Mims Zanadunstedt, I’ve read your critical thinking. You made the effort I asked for and therefore you deserve my try at this game.
You wrote « Everyone has flaw, to not find flaw and to exclaim their accuracy is ignorant ». Peterson answers you by saying in a very credible way that he considers the world as being half order and half chaos. His chaos is when you don’t know what to do. He clearly accepts flaws as inherent to the human being. You’re falling into line here. You and Peterson have flaws. Peterson calls it chaos. Admitting it as a part of reality is an impressive achievement. He puts me in front of my flaws and tells me to carry on. In short, your sentence does not apply to anybody here.
You wrote « …studies show atheists are less violent than christians for starters… » I double the Sean Moran’s question « What studies ? » Mao Dze Dong, Stalin and Lenin were atheists. Their violence waits to be surpassed. 80 millions deaths only for the big leap forward of Mao. The Christian violence against witches has been grossly overestimated. I have two points telling me that your studies are dubious. I repeat the question « What studies ? »
At 1:01:33, Peterson got the question « What do you mean by God ? If humanity ceased to exist would God still exists ? » His answer goes along he doesn’t know how to answer that. The situation is too hypothetical. He answers the first question by saying the concept is not « boxable ». You can’t put God into a box. That’s a sensible answer to me if you believe in God. If you don’t, God is just a figment of some people’s imagination. Any answer will do the job. He doesn’t answer the second, only said that reality would disappear without conscious beings. That’s new to me. Reality results in the interaction between the material world and my consciousness. It take it as true. I can’t fathom reality without being conscious of it. In short, Peterson answers to the questions by saying what he knows, what he believes and he accepts being with a limited knowledge of the universe. He refuses to go outside what he knows. To me it looks like somebody knowing he has a lot to discover in that direction, he admits the job is not done. If that’s foolish, I’m willing to be such a fool.
You wrote « … he cannot explain phenomena outside his worldview. » Ok, I can’t either. For you, just an example, explain me the dogma of the virginal birth of Jesus Christ by Mary the Virgin. I think it’s outside your box because you wrote « … studies show atheists are less violent than christians » and it’s a christian dogma. Answer it and you’ll prove that you can think outside the box. (I won’t take a copy paste as a proof. )
Your quotation of the principal of action-reaction from Newton is false. Any force does not need and equal and opposite force. Any force provoques and equal and opposite force when the considered body stay in equilibrium. For instance when you sit on a chair, your body applies a force on the chair and it applies an equal and opposite on you or the chair would be moving. The chair is in equilibrium since it doesn’t move. You forgot to write about that condition. The Einstein’s equation E=mc^2 has nothing to do with creation or destruction of matter. It’s the connection between those two faces of the same entity. By the way, I’d like you to tell me what’s energy ? You know the definition thing that applies to every form of energy. I never ever saw it but illustrations of situations where energy is acting. I dont know anything about the cosmological argument. I only can tell you that the universe is, according to Einstein, infinite in 3 dimensions and finite in 4 without putting God into the equations. Have a look at them and tell me if you ever find God in it where.
You write that philosophers tend to ignore scientific laws to make their arguments. Ok, give me the scientific laws telling me who I am, where I go and why should I carry on with my life. I’m asking about the scientific laws allowing me an answer to these very basic questions. Try to put Einstein’s relativity in it, it would be great fun to me.
After that, you write a generality about sophistication bias and its religious consequences. You miss one point. No human being is conscious of the universe beyond earth. Each of them is conscious of his close surroundings. Outside that, you only have theories that could work. Those theories are human creations and they do not change the universe as it exists. They’re lenses that make the universe look more human. To me, it’s more like seeing a picture of a diamond and believe that trough that picture I’ll be able to recognise one when I see it. From experience, I tell you it’s wrong. Diamonds are surprisingly ugly when they’re raw.
