And now for something you might be able to hear without repulsion

by TerryWalstrom 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Phizzy

  In the first interview above, for the first six minutes or so he is describing the thinking of humanists, not the religious.

  He then briefly mentions Jesus, makes an assertion about him being a Meta Hero, and proceeds as though that is the argument done, we must all be Christians then.

  He is an obvious cherry picker of the bits of the Bible he likes, and ignores the rest, just one example, Jesus said he would divide families etc, and proceeded to encourage his followers to forsake everything, including family, and follow him,some Meta Hero !

  This man strikes me as a publicity media whore who wishes to promote his own works, not a seeker after truth.
• 

  TerryWalstrom

  We are not allowed by nature to think unthinkable thoughts.
  We cannot bear the unbearable without disintegration.
  We will fracture.
  
  Cognitive protection mechanisms kick in--as a natural safeguard.
  
  What we NEED is an ability to moderate our mood and alter our consciousness in times of stress.
  
  The more intelligent and intellectual the person, the more 'high-falutin'
  the mechanism of moderation there is.
  
  Stupid people give stupid reasons. Smart people give smart reasons.
  What is REAL vs. what is "real" is not really the focus of Peterson's discourse (at least, as I see it.)
  
  He has, to use a weird analogy, opened up his skull and has pulled out his brain in order to see how it works.
  This is not possible, of course.
  By analogy and deconstruction, it is modeled as real.
  
  I like Peterson's process. I'm not so much interested in his final analysis belief system.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y17YaZRRvY
• 

  Finkelstein

  I think this video explains or pinpoints his position against non belief or atheism is culturally and socially destructive.

  He's believes that mankind cant not have a moral compass of empathy to one another unless there is a backing of spirituality as the driving ideology.
  

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwi9Q9apHGI
  
• 

  TerryWalstrom

  I have a sort of built-in "bristle" reflex at vocabulary words which
  have a subjective definition.
  
  First Principles: "What is this, fundamentally? What is its nature and substance, its reason for being?"
  
  My take on "spirituality" is a kind of miscellaneous basket of non-conventional beliefs.
  
  Reminds me of Ayn Rand's discussion on "stolen concept."
  Take an existing concept, remove its genetic roots on which it logically depends and denies the validity of them.
  
  

  For example. The core of religion is worship of the deity in some bounded form of do's and don'ts.
  Spirituality hollows out the necessity of a god or worship and fills it with a sugary pastry filling with fuzzy intentions and dubious consequences as well as no formal adherence to a boundary.
  

  ---
• 

  JaniceA

  At the very beginning. . .i heard, understood and kind of agreed. But then the whole thing got a bit convoluted. I understood him, but i figure if your faith requires words and concepts foreign to average people, what good is it? Making atheists smirk is not a desirable response for most believers (in anything)
• 

  TerryWalstrom

  Well, most of the cognitive sciences are crammed like a Thanksgiving turkey full of dressing with terminology, jargon, and such.
  Jordan is an Academic required to utter the approved language of semiotic, psychiatric, Jungian, Freudian, philosophical patois.
  
  To the extent a non-academic dips a toe in such a pond--the depth seems too profound for casual swimming.
  
  I've watched about nine of his varied interviews and he can be very disarming, eloquent, pointed, precise, and illuminating when confronted about his opinions.
  
  It appears to me most Professors are all huff and puff yet cowardly when it comes to taking a stand against prevailing establishment policies.
  This guy has a backbone.
• 

  sparrowdown

  Hey Terry, I take it you've seen the JP vs channel 4 Cathy Newman debacle?

  If not, totally worth a look, classic Peterson.

  Edited to say oops, Cofty already mentioned it.
• 

  TerryWalstrom

  Cathy Newman is laying cuckoo eggs!
  JP makes a statement.
  Cathy Newman replaces JP's actual words with her cuckoo straw man.
  Dishonest but highly effective in playing to her crowd and
  throwing off the interviewee, in effect making JP defend against a doppelganger JP. An Evil Twin version of himself.
  Brilliant but insidious.
• 

  cofty

  Terry I disagree. I thought Cathy Newman came across as unintelligent and disingenuous. There was nothing clever about her tactics.

  I suspect it will harm her reputation as a serious journalist.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Psychology is a science, but JP, this clinical psychologist presents himself like a "scientist" who has spent time examining some kind of balance between science and belief. Yet he only seems to come up with reasons why the mind might believe, not why belief in Christianity is right. In reality, he is an apologist for allowing false beliefs to continue in your life without really examining the beliefs to see if they should be dismissed.

  JP- "the stories in Genesis which are very old stories...maybe tens of thousands of years old."
  Wouldn't a scientist trying to reconcile science with religion be less vague? He would be able to state a better detail than "maybe tens of thousands of years old."
  
  It seems he thinks he needs to stay in favor with hardcore Christians. I could almost count him as an agnostic who sees value in belief and counts the value as the amount of belief that lives on and changes lives. Without batting an eye, if he lived in a Muslim world, he could say everything the same way about Islam.
  
  I do enjoy his philosophy on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0O8Jw6grro