? By all accounts the Judeo-Christian tradition could be said to have a "reductive notion" of what constitutes god also. This is likely because Peterson wants to shift from claims about reality, to claims about what is believed in the Judeo-Christian religious narrative.
  • Peterson goes on to claim "... and they have often been hurt by someone who is religious, or perhaps by god himself so to speak and that has left them with an animus"
  • The most charitable interpretation I can give to this utterly irrelevant and highly spurious point is that as a clinical psychologist Peterson is more likely to encounter people who are struggling with issues that arise from abuse conducted under the banner of religion. This is a Survivorship Bias.
  • It is also possible that these example, when encountered, are more memorable to Peterson as the fit with his existing beliefs; and example of Confirmation Bias
  • Less charitably I just don't believe this and Peterson is Cherry-picking
  • The later part of this again try's to infer the underlying atheism is an acknowledgment of the existence of God. To be left with an animus towards a thing necessarily infers the existence of the thing. This is a well worn trope of apologetics, 'you must believe in god in order to reject him'. I suspect that these types of arguments are designed to be frustrating and push the Atheist position into a claim of Hard Atheism or start to reference god as if god exists.
  • Bradley - "I think you have a reductive view of what Atheism is."
  • I am not sure that Peterson has ever clearly articulated his view so this is hard to know. It is a reasonable suspicion however based on the nature of this dialogue
  • "Well, let's start with your claim... How do you define the god that you are rejecting"
  • "When did you stop beating your wife" (Loaded Question)
  • This is absolute garbage.
  • Peterson has given no definition and so avoids defending any specific claim. He can attack anything the Atheists attempts to define god as naïve, insufficient, not his view, and yet can retreat to saying "I never said that's what I believe" or make vague, atypical, unfalsifiable, oblique statements about his position without stating it plainly. Thus he can never be wrong, because he hasn't said anything. This is a Motte-and-bailey fallacy but he defends his Bailey by never putting it in the field.
  • This appears to be a deliberate reversal of the typical epistemic burden (Burden of proof). In philosophy of religion, it's generally the theist’s role to define "God", and others can accept or reject it.
  • Peterson is assuming Hard Atheism again. What happened to the prior acknowledgement that Atheism was a "generic claim"; now it has to be specific?
  • Atheism is, in general, the rejection of a common view asserted by others. To that extent there is no need for Atheism to define its terms, only to rationally reject the claims of others within the context of the definitions others use.
  • This is such a dirty, disingenuous move.
  • Bradley - Great job, refocuses on what the "Average Christian believer" thinks.
  • Points out that Peterson view of religion appears a-typical
  • points out that everyone has mutually exclusive and different views of what god is.
  • Peterson - If everyone had mutually exclusive views of what god is, nobody could speak to each other.
  • FFS

(Watched this before, rewatching for notes, Note taking postponed, might return to this later)

Terrible performance for Jordan Peterson. Extremely hostile and evasive. Genuinely good Atheists, almost all very polite, who represent themselves and their arguments well.