Is Faith/Religion needed to live -- my analysis of Jordan Peterson

[Cobol]

Of course people can live purposeful lives, if they are sufficiently fortunate. Anyone who has enough to eat, who lives in a society that tolerates a modicum of personal freedom, who has educational and employment opportunities, who is not condemned to a life of torment, and so on.

Biological purposes are products of evolution. So, for life to have a biological purpose, it would have to be a product of evolution. But life isn't a product of evolution. For evolution to occur, life has to be on the scene already. Evolution presupposes life, and that's why it can't be the case that life has a biological purpose.

A god who performs acts of creation is an agent, and to be an agent one must, minimally, be alive. We are then confronted with the same kind of problem that we encounter with biological purpose.

A God can't have created life, because a God must already be alive in order to create anything at all. As it's conceptually impossible for a God to created life, it's impossible for a God to have created life with a purpose in mind.

 

[Trailblazer]

This life is precious and probably moreso to atheists, than religious people. Its the one that they desire to make count. Its the end all and be all of happiness. People dont really need extra faith motives for this life to hold the utmost meaningful regard for it. Heaven and hell is right here right now. I am sure some atheists would love an eternal life of ideal living but they dont see any evidence for it. Their happiness, joy, and peace resides in who they are now, and for their entire lives. Unto death even.

It depends upon what people do with that precious life. If they waste it engaging in activities that are just for self and desire then they have wasted their life. Is attainment of personal happiness the purpose of our life? Maybe it is, if there is no God, but if there is a God and it is the God of religion, that is not our purpose.

Most beleivers also consider this life precious, because it is God's creation. Most beleivers live in the world just like atheists and do not think that much about the afterlife. Moreover, those of my religion consider this life precious in the sense that it is our opportunity to develop the spiritual qualities that we will need in the spiritual world. Those who do not believe there is an afterlife have no motivation to try to improve their character, but those Christians who believe they are saved and forgiven really don't have any motivation either because they believe they are saved by grace.

Most atheists I know have a good character because they have morals and good values. Believing in God is not necessary to have morals and good values.

 

[Trailblazer]

A God can't have created life, because a God must already be alive in order to create anything at all. As it's conceptually impossible for a God to created life, it's impossible for a God to have created life with a purpose in mind.

God is not alive because God is not a biological entity. God is the uncreated. God and His Creation have always existed but humans have not always existed. Humans evolved from animals but they have always been a separate species. At some tine during the evolutionary process, God created the soul and then we had the human animal. The human purpose is expressed through the soul. One might succeed in fulfilling God's purpose for the soul or might fail to do so. It helps to know what that purpose is.

“Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. It is the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him. If it be faithful to God, it will reflect His light, and will, eventually, return unto Him. If it fail, however, in its allegiance to its Creator, it will become a victim to self and passion, and will, in the end, sink in their depths.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 158-159

 

[QuestioningMind]

As a fan of the recently popularized Jordan Peterson, I'd like to analyse a particular assertion of his.


Firstly, I like him for his (mostly) critical thinking and considerable knowledge. However, he is (sort-of) religious, and a few things I disagree with him about.


He has said that everyone must have a 'kind of' religion or perhaps 'faith' in order to live. I would like to question that.


His logic is: everyone must necessarily live 'as if' there is something to live for, i.e. a purpose, a meaning. He says that atheists must have a 'faith' that there is more to death and 'the end', and that there must exist this 'purpose' in order to get up and go to work and deal with life.


But I disagree, and would make a simple analogy:


If you have a job interview, you are advised to behave 'as if' you have a real chance of getting the job. It's no good going and thinking you can't. But can we describe this as 'faith' or behaving 'as if' you will get it?


I think not, because it is a rational weighing up of possibilities, not 'faith'. At the interview, you neither accept nor deny either outcome. You consider both. You imagine 'what if' you have a real chance of getting it. But you also know you might not. You behave in a way that judges the possibilities and outcomes. But you don't behave literally 'as if' you will get the job, because that would literally mean going, having the interview and then saying "well, thanks, so when do I start?"


