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

[scott777]

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.

 

[sayak83]

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.

Or it may actually have a purpose. Like loving and rearing your child, or saving for a world trip etc.

 

[danieldemol]

Faith is not needed to live, but some of us perceive God and will have faith regardless of some inherent survival need.

 

[Augustus]

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.

Many irreligious people have an almost pathological aversion to terms like religion and faith because it clashes horribly with their sense of self-identity. In general though, they do indeed rely on faith and some kind of analogue of 'religious' thinking.

The defining characteristic of the human species is our need to make sense of the world via myths (some get offended by this word, so stories or narratives can replace it if preferable).

Modern Rationalists often like to think that they have moved beyond such silly and primitive stories and are bold enough to see the world as it really is, free of comforting mythology. This though is just another comforting myth.

A common modern creed, Secular Humanism, relies on 'religious type' stories such as The Idea of Progress, the myth of human rationality, universalism/Humanity, and human exceptionalism among others.

Others will not follow a 'brand name' ideology, yet will still make meaning of the world around them via subjective myths that underpin (or perhaps explain post facto) their values, identity and motivations.

So we all create narratives of meaning and put our 'faith' in these despite having no reason to believe they are 'objectively' true.

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.

Living in the hope is still following a narrative. Certainty is not needed to underpin ones worldview.

 

[Revoltingest]

Faith...never had it, never needed it.
Nearly every day, I get up & do whatever I want.
On the days I do something I dislike, it's still my choice.
Works for me.
But not for everyone.

 

[scott777]

Or it may actually have a purpose. Like loving and rearing your child, or saving for a world trip etc.

By purpose, I'm referring to ultimate purpose. The point being, a purpose in your life and your childrens' lives and so on.

 

[scott777]

Many irreligious people have an almost pathological aversion to terms like religion and faith because it clashes horribly with their sense of self-identity. In general though, they do indeed rely on faith and some kind of analogue of 'religious' thinking.

The defining characteristic of the human species is our need to make sense of the world via myths (some get offended by this word, so stories or narratives can replace it if preferable).

Modern Rationalists often like to think that they have moved beyond such silly and primitive stories and are bold enough to see the world as it really is, free of comforting mythology. This though is just another comforting myth.

A common modern creed, Secular Humanism, relies on 'religious type' stories such as The Idea of Progress, the myth of human rationality, universalism/Humanity, and human exceptionalism among others.

Others will not follow a 'brand name' ideology, yet will still make meaning of the world around them via subjective myths that underpin (or perhaps explain post facto) their values, identity and motivations.

So we all create narratives of meaning and put our 'faith' in these despite having no reason to believe they are 'objectively' true.



Living in the hope is still following a narrative. Certainty is not needed to underpin ones worldview.

But as I say in my analogy: is it really faith? Would you call going for a job interview 'faith' or just rational consideration of two possibilities and catering for both?


Having faith in a job interview would be very different from faith in a god, to the degree that perhaps they should not be confused.


'Following a narrative' is about as ambiguous as you could get. What does it mean?

 

[scott777]

Faith...never had it, never needed it.
Nearly every day, I get up & do whatever I want.
On the days I do something I dislike, it's still my choice.
Works for me.
But not for everyone.

The question would still be: why do you do whatever you want? To what end?

 

[Revoltingest]

The question would still be: why do you do whatever you want? To what end?

The better question....
Why not do whatever you want?
I have many goals & things of interest.
To pursue them is a wonderful end in itself.

 

[Jumi]

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.

I guess he's never heard of Taoism or a variety of other ways of thinking that are either more primitive and natural or surpass the problem.

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.

Of course it's possible. In fact it's easy, but you can't be compelled to some "greater" cause. I put greater in quotes, because often times those greater causes are bad for us, bad for humanity.

 

[Augustus]

'Following a narrative' is about as ambiguous as you could get. What does it mean?

Religions commonly have (at least) 2 components: a ritualistic one and a mythological/philosophical/ideological/narrative one.

So a Christian might subscribe to a narrative that Jesus died for our sins and through faith in Christ and a life lived according to Christian values they would be ensuring themselves a place in paradise.

Non-religious people also have mythological/philosophical/ideological/narrative components to their worldview though.

