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

[scott777]

Of course it's possible. In fact it's easy, but you can't be compelled to some "greater" cause.

Easy for who? Maybe you. But maybe not for everyone.

 

[scott777]

Faith in secular myth is just as much faith as is faith in religious myths though, you still need to invent certain axioms on which to ground your worldview.

I'm not even sure you can differentiate a 'religious' ideology from a non-religious one in a particularly meaningful manner.

I think I agree, but being non-religious can also mean having no ideology, whereas religions seem to be defined by some form of ideology.

 

[scott777]

I do not understand the concept of ultimate purpose. What makes one purpose ultimate and another purpose proximate?

You need not differentiate between ultimate and proximate. How about between 'purpose of your own life' and 'purpose of all your descendants for a million years'. Don't you require the latter?

 

[scott777]

The idea that "faith" is necessary to have a purpose is, quite simply, very mistaken. It is sort of obvious really.

I agree that it isn't necessary, but not that it's at all obvious. Why so obvious?

 

[scott777]

No doubt in my mind that religious belief is totally unnecessary - for those able to exist without such.

This makes an important point - which Peterson points out - that perhaps not everyone can live without it, and he worries what consequences might be if the world suddenly lost it's religion.

 

[scott777]

It appears that you are using a different definition of "faith" then the person you are analyzing. Hence the disconnect.

Your subject appears to be using the words "kind of" for a reason. It appears that by "kind of religion or faith" he is meaning a system of values and meaning. There's probably a better word he could have used.

I'm not sure 'a system of values and meaning' is any less ambiguous.

 

[scott777]

From a simple biological perspective, I don't think it is possible for a being not to see at least some point in getting up and going about each day's work of survival. If anything, I feel it is the human intellect that has allowed any of us to philosophically worm our way out from under that single, simple inborn drive - the desire to continue living.

But it's not only biology that determines out thoughts. Millions of people suffer from depression, for example, and would disagree about there being a point.

 

[scott777]

the motivation for moral progress is hard-wired into our brains.

But a sense of purpose is not hard-wired into our brains.

 

[scott777]

There isn't a person on the planet who KNOWS that God exists, or that there is an afterlife, or that life has a purpose. All any of us do is hope there is, believe there is...have faith that there is.

That doesn't sound like the 'faith' that many religious people have. They have a conviction.

 

[scott777]

How could we know the ultimate purpose of our existence?

That's the point of faith. It's about having a conviction about a purpose, in spite of absence of reason.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree that it isn't necessary, but not that it's at all obvious. Why so obvious?

Many (arguably the main) things that provide motivation are very down-to-earth.

 

[scott777]

For evolution to occur, life has to be on the scene already.

That statement requires a very precise definition of life. It's like saying: in order for an adult man to exist, he must have always existed. But of course we know that there is no precise point at which a child becomes an adult.

 

[scott777]

People can give life whatever purpose they choose.

Not really. Can you choose balancing a ball on your nose as your purpose in life?

 

[scott777]

Many (arguably the main) things that provide motivation are very down-to-earth.

But whatever motivates you might not motivate someone else.

 

[Mock Turtle]

This makes an important point - which Peterson points out - that perhaps not everyone can live without it, and he worries what consequences might be if the world suddenly lost it's religion.

I think he worries too much over this, but of course I can't really place myself in the minds of all others here. From my travels, just anecdotal really, people seem to be much the same and tend to behave much the same unless they do have some particular rather regulated approach to life and usually coming from a religious belief. So perhaps the removal of religion would also break down some barriers. Few would argue that religions in general don't divide as well as provide support.

 

[Augustus]

I think I agree, but being non-religious can also mean having no ideology, whereas religions seem to be defined by some form of ideology.

Everyone has an ideology whether they realise it or not.

Ideologies are how we explain to ourselves how things should be and what things are desirable or detestable. Someone with no ideology would have no ethics, principles or values.

 

[sayak83]

You need not differentiate between ultimate and proximate. How about between 'purpose of your own life' and 'purpose of all your descendants for a million years'. Don't you require the latter?

No. Why would I? They are autonomous beings. They should live according to their own chosen purposes and goals.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

I'd probably do better if faith and religion were not around.

 

[LuisDantas]

But whatever motivates you might not motivate someone else.

Clearly.

Notably, it appears that some people are frozen by thoughts of fear of mortality.

 

[joe1776]

But a sense of purpose is not hard-wired into our brains.

I explained my comment. You say I'm wrong while offering no reason. Do you have a reason to reject my explanation?