Jordan Peterson's Views on Atheism: Unpacking the Arguments
Written on
Chapter 1: Introduction to Peterson's Atheistic Critique
In a recent dialogue on the podcast "Pints with Aquinas," hosted by Matt Fradd, Jordan Peterson provided his insights on atheism. When asked about the strongest argument supporting atheism, he paused and concluded, “I don’t think there’s a compelling argument for atheism,” citing it as a misinterpretation of the world’s nature.
This paragraph will result in an indented block of text, typically used for quoting other text.
Section 1.1: The Nature of Belief
Later in their extensive conversation, Fradd pressed Peterson on his belief in God. Peterson evaded a direct answer, stating he "acts as if God exists," which he argued raises questions about the meaning of "belief." Fradd challenged Peterson by suggesting that "belief" simply means to think, leading to a discussion about whether Peterson considers it "likely true" that a creator sustains the universe.
Peterson, visibly uncomfortable, deferred the question, claiming it was fundamentally misplaced. Thus, while he negates the validity of atheism, he simultaneously refrains from affirming a belief in a deity, presenting a paradox in his stance.
Subsection 1.1.1: Misinterpretations of Atheism
Photo by Gage Skidmore, on Flickr
Section 1.2: Peterson's Tone and Perspective
Throughout the podcast, Peterson maintained a tone that was not only sarcastic but also condescending, even towards a fellow Christian. His authoritative demeanor revealed a frustration with dissenting views, despite his limited expertise in philosophy and religion. This authoritarian tendency clouds his reasoning.
Chapter 2: Atheism as a Cognitive Default
In his dialogue with Fradd, Peterson likens atheism to an "illegal chess move," claiming that arguing against theism inherently embodies an atheistic perspective. He posits that religious belief transcends mere acceptance of facts; it embodies a commitment to a way of life.
In the video "Jordan Peterson - The Problem With Atheism," Peterson elaborates on his perspective, which challenges the very foundations of atheistic arguments.
Section 2.1: Historical Context of Theism
Peterson's misconceptions about atheism stem from a lack of historical context. The New Testament, for example, presupposes theism as a given in ancient societies, a stark contrast to the contemporary understanding shaped by scientific advancements. Thus, the question of God's existence becomes more pressing today than in earlier epochs.
Section 2.2: The Shift in Philosophical Inquiry
As modern knowledge of nature’s indifference evolved, the assumption of theism as the default belief began to erode. The shift prompted critical inquiries into the existence of God, which were not as necessary in ancient times.
In the video "There's NO Good Argument for Atheism w/ Jordan Peterson," Peterson addresses some of these critical philosophical challenges.
Chapter 3: Peterson's Conflation of Morality and Order
Peterson’s arguments often conflate divine moral order with human societal structures. He asserts that disobeying God's commands leads to disorder, a notion that reflects his authoritarian view of morality.
Section 3.1: The Moral Order Debate
Here lies a critical contradiction: If God's creation is perfect, as suggested by the Garden of Eden narrative, why do humans create a secondary order that opposes nature? This raises questions about which moral framework holds true: God’s or humanity's.
Photo by Gage Skidmore, on Flickr
Section 3.2: The Nature of Civilization vs. Wilderness
Peterson’s reliance on a rigid moral order often overlooks the complexities of human nature and societal evolution. The dichotomy he presents between civilization and the wilderness presents a flawed understanding of morality.
In conclusion, while Peterson aims to advocate for a moral framework grounded in theism, his arguments often reflect a deeper confusion about the nature of belief, atheism, and the role of scientific understanding in shaping moral values. His inability to commit to a belief in God while critiquing atheism ultimately reveals the contradictions in his philosophical stance.
Image by Sammy-Sander from Pixabay