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

[MonkeyFire]

I have to agree, though it doesn't necessarily mean modern civilized humans still need it.

Faith is "how."

 

[Mock Turtle]

Suppose you could use either, but I'd personally stick to ideology otherwise you have to use different words to describe the same thing which risks people thinking they are two different phenomena one of which is better than the other ('You have an ideology, but I have a philosophy').

Ideology is another term that is mistaken as pejorative and many people think they are not affected by the kind of ideological biases that affect others. This is cognitively impossible, although some are better at mitigating them than others. .

I'll stick with philosophy then.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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

He talks about this in his book, 12 Rules for Life. Sorry I can't quote passages - I'm a little incapacitated at the moment (wheelchair-bound), so not inclined to do much over necessity.

 

[Jumi]

Easy for people to live without any faith? Since time immemorial?

Of course. Humans didn't start out with any faith. We had tribal and family units that people lived for.

 

[joe1776]

How and who created the human conscience, please?

Regards

I don't know but we're born with it. It's not something we are taught.

 

[Augustus]

I'll stick with philosophy then.

Fair enough.

What do you have against the term ideology btw?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Fair enough.

What do you have against the term ideology btw?

Seems too concrete a term for me when I'm not really that certain about much, other than having a loose outlook on life and how one should behave, that hopefully causes less harms to others or oneself whilst allowing as much as possible.

 

[scott777]

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.

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.

I've never seen any good evidence.

How do you know everything in creation has a purpose to exist?

 

[scott777]

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

I guess you mean 'around you'. But around your country or the world, that might be very different.

 

[scott777]

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.

That depends on the individual definition of God.I think most have a conviction in 'something' higher, more perfect, more powerful than themselves. None of that specifically determines the way they live. It sounds like you are taking your own interpretation of God and then pointing out it's flaws.

 

[scott777]

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.

I see your point. Perhaps conscience is, but purpose is harder to explain. As I say, people can lose this sense of purpose, and I see no evidence of that being hard-wired. Purpose requires reason, which is a higher function.

 

[scott777]

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

I'm afraid I'm not too sure, because I've seen a lot. He certainly implies it in his discussion with Matt Dillahunty,

but it's a general thing that I've noticed about him. But it doesn't matter too much, because the question of whether there is any sense of 'faith' that people need to live, is still interesting.

 

[scott777]

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.

So you're saying for you it's about pleasure, the joy of children. But that doesn't address the need for purpose. Some people would ask: what is the purpose of seeking that pleasure?

 

[scott777]

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.

Even at the macro-level, you have already put that into question. You mention the sun and it's visual delay. So the limitation of light itself causes uncertainty (is the sun still burning right now?) But everything we see depends on light. The same problems occur with all out senses. We are dependent on the accuracy of our senses.

 

[scott777]

Of course. Humans didn't start out with any faith. We had tribal and family units that people lived for.

That goes against everything I've learnt about history. Throughout civilization, faith must have existed, being the basis of religion. So how do you know we didn't always have faith?

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
How and who created the human conscience, please?

Regards

I don't know but we're born with it. It's not something we are taught.

Generally or commonly it is understood like mentioned below:
(after Delacroix).
Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment that assists in distinguishing right from wrong. Moral judgment may derive from values or norms (principles and rules). In psychological terms conscience is often described as leading to feelings of remorse when a human commits actions that go against his/her moral values and to feelings of rectitude or integrity when actions conform to such norms.[1] The extent to which conscience informs moral judgment before an action and whether such moral judgments are or should be based in reasonhas occasioned debate through much of the history of Western philosophy.[2]

Religious views of conscience usually see it as linked to a morality inherent in all humans, to a beneficent universe and/or to divinity. The diverse ritualistic, mythical, doctrinal, legal, institutional and material features of religion may not necessarily cohere with experiential, emotive, spiritual or contemplative considerations about the origin and operation of conscience.[3] Common secular or scientific views regard the capacity for conscience as probably genetically determined, with its subject probably learned or imprinted (like language) as part of a culture.[4]

Commonly used metaphors for conscience include the "voice within", the "inner light",[5] or even Socrates' reliance on what the Greeks called his "daimōnic sign", an averting (ἀποτρεπτικός apotreptikos) inner voice heard only when he was about to make a mistake. Conscience, as is detailed in sections below, is a concept in national and international law,[6] is increasingly conceived of as applying to the world as a whole,[7]has motivated numerous notable acts for the public good[8] and been the subject of many prominent examples of literature, music and film.[9]
Conscience - Wikipedia

But correct concept is explained in the truthful Word. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Mock Turtle]

That goes against everything I've learnt about history. Throughout civilization, faith must have existed, being the basis of religion. So how do you know we didn't always have faith?

I don't know how far back you are considering, but it is obvious (to some of us) that proto-humans will have at one time just accepted their condition without suppositions as to external agents - which is almost certainly where religious beliefs have been founded. Or are you only considering a certain portion of our past?

 

[joe1776]

I see your point. Perhaps conscience is, but purpose is harder to explain. As I say, people can lose this sense of purpose, and I see no evidence of that being hard-wired. Purpose requires reason, which is a higher function.

As I wrote earlier, we can say that evolution has given our species a moral direction if the word "purpose" is a problem for you. Nevertheless, moral progress, becoming a better human being, gives our lives greater meaning.

As for reason being a higher function, I suggest you consider the fact that moral philosophers have tried to use their precious reason to come up with an ethical system to replace the intuition of conscience for about three centuries with nothing useful to show for their effort.

 

[joe1776]

But correct concept is explained in the truthful Word. Right, please?

If by "truthful Word" you mean the sacred text of religion, I don't think so. Those works are products of the reasoning minds of men. In my opinion, they are useless at best and misleading at their worst in offering moral guidance.

Conscience may be the best evidence that a Loving Creator exists. However, at the same time, it is evidence that those sacred texts were not inspired by God.

I agree with about 50% of the article you quoted. Here's something for you to consider:

From the New York Times: "According to Yale psychologist Paul Bloom, humans are born with a hard-wired morality. A deep sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. His research shows that babies and toddlers can judge the goodness and badness of others' actions; they want to reward the good and punish the bad; they act to help those in distress; they feel guilt, shame, pride, and righteous anger."

 

[ecco]

ecco
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.

Your comment is, naturally, based on your myths. Outside of your myths, there is no evidence to substantiate your comments.

• Do you have evidence for Messengers?
• Were these Messengers in human form?
• Are they the ones who told the ancient Norse that a God caused lightning and thunder?
• Are they the ones who convinced the Zulu that Unkulunkulu created the earth?
• Are they the ones who convinced the Inca that Viracocha created the earth and required human sacrifice?