Religion is for stupid people

[welderguy]

If in fact the religious do know something beyond what non religious know, what differentiates all the different religious? There must be so many gods that.......

See, I knew YOU would say something like that, thus the question was not posed to you.
I can't speak for any other of the religious, but I know that I know something, whether any other person does or not. If that makes me "stupid", then....haleluiah!! I'm stupid then.

 

[ambush80]

First of all, I believe wisdom and knowledge to be two different things. It sorta erks me when people use them interchangeably.
But, aside from that, I really gotta ask you. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe some that you label "religious" actually do know something that you have not been made privy to? (at least not yet)
Do you even think that could be a possibility? Or do you not let your mind even entertain that thought?

I think the immensity of things that we don't know about might include God. I don't make truth claims about things that I don't know about.

 

[gemcgrew]

If in fact the religious do know something beyond what non religious know, what differentiates all the different religious? There must be so many gods that.......

Even a wise man such as Solomon followed after them.

 

[bullethead]

See, I knew YOU would say something like that, thus the question was not posed to you.
I can't speak for any other of the religious, but I know that I know something, whether any other person does or not. If that makes me "stupid", then....haleluiah!! I'm stupid then.

Im am in no way implying that anyone is stupid , dumb, or less intelligent for believeing in a God or gods.
All I am saying that believing in a higher power is not at all unique. Hundreds of millions of people all claim the same thing. Nothing stands out that makes a believers experience or a gods involvement more special except personal interpretation.
Nothing at all wrong with that all.

People interpret things differently. Proving what they think is the cause is the biggest hurdle.

 

[bullethead]

Even a wise man such as Solomon followed after them.

And Luke found the Force, or did the Force find Luke?

 

[gemcgrew]

And Luke found the Force, or did the Force find Luke?

Much to learn, you still have.

 

[bullethead]

Much to learn, you still have.

In 5000 years our conversation could be scripture.

 

[gemcgrew]

In 5000 years our conversation could be scripture.

It is scripture today. It probably won't survive the 5000 years though.

 

[hopper]

Sometimes I think the stupidest sounding people are religious people trying to convince a none believer that there is a God and a none believer trying to convince a believer that there isnt.

 

[ambush80]

Sometimes I think the stupidest sounding people are religious people trying to convince a none believer that there is a God and a none believer trying to convince a believer that there isnt.

Do you think Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson sound stupid in the videos? I don't. I think they sound thoughtful, respectful, and sincere.

 

[hopper]

I was making a generic comment based on the title of the post. No disrespect to guys in vid. I didn't watch it.

 

[hopper]

Do you think Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson sound stupid in the videos? I don't. I think they sound thoughtful, respectful, and sincere.

Forgot the reply button on that last response above this one

 

[ambush80]

I was making a generic comment based on the title of the post. No disrespect to guys in vid. I didn't watch it.

You should listen to them discuss. It will probably change your opinion of people discussing belief. I think they're impressive as heck.

 

[hopper]

You should listen to them discuss. It will probably change your opinion of people discussing belief. I think they're impressive as heck.

I may when I get a chance. I dont have a problem at all about people discussing belief, I do it . Nothing wrong with a discussion.

 

[ambush80]

I may when I get a chance. I dont have a problem at all about people discussing belief, I do it . Nothing wrong with a discussion.

All 4 events are available on Jordan Peterson's Youtube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/user/JordanPetersonVideos/videos?disable_polymer=1

The third event in England is where Jordan said "Well, maybe not everybody's as smart as you, Sam." Which is why I made the OP. I personally think that Sam's arguments are intellectually accessible to almost everyone and that we no longer need "Bad reasons to be good, when good reasons are available".

It's cool to see how they develop their ideas over the course of the four events. They also repeat much of the stuff they covered previously (I think for the sake of the new audiences). I loved how they "Steelmanned" each other. I think the practice would help us in here.

Approach 1: Steel manning

The philosopher Daniel Dennett outlines an effective process for arguing with someone who has opposing views:

(1) Attempt to re-express the other person’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that they say, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”​

(2) List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).​

(3) Mention anything you have learned from your target.​

(4) Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.​

The first step of Dennett’s approach has been called steel manning. It’s the opposite of straw manning, in which you misrepresent the other person’s position or argument so you can easily defeat it. In contrast to a straw man, a steel man is an improved form of the other person’s views—one that’s harder to defeat.

https://conversion-rate-experts.com/steel-manning/

The first two times Jordan and Sam talked was on Sam's podcast #62, #67. The first one was miserable as they got gridlocked on one particular topic. Then they seemed to talk passed each other. It was much like what happens here.

https://samharris.org/search/jordan peterson

I think the whole thing made them friends and allies.