A 20th C Marxist might have subscribed to a narrative that the forces of History are inexorably progressing towards socialism which will be delivered by the proletariat seizing control of the means of production.

A Secular Humanist might subscribe to a narrative that, due to our shared humanity, we have a duty of care to all people of the world. By promoting a naturalistic philosophy and relying on science and reason, we can solve the major problems of the human condition via melioristic progress.

A 19th C Russian Nihilist might have believed that science has disproved old dogmas and violence was an effective method of sweeping away the entrenched interests of state and religion that could lead to a more rational anarchistic society

Narratives are how we make sense of a meaningless world, they explain why things are as they are and how things ought to be or perhaps how we out you act.

But as I say in my analogy: is it really faith? Would you call going for a job interview 'faith' or just rational consideration of two possibilities and catering for both?


Having faith in a job interview would be very different from faith in a god, to the degree that perhaps they should not be confused.

Personally, I don't see the complexities of human existence as being even remotely analogous to a job interview.

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.

 

[sayak83]

By purpose, I'm referring to ultimate purpose. The point being, a purpose in your life and your childrens' lives and so on.

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

 

[LuisDantas]

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

 

[Mock Turtle]

I agree that Peterson has a lot of good things to say, but I also disagree on his views regarding religious beliefs, He seems to give too much value to religions just as John Gray does, and Gray probably has the better mind - but then he is a philosopher rather than a psychologist. There is a world of difference in my view between anything non-religious people choose as meaning and the many religious types. We tend to have to work out our thinking for ourselves without being told what to think or do. Obviously we tend to get our information, evidence, and reasoning from all sorts of places, but it still boils down to what makes sense rather than 'having faith' because someone in apparent authority tells one that is so.

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

 

[Altfish]

Jordan Peterson has lost the plot. He is all word salad, redefying terms to suit his argument and using long words and complex phrases to baffle his listeners/opponents. The last bit I think he learnt of William Lane Craig.

 

[jonathan180iq]

By purpose, I'm referring to ultimate purpose. The point being, a purpose in your life and your childrens' lives and so on.

I think it's the same issue.

Following a purpose that we like, or that seems natural to us is the same thing as following a purpose that we are taught, like religion. The drivers and motivators are the same, which is Peterson's argument.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I've read and listened to a lot of Peterson, and Campbell before him.
As an admitted Atheist, I don't think these guys are wrong.

 

[stvdv]

29 jun 2018 stvdv 014 12

Obviously we tend to get our information, evidence, and reasoning from all sorts of places, but it still boils down to what makes sense rather than 'having faith' because someone in apparent authority tells one that is so

For me "it makes sense" to "have faith". So maybe afterall not so much difference. For you "it makes sense" to "not have faith when told so".
Good to see that it "makes sense" for both of us. Advaita taught me that "it makes sense" to "have faith" in myself. And that felt good. So I accept this.

Hypothetically speaking: If you believe in yourself, then in a weird way you "have faith in yourself". Correct? If not so, then don't read on. If so, then I have also faith in you, if I trust you a lot. I know you are scientific, always nice on the forum. So it makes sense to have faith in you IMO. So I "have faith" because you, as outside authority tell me. But only because I have a good feeling about you in the first place.

So for me "it makes sense" to "have faith" if "person feels really good to me". As long as my trust is not broken, I "have faith". Boils down to "feeling"

 

[stvdv]

29 jun 2018 stvdv 014 13

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

For me "it makes sense" to "have faith" if "person feels really good to me". As long as my trust is not broken, I "have faith". Boils down to "feeling"
It all comes down to "have faith" in my own "feeling". If someone imposes and it feels bad I trash it. If it feels good I cherish it. Feeling is my Key.

Before certain people start debating "Feeling". I don't talk about 'lust", nor "shallow feelings". Conscience !

 

[Augustus]

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

In your bio you mention 'personal understanding', why do you see this as being important?

How would you describe your worldview/guiding ideology?

Jordan Peterson has lost the plot. He is all word salad, redefying terms to suit his argument and using long words and complex phrases to baffle his listeners/opponents. The last bit I think he learnt of William Lane Craig.

Why do you consider Secular Humanism to be a virtuous ideology? On what grounds do you base the idea that we have a duty to all of Humanity?