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

[ecco]

New and exciting is not the goal.

You posted...

Trailblazer said: ↑
God is not alive because God is not a biological entity. God is the uncreated. God and His Creation have always existed​

I was merely pointing out that man created god myths long before organized religions (like yours) came along.

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.

 

[scott777]

Why not? Many people feel that their purpose in life is to be the best darn (fill-in-the-blank) that they can possibly be. I suppose that there might be SOMEONE out there who feels the their purpose in life is to become the best Nose Balancing Expert EVER.

Why is it so difficult for you to imagine that people might have different purposes in their lives than you do?

I'm just not sure you could call it purpose, but it's semantics.

 

[ecco]

That statement requires a very precise definition of life. But of course we know that there is no precise point at which a child becomes an adult.

I completely agree with the premise and find your analogy to be excellent.

Some years ago I came across an article that reflected on the many definitions of "life" there are. Certainly science does not have an all encompassing definition.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's a good distinction - but i'd say belief in a god is very close to blind faith. I can't see any element of reason.

It is not blind faith if one has good evidence that God exists. Nobody can ever prove that God exists but if we have good evidence then that is proof to us. It does not really matter what other people believe.

As for purpose, what's your best reason?

The best reason to think we have a purpose is that everything in creation has a purpose to exist.
If God created humans, it only makes logical sense that God is the one who knows the purpose for which we were created.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I'm just not sure you could call it purpose, but it's semantics.

You may not and I may not, but all that really matters is what the person in question calls it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

How can you be sure?

It wasn't around at the start of my life.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

"God is not alive "

Sorry, the above is incorrect, please.
Regards

 

[ecco]

It is not blind faith if one has good evidence that God exists.

What would that good evidence be?

If God created humans, it only makes logical sense that God is the one who knows the purpose for which we were created.

Reword your statement...
If man created gods, it only makes logical sense that man is the one who knows the purpose for which gods were created.

And he did and we do.

Man created gods as an answer questions that could not, at the time, be answered. GodDidIt was a better answer than IDunno. Not a correct answer, but, nevertheless, a better answer, at least from the standpoint of the person responding to a difficult question. Have you ever heard a Leader say IDunno?

 

[Trailblazer]

I think the vast majority of the world's religious people have a conviction. 'Belief' is very ambiguous.

I disagree. I think the vast majority of religious people in the world believe with little conviction. If they really believed in God, they would not live the way they do, for self and the material world pleasures. If they really believed in God, they would live for God and follow God's teachings and Laws. If most religious people followed God's teachings and Laws everyone in the world would live in harmony and unity. Obviously that is not the case so we can draw the logical conclusions.

 

[Trailblazer]

I was merely pointing out that man created god myths long before organized religions (like yours) came along.
Nothing new or exciting here.

There was no time when religion did not exist because God has sent Messengers to earth ever since humanity has existed. The religions that existed might not have been organized like they are now, but they have always existed in some form. Man did not create those religions, God revealed them. Thus they were not myths.

 

[Trailblazer]

"God is not alive "

Sorry, the above is incorrect, please.
Regards

What do you mean by alive? How is God alive?
If you mean God exists, I can agree with that.
But God is not a biological entity such as a man.

 

[Trailblazer]

What would that good evidence be?

The Messengers God sends.

Reword your statement...
If man created gods, it only makes logical sense that man is the one who knows the purpose for which gods were created.

That would be true, but only if God does not exist.

And he did and we do.
Man created gods as an answer questions that could not, at the time, be answered. GodDidIt was a better answer than IDunno. Not a correct answer, but, nevertheless, a better answer, at least from the standpoint of the person responding to a difficult question. Have you ever heard a Leader say IDunno?

How do you know man created gods to answer difficult questions?
Maybe God exists, but we still do not have all the answers to those difficult questions.

 

[paarsurrey]

What do you mean by alive? How is God alive?
If you mean God exists, I can agree with that.
But God is not a biological entity such as a man.

The opposite of alive is dead, is that one wants to say, please?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

What would that good evidence be?

Reword your statement...
If man created gods, it only makes logical sense that man is the one who knows the purpose for which gods were created.

And he did and we do.