So, is it possible to live while considering that life has a continual, meaningful purpose, without having religion or faith? I think yes, because you can suspend belief. You can live 'in the hope' that it will have purpose, without knowing for certain.

People can give life whatever purpose they choose. It doesn't have to have anything to do with an afterlife and I see absolutely no reason why faith would have to be involved.

 

[blü 2]

Jordan Peterson [...] has said that everyone must have a 'kind of' religion or perhaps 'faith' in order to live.

I think firstly we've evolved to have a rough and essentially Darwinian life map in our heads: learn, grow, find a mate, find a place in society, breed, achieve what you can that satisfies, care for grandchildren, fade out. I don't suggest this model is exclusive, but I suspect it's the basic plan.

I think secondly that society (religion included) reflects and supports values of that kind as well ─ again not exclusively.

If that's right, then it's why we sometimes feel our lives are on track, and sometimes feel they're not; and why, when they're on track, we get a particular kind of satisfaction / positive feedback / reward.

 

[Sunstone]

Jordan Peterson's view that even atheists must have faith there is something beyond death is popular in some places. Yet, it rests on a number of flaws, one of which is that a sense of purpose or value must rest on a notion that the purpose or value would last forever.

That sure would make a lot of sex valueless, without any purpose -- not even to have pleasure. So, too, many other transitory things would be valueless, without purpose.

 

[Trailblazer]

Jordan Peterson's view that even atheists must have faith there is something beyond death is popular in some places. Yet, it rests on a number of flaws, one of which is that a sense of purpose or value must rest on a notion that the purpose or value would last forever.

That sure would make a lot of sex valueless, without any purpose -- not even to have pleasure. So, too, many other transitory things would be valueless, without purpose.

It makes sense to me that if there is an afterlife the sense of purpose or value we had in this life would carry over to the afterlife, so the purpose of this life is to prepare for the afterlife, to acquire what we will need there. Since we will have no physical body in the afterlife, we do not need to have sex here in order to prepare. The primary purpose of sex is for procreation; although it is also for pleasure and bonding, that is a side benefit.

I believe that anything of a transitory nature such as sex is valueless compared to that which survives death. The only thing that survives death is the character associated with the individual person. Our character survives death through the soul which continues to exist forever in the spiritual realm.

“The world is but a show, vain and empty, a mere nothing, bearing the semblance of reality. Set not your affections upon it. Break not the bond that uniteth you with your Creator, and be not of those that have erred and strayed from His ways. Verily I say, the world is like the vapor in a desert, which the thirsty dreameth to be water and striveth after it with all his might, until when he cometh unto it, he findeth it to be mere illusion. It may, moreover, be likened unto the lifeless image of the beloved whom the lover hath sought and found, in the end, after long search and to his utmost regret, to be such as cannot “fatten nor appease his hunger.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 328-329

 

[Sunstone]

I believe that anything of a transitory nature such as sex is valueless compared to that which survives death.

Peterson's point of view seems to be that such things as sex have no value or purpose unless someone believes there is something beyond death. That is a different issue from the one you raise of whether they would have comparable meaning, should something survive death in the first place.

 

[Trailblazer]

Peterson's point of view seems to be that such things as sex have no value or purpose unless someone believes there is something beyond death. That is a different issue from the one you raise of whether they would have comparable meaning, should something survive death in the first place.

Thanks for clarifying that but that seems rather odd.
If there is nothing beyond death, life could still have a purpose, it would just be a different purpose and one that is associated only with the physical world. One might have for example a purpose of raising a family or one could have as their purpose to enjoy themselves as much as possible. Acquiring a good character could also be a purpose because it is important to have good character to live in this physical world.

 

[ecco]

God is not alive because God is not a biological entity. God is the uncreated. God and His Creation have always existed

Excerpts from 50,000 year old fireside tales...