Your idea of humanizing the universe by application of human consciousness to it is strange to say the least. It’s as if humans could force the universe to follow their will. It’s damn close to believing that any science is a social construct. With such an idea you could jump from a bridge believing that the gravitational laws don’t apply to you. That would be a suicide.
The price of this idea is a delusion of almightiness and a very hard experience of nihilism. Nothing is true or false, anything goes. Then truth does not exist.
Your appeal to science to build philosophy on scientific laws goes with it. That’s funny. If they are humanisations of the universe, they’re human constructions and can be deconstructed by scientific laws too. Anybody with an idea of the universe can come in, destroys others’ idea from his scientific laws and be destroyed by the first or another with the same kind of reasoning. That’s what I understand as deconstruction. Then why not deconstructing the deconstruction ?
Three consequences of that position, the first is that you do not need to be precise with your knowledge of your scientific laws. They’re human constructs to humanise the universe. Your laws are your identity in that sense. I can imagine other people gluing to you just to adhere to your universe. Second, many other scientific laws can be created, as many as people around. Third, you’ll have two options : first accept diversity of opinions (called here scientific laws) or fight to the death anybody defending his worldview as a correct one because of the first consequence.
That reminds me of some things I saw several times in action.
So, anything beyond the reach of your conscience reeks of religious belief. Complex answers are, for you, examples of it when you don’t understand why they’re given. Your sloppiness with scientific facts and the simplicity of the ones you quote tells me that you can’t imagine how complex science can be. Try to describe all properties of natural numbers as a starter. If Gödel is correct and I think he is (if that guy was stupid I wish I were that stupid), the number of them is infinite. It exists questions science can’t correctly answer and scientists know this. For instance, how do you pack random forms of rocks with a random size from a random law that can be found in every river with a varying speed of flow ? If you can, take a patent. Every oil company will buy it at a price you can’t even dream of. Those two examples tell you that science has questions beyond the grasp of the human brain.
I repeat my challenge to think outside the box with a religious question about the Virgin Mary. The greatness of Peterson is that he accepts as a fact that his knowledge of the universe is limited and there’s no chance that he gets all the correct answers. His « 12 rules for life » are way of dealing with that hard fact. He was asked a question he knew he hadn’t an answer and said so. It’s delusional to say otherwise. The most common delusion is an all-encompassing theory that will supposedly make everybody happy if applied. Some of that kind of delusions are religious and others are political. Communism is one of them. BTW, if you’re always able to say why somebody is saying something you’re in that delusion.
You can’t consider the human consciousness in your equation in the Peterson’s way. To observe anything, you have to be conscious of it. It will be blurry at first. Ideas will then pop out. In good days, it will rain ideas about what you’re conscious of. Then they will make sense. With sense, you have a construction of reality. Now, it has to be tested in the material world. When you’re succesful, you’ve reached the object you were aiming at. You’re on the fringe of reality. The scientific work about it can begin. Since chaos and order are present in any of its parts, it’s hard work to reach it and harder work to deal with it. You’ll never ever know something perfectly. Peterson admits it and defends his position. His opponents are too often functioning like computers. They’re equipped with an algorithm. Deciphered, that algorithm announces every possible answer the opponent can give. It’s then possible to counter theses answers and annihilate them with logic. Peterson destroys human dogmas created by self declared prophets of wisdom. Their « wisdom » could end with a general war announced in the last chapter of the bible. Their « wisdom » divides people in « communities ». The ones with strong belief will destroy the nihilistic ones. The remaining are in for a genocidal war. The winner will be so weak that I advise him to commit suicide.
That’s my take on critical thinking. You’ve not proven you superiority in the field. You can’t consider Peterson’s point of view. Your belief in sciences is poorly founded by your knowledge of it. I suspect that your reality is based upon an all encompassing theory, in other words, a totalitarian one. I wish this last point is wrong. I do doubt about the efficiency of wishful thinking.
Mots clefs : WW III, contradictions, front des esprits
Commentaires