Man created gods as an answer questions that could not, at the time, be answered. GodDidIt was a better answer than IDunno. Not a correct answer, but, nevertheless, a better answer, at least from the standpoint of the person responding to a difficult question. Have you ever heard a Leader say IDunno?

"Man created gods"
Please name the "man" who created G-d with evidences. Right, please?
Regards

 

[joe1776]

If you're referring to reward and punishment, the reason is that people don't automatically behave with the same morality that you do. So that's evidence that it's not hard-wired. What evidence is there that it is hard-wired? If it were, how do you explain the Nazis, for example? Or the extermination of Native Americans?

Conscience is a moral guide. It punishes bad behavior and rewards good behavior. That's hard-wired. Over the long term, it is training our species to make moral progress.

But whether we choose to follow our conscience or not is a matter of free will. That explains the Nazis, and all the other examples of bad behavior you can think of.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

Could you cite specific examples/videos of him discussing this? As far as I know he's an atheist-leaning agnostic.

 

[paarsurrey]

Conscience is a moral guide. It punishes bad behavior and rewards good behavior. That's hard-wired. Over the long term, it is training our species to make moral progress.

But whether we choose to follow our conscience or not is a matter of free will. That explains the Nazis, and all the other examples of bad behavior you can think of.

How and who created the human conscience, please?

Regards

 

[sayak83]

They are not autonomous until you have given them life. So the question of purpose is still relevant. Generally, is there a purpose of living, and propagating life? That's closer to 'ultimate purpose' that you say you cannot conceive of.

My giving them life will be because I wish to experience the joys of being a parent. That in no way determines the purposes they will choose to pursue in their own lives as they gain adulthood. Further, some may decide not to be a parent as well, as they will have goals different from mine.
There are 7 billion human lives, and hence 7 billion different purposes of living that specific human life. For example, currently mine is teaching and researching energy science to mitigate the effects of pollution and global warming. I believe the purpose of the soccer team players is to win the World Cup, etc.

 

[dianaiad]

That's a whole can of worms. Philosophers have asked questions about 'absolute knowledge' for a long time. How do you know your knowledge is absolute? IMO, there's no such thing.

Perhaps 'practically absolute,' or 'good enough for who it's for' absolute, or 'macro' absolute as opposed to micro-absolute and arguing about Schrödinger's cat. I don't think we need to put specific religious opinions such as 'is there/is there not a God' and is He precisely the way I claim He is" quite on that level. It's fun to argue about, though, in a 'let's meet in the library after dinner and see if we can out jargon the professors and make each other think we are considerably more intelligent than we really are,' sort of way.

Not that *I* don't think we'll eventually have to start seriously thinking about that, individually, but I'll give it a few thousand years or so to work up to it, personally.

 

[dianaiad]

Why not? Many people feel that their purpose in life is to be the best darn (fill-in-the-blank) that they can possibly be. I suppose that there might be SOMEONE out there who feels the their purpose in life is to become the best Nose Balancing Expert EVER.

Why is it so difficult for you to imagine that people might have different purposes in their lives than you do?

y'know, that's interesting. Suppose someone's purpose in life IS to become the best nose balancing expert EVER? What does that MEAN, exactly?

Why, how would this famous nose balancer know he was the world's best, ever, unless he could compare his talents against those of all the other balancer of noses in the world? Where would he get that information?

..........why, from the words and stories of others who paid attention to those who balanced noses, of course. Perhaps there is a Guiness World Record category for nose balancing. That's how he would know; he could compare his abilities to those of others who are thought to be the worlds best. Then he would know.

Then what?

Well, if all he wanted to do was to know, HIMSELF, that he was the very best, then he could simply do nothing. Of course, then he would have to get a bit obsessive about checking all those sources to make sure no other nose balancer was creeping up behind him, with better noses, or more of them, or something.

That's a bit tiresome.

OK, the other thing he could do is go show off his talents and become known to OTHERS that he is the best nose balancer in the world. Then he could sit back and relax and let others try to beat him. He'd be famous already. Remembered...no matter what, he'd be remembered for some very special accomplishment. Even if someone eventually beats his record, he'll be remembered. That is a sort of immortality, to be forever remembered as the world's best balancer of noses, right? That's quite a powerful reason for living, seems to me, immortality.

...........