Jordan Peterson Explains the Problem with Atheism

Here is a short video where Jordan Peterson explains the problem with atheism.  If you are pressed for time, the best part starts around 4 minutes, where Peterson explains why he is frustrated with Sam Harris’s faith in rationalism.

Of course, most atheists are likely to be defensive and reply with a laundry list of their talking points.  But all of that is noise (we’ll see an example of that in a future posting).  For we are now in a position where we have strong empirical evidence that Peterson is right – the postmodernist movement.

The postmodern movement is rooted in atheism.  As such, along with denying the existence of God, it also denies many of the universal principles that have long been part of what was once a theistic culture.  As I explained before,  the postmodern atheistic mindset has reverted to Id-based thinking, embracing the primitive urges of tribalism and formulating its infantile, emotion-based values in accord with the primitive sexual and aggression drives.

Further evidence of Peterson’s point is the manner in which the postmodern atheists are steamrolling the Enlightenment atheists.  In just a few years, the postmodernists destroyed the New Atheist movement and forced Dawkins and Harris to retreat into obscure corners of the internet.   This is because the postmodernists represent the dominant strain of atheism, largely because they downplay their atheism and emphasize the Id, allowing them more allies in various positions of power.

The postmodernists are currently in the process of cementing their control of academia.  And academia is what shapes our culture, through the “education” of our lawyers, our judges, our teachers, our politicians, our marketing agents, our human resource departments, our doctors, etc.

I suppose one of the personal advantages to living in the postChristian world is the ability to see more clearly that Christianity it true.  Despite all their acquired knowledge and accomplishments, humans, without God, naturally revert back to a primitive mindset without truly realizing it.  Which is precisely what we would expect to happen if Christianity is true.

I previously explained just how things will happen, an easy call since it’s merely a modest extrapolation from what is happening:

The Left was able to dispense with God and retain such universal principles only because of the inertia of the Judeo-Christian culture it found itself in.  But that inertia is dissipating. It was never sustainable.  So the Left is standing there insisting on universal principles in a reality that is nothing more than matter and energy. It speaks of  freedom, equality and justice, but the universe doesn’t care about such things.  With nothing to back up those claims, the postmodern Left simply takes the next logical step and insists those universal principles themselves are as delusional as God.  Without the Judeo-Christian cultural inertia, the Left naturally transforms into the postmodern Left.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in atheism, Jordan Peterson, post-modernism, Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Jordan Peterson Explains the Problem with Atheism

  1. mechanar says:

    the great Irony of atheism becoming anti reason or maybe it just comes together as it is supposed to be.

  2. It’s fashionable to bash the Roman Catholic Church, but one need not be an adherent of her to see she takes some pretty bold positions, which run counter not only to the prevailing culture, but the world in which the Church sprung up. As many questions as I have and as bold as her claims may seem, I honestly think the Catholic faith and most of Christendom see more in human beings than we see in ourselves. If that were gone, I think we should all act like barbarians.

  3. Ilíon says:

    Of course, most atheists are likely to be defensive and reply with a laundry list of their talking points. But all of that is noise …

    To put it another way, when some ‘atheist‘ objects to the valid-and-logical explication of the logical implications of atheism with something like, “I’m an ‘atheist’ and *I* don’t believe that X-Y-Z“, he’s blowing smoke, he is asserting an “unprincipled exception” (*) in an attempt to derail said explication.

    (*) An “unprincipled exception” is exactly what the term says: one is asserting that there exists some exception to the logical conclusion of an act of reasoning — and thus, asserting that one has invalidated the reasoning — but one *does not* ground the asserted exception in any principle, such that the asserted exception (and invalidation) is freely/openly discoverable by others. In effect, “You’re wrong because *I* say you’re wrong.

  4. TFBW says:

    I shared this very clip with a Russian co-worker of mine who is partial to Sam Harris’ views. He and I have regular and robust lunchtime discussions about such things, and I introduced him to Jordan Peterson a little while back. He was impressed with Peterson in general, but thought that this was a particularly terrible extract. It made no sense to him at all — and Crime and Punishment was high school reading material for him, although he didn’t think much of it.

    It turns out, however, that his negative reaction to the message came from an almost total failure to understand it. The message he understood, roughly speaking, was that people do bad things if you take away their religious foundations. No wonder he thought it was terrible! I tried to explain that he’d misunderstood, but it was staggeringly hard to explain to him the need for a transcendent foundation if we are to have objective moral facts. I felt like I made some progress in the end, though.

    My take-away: intelligent people can view this clip, yet misunderstand it completely and utterly. Communication is hard.

  5. Michael says:

    My take-away: intelligent people can view this clip, yet misunderstand it completely and utterly. Communication is hard.

    Has he ever read The Abolition of Man?

  6. TFBW says:

    By C. S. Lewis? No. Neither have I, for that matter, although I’ve seen enough references to it to have acquired a passing familiarity. Maybe I should knuckle down and read it.