 

[ambush80]

This is what Sam wrote about their first exchange:

https://samharris.org/speaking-of-truth-with-jordan-b-peterson/

 

[ambush80]

Here's a great piece on their debates in Patheos, an online magazine that I'll probably add to my regular reading:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/youngf...s-asks-questions-jordan-peterson-cant-answer/

"However, with the rise of Jordan Peterson, Judeo-Christian ideas are getting a new lease on life, if not in an orthodox sense, at least in a sense that still makes Sam Harris uncomfortable. It bothers Sam intensely that Peterson could sell out a theater multiple nights in a row for an in-depth lecture series on the book of Genesis. It bothers him that Peterson doesn’t dismiss Christianity as primitive Stone Age thinking. It bothers him, because it shows that for all the Horsemen’s yeomanly efforts, the Bible still hasn’t been relegated to the dustbin of history. And the effects are making themselves felt within his very own fan base, causing one YouTuber to ask in so many words “Is Sam Harris Losing his Audience to Jordan Peterson?”"

"For Harris to have emerged as a challenger to Peterson is not something I would have predicted. But their live fencing matches have fascinatingly and tellingly exposed the fault lines in both men’s thinking. They are a must-hear for any Christian who wants to understand our culture’s spiritual zeitgeist, not only for what Harris and Peterson are bringing to the table, but for how the crowd is reacting to them."

 

[ambush80]

And a follow up piece that I'm about to read:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/youngf...ordan-peterson-ill-take-sam-harris-from-here/

 

[hopper]

All 4 events are available on Jordan Peterson's Youtube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/user/JordanPetersonVideos/videos?disable_polymer=1

The third event in England is where Jordan said "Well, maybe not everybody's as smart as you, Sam." Which is why I made the OP. I personally think that Sam's arguments are intellectually accessible to almost everyone and that we no longer need "Bad reasons to be good, when good reasons are available".

It's cool to see how they develop their ideas over the course of the four events. They also repeat much of the stuff they covered previously (I think for the sake of the new audiences). I loved how they "Steelmanned" each other. I think the practice would help us in here.

Approach 1: Steel manning

The philosopher Daniel Dennett outlines an effective process for arguing with someone who has opposing views:

(1) Attempt to re-express the other person’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that they say, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”​

(2) List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).​

(3) Mention anything you have learned from your target.​

(4) Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.​

The first step of Dennett’s approach has been called steel manning. It’s the opposite of straw manning, in which you misrepresent the other person’s position or argument so you can easily defeat it. In contrast to a straw man, a steel man is an improved form of the other person’s views—one that’s harder to defeat.

https://conversion-rate-experts.com/steel-manning/

The first two times Jordan and Sam talked was on Sam's podcast #62, #67. The first one was miserable as they got gridlocked on one particular topic. Then they seemed to talk passed each other. It was much like what happens here.

https://samharris.org/search/jordan peterson

I think the whole thing made them friends and allies.

Sounds cool. I call it objectively speaking, but not to defeat the other point of view, but to move in to my own without being argumentative. This way I can discuss with the possibilities of not putting others on the defensive. To me it helps to learn from others if they have something to offer.
As for being to Smart it seems like some may be to smart for a spiritual way of life.

 

[ambush80]

Sounds cool. I call it objectively speaking, but not to defeat the other point of view, but to move in to my own without being argumentative. This way I can discuss with the possibilities of not putting others on the defensive. To me it helps to learn from others if they have something to offer.
As for being to Smart it seems like some may be too smart for a spiritual way of life.

That's kind of what Sam's book Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion is about. He is interested in "spirituality" for secular people. He understands the value of transcendent experience but doesn't think it has to be tied to mythology in any way. He and secularists like him wonder what an institution that does all the good things that religion does: community building, rituals (for birth, death, manhood, womanhood), music, architecture, painting...would/could look like.

He doesn't think you have to be "stupid" to want "spirituality" in your life. (By the way, I put "spirituality" in quotes because I recognize the same problem that Sam does in that we don't have a word yet that talks about transcendent experience without the supernatural baggage of "spirituality". It's kind of how Einstein or Hawking used the term "God").