Oh Great Wise Man, where did we come from?
Our stories tell us we came from far beyond the hills, where the first man lived.
Oh Great Wise Man, where did the first man come from?
God created the first man.
Oh Great Wise Man, where did God come from?
God has always existed, now shut up and go to sleep.
​

Nothing new or exciting here.

​

 

[Trailblazer]

Excerpts from 50,000 year old fireside tales...

Oh Great Wise Man, where did we come from?
Our stories tell us we came from far beyond the hills, where the first man lived.
Oh Great Wise Man, where did the first man come from?
God created the first man.
Oh Great Wise Man, where did God come from?
God has always existed, now shut up and go to sleep.
​

Nothing new or exciting here.

New and exciting is not the goal.

 

[Cacotopia]

Purpose is what you make it.

Whether it's doing absolutely nothing or attempting to obtain the most knowledge, or getting wasted every single day to the point of soiling your pants. Or debating theists on RF.

 

[Trailblazer]

Or debating theists on RF.

Or debating atheists on RF.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Why do you believe they are a special case? What would you say clearly differentiates a religious from a non-religious ideology?

Probably the invention of something outside of everyday experience - like a deity or other such, or a soul - neither of which can be proven. Originating from false beliefs about the causes of natural events probably, and progressing from there. That seems to be the main thing that brings all such under the religious umbrella. And which then inevitably leads to all sorts of further issues - such as prophets, messiahs, religious dogma, division, etc. As I have said, I am agnostic as regards a creator or creative force but I leave it at that. And I wouldn't say I actually have an ideology. The nearest I would get to is Secular Humanism because it makes the most sense to me. We all have (hopefully) to live by certain principles and these ones appeal the most to me - being that which would hopefully enhance the life of humans and all other life here on Earth.

 

[Mock Turtle]

29 jun 2018 stvdv 014 16

Just today I had the same thought, that they might heading to extinction even. But now reading your post I remember my own life, when going down to ZERO, only then I became open for something new. And new ideas started. So maybe that is natural for religion also. When they go down, they can learn and change. If they still don't do, yes then they might not survive. But human nature is to swim and not drown.


Sorry if I were demeaning. Did not meant to be. I tried to find common ground. I thought having faith in ourselves was what I have in common with atheists.

It wasn't you I was replying to there. I find it annoying that some seem to class all behaviour as essentially religious when it is no such thing. Faith in oneself I can accept, as in self-belief, since I do see this as essential to overcome all that life throws at us.

 

[stvdv]

30 jun 2018 stvdv 014 22

It wasn't you I was replying to there. I find it annoying that some seem to class all behaviour as essentially religious when it is no such thing. Faith in oneself I can accept, as in self-belief, since I do see this as essential to overcome all that life throws at us.

I feel the same. People have to learn one thing IMHO and that is to use the word "IMHO" whenever they do claims [maybe not when other feels 101% the same]

 

[Augustus]

I think it is a good way of life, but the word 'virtuous' never crossed my mind.

They are functionally synonymous.

Why are they 'higher order values'? Why are they analogous to faith?

Because they purport to offer an explanation of how a specific, subjective, culturally constructed ethic or ideology transcends narrow self-interest and becomes an enduring foundation on which to construct a civilisation.

They provide a reason why one should prefer one set of human values over another set of equally human values by relying on axioms that are simply subjective preferences yet you see them as 'better' than many other people's subjective preferences.

Would you agree that you are really a SH by chance, that is, you are a product of your environment and had you been born in Ancient Greece, Medieval Egypt, modern Afghanistan etc. you likely wouldn't have been a SH?

 

[Mock Turtle]

They are functionally synonymous.



Because they purport to offer an explanation of how a specific, subjective, culturally constructed ethic or ideology transcends narrow self-interest and becomes an enduring foundation on which to construct a civilisation.

They provide a reason why one should prefer one set of human values over another set of equally human values by relying on axioms that are simply subjective preferences yet you see them as 'better' than many other people's subjective preferences.

Would you agree that you are really a SH by chance, that is, you are a product of your environment and had you been born in Ancient Greece, Medieval Egypt, modern Afghanistan etc. you likely wouldn't have been a SH?

This sounds more like philosophy than religion in my eyes. Hence why many of us no doubt can't see any of our beliefs (as such) being at all religious.

 

[Augustus]

Probably the invention of something outside of everyday experience - like a deity or other such, or a soul - neither of which can be proven.

While some form of supernatural agent is a reasonable way to differentiate, I'd say differentiating religious from non-religious thought is still quite difficult.

Something like Humanism relies on The Idea of Progress which is largely just a an 18th C secularisation of Divine Providence. Marx (via Hegel) believed in the forces of History, which is something similar. Categorising Humanity as an actual existent entity could also be argued to be 'something outside everyday experience' (and again is a product of secularising monotheism).

I do think you can approximately differentiate religions from non-religions by looking at multiple categories some of which need to be present (congregation, ritual, etc), simply based on belief/thought it becomes harder.

And I wouldn't say I actually have an ideology.

We all have ideologies as they are essential to our cognition. We don't all necessarily follow a 'name brand' ideology though.

This sounds more like philosophy than religion in my eyes. Hence why many of us no doubt can't see any of our beliefs (as such) being at all religious.

I, personally, differentiate between religious and religious-type. So I wouldn't say Secular Humanism was a religion, but I would say it had numerous religious-type beliefs (as do all secular ideologies).

These are just beliefs that can't be objectively proven true via the unbiased use of reason, yet are fundamentally important to one's worldview. Could call them foundational axioms, guiding narratives, core myths, ideological fundamentals or something of that ilk.

One problem is that many atheists hold terms like faith, myth, belief, religious-type to be pejorative, I don't think they should be so sensitive in this regard as they are just inescapable aspects of our human cognition.

 

[Mock Turtle]

While some form of supernatural agent is a reasonable way to differentiate, I'd say differentiating religious from non-religious thought is still quite difficult.

Something like Humanism relies on The Idea of Progress which is largely just a an 18th C secularisation of Divine Providence. Marx (via Hegel) believed in the forces of History, which is something similar. Categorising Humanity as an actual existent entity could also be argued to be 'something outside everyday experience' (and again is a product of secularising monotheism).

I do think you can approximately differentiate religions from non-religions by looking at multiple categories some of which need to be present (congregation, ritual, etc), simply based on belief/thought it becomes harder.

I can understand the perspective that true progress is not really possible - as exemplified by some of Gray's work - but it can hardly be questioned that overall things have got better for the vast majority in most ways - their wealth, the likelihood of reasonable justice, the freedoms they can enjoy, the ability to communicate with virtually all wherever they live, sexual freedoms, etc. - such that it is not necessarily an aim in itself but it has occurred. I certainly have seen plenty of progress in my lifetime, and I'm grateful for such.

I, personally, differentiate between religious and religious-type. So I wouldn't say Secular Humanism was a religion, but I would say it had numerous religious-type beliefs (as do all secular ideologies).

These are just beliefs that can't be objectively proven true via the unbiased use of reason, yet are fundamentally important to one's worldview. Could call them foundational axioms, guiding narratives, core myths, ideological fundamentals or something of that ilk.

One problem is that many atheists hold terms like faith, myth, belief, religious-type to be pejorative, I don't think they should be so sensitive in this regard as they are just inescapable aspects of our human cognition.

As I've mentioned no doubt, I do see much relevance in Buddhism, and often this (or some forms) is regarded more like a philosophy of life than a religious belief, and perhaps Secular Humanism could be seen as much the same. I tend towards pragmatism in general and rarely would I thus say - yes, I belong to that group. Essentially I have been left-orientated all my life, for example, but view Corbyn as the worst thing to have happened for Labour - because I can't see a good outcome of his efforts and his followers.

Perhaps something to differentiate a religion from anything else would be - would I go to war to defend my belief - I wouldn't. But I would fight to not have a religion imposed on me.