  7. Doug says:

    Also recommended reading for those so inclined: The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse

  8. Michael says:

    TFBW, I read it a long time ago and will probably try to read it again. Consider this wiki description of something published in 1943:

    Lewis criticizes modern attempts to debunk “natural” values (such as those that would deny objective value to the waterfall) on rational grounds…..The final chapter describes the ultimate consequences of this debunking: a distant future in which the values and morals of the majority are controlled by a small group who rule by a “perfect” understanding of psychology, and who in turn, being able to “see through” any system of morality that might induce them to act in a certain way, are ruled only by their own unreflected whims. In surrendering rational reflection on their own motivations, the controllers will no longer be recognizably human, the controlled will be robot-like, and the Abolition of Man will have been completed.

  9. FZM says:

    It turns out, however, that his negative reaction to the message came from an almost total failure to understand it. The message he understood, roughly speaking, was that people do bad things if you take away their religious foundations. No wonder he thought it was terrible! I tried to explain that he’d misunderstood, but it was staggeringly hard to explain to him the need for a transcendent foundation if we are to have objective moral facts. I felt like I made some progress in the end, though.

    In the video Peterson is probably right that Harris, Dawkins et al. tend to assume the existence of moral facts with a transcendent foundation and don’t think much about it. I’ve always thought that their message was pretty moralistic and their critiques of religious belief had a strong moral basis and content.

    Again, as Peterson starts to point out, the problem with the kind of worldview they promote is that it removes any possibility of moral facts having a transcendent foundation and aught to foster moral scepticism. I think, besides their other commitments, they are strong nominalists and empiricists, and that provides more strong metaphysical reasons for moral scepticism as well.

    So the general result of their position is that morality ends up based only on emotion and subjective experience, but then they reintroduce a transcendent morality in covert, implicit ways, talking about Reason, Humanity, Progress etc. where these are concepts which are vehicles for strong moral ideals, intended to be applied in a normative way.

  10. Bob Roberts says:

    Peterson as I understand it is arguing that religion is the necessary underpinning of morality and he believes that Harris et al think that essentially nothing underpins morality. I say this because Peterson contrasts his own views with the idea that using pure logic would lead one to manipulate all circumstances for their own personal gain only, at the expense of others and presumably of moral behavior.

    Is there not another possibility though? We are not blank slates and machines, but rather human animals. Is it not our own long history as homo sapiens and even before that lays the foundation for our morality? Hasn’t our long history molded us into beings that understand the benefits of cooperation, “correct” ways of living, and strong bonds to other humans (which could be considered a proxy for much of what we call morality) lest we perish individually or as a group?

    I can’t help but feel that Peterson, who I respect, is taking a bit of a strawman approach and is discounting views that differ from his by failing to see other potential sources for morality beyond either religion or the abyss. We are human, and there might be some morality inherent in that alone.

  11. Michael says:

    Is there not another possibility though? We are not blank slates and machines, but rather human animals. Is it not our own long history as homo sapiens and even before that lays the foundation for our morality? Hasn’t our long history molded us into beings that understand the benefits of cooperation, “correct” ways of living, and strong bonds to other humans (which could be considered a proxy for much of what we call morality) lest we perish individually or as a group?

    I’d make one slight change: “Hasn’t our long history molded us into beings that understand the benefits of cooperation, “correct” ways of living, and strong bonds to other humans like us (which could be considered a proxy for much of what we call morality) lest we perish individually or as a group?”

    Rooting morality in evolution merely justifies tribalism. Check out my commentary on Peterson’s video above.

  12. Quite interesting to read you. I’m awed in the fact you used the term “judeo-christian inertia” I used that too. Keep up the good work!

  13. David Robertson says:

    Very interesting, I never thought about the idea of atheism breaking into two camps of post modernists and enlightenment influenced ones. Makes sense though, seeing so many bash Dawkins and Harris these days. I always kinda saw through Dawkins anti-religion stuff, feeling as though he was always strawmanning religion, but how he’s being bombarded by PC nonsense these days is a bit overboard

  14. riendf says:

    Peterson is right on a number of thing but he is dead wrong on atheism. And I suspect that he is afraid, very afraid to fall into what he accurately detected in many if not in the majority of scientist atheists: nihilism.
    And I can tell, cause I am both. And getting out of nihilism is hard. Very hard. Not because of atheism, but because society and humanity and science as we know ihas come to its last golden age ever, unless there are drastic changes that are incompatible with most people anyway, because of religion (believers are the worse when it comes to accept changes) to begin with.
    We are consuming the planet by both end.
    Peterson is not a scientist, and he can thus ignore the underlying reason scientist atheist are also nihilist (he does criticize the Meadows Report, as well, in one of his video).
    So sure he can find comfort in his god or whatever transcendance he speaks about..
    But for someone who is so rooted in truth…..on this point he is just…wrong. And therefore, not helping at all to save humanity from itself, while he definitely thinks the contrary.

  15. riendf says:

    Oh and to add some other mathematical notion, the game theory explains very well why cooperation is beneficial to society, instead of being an asshole. No need at all for any god or religion to understand that. It is math. The purest form of truth you will ever find.
    It also explains very well why assholes tends to have a free pass and undermine our societies nowadays, and it is anonymity. An asshole can go on for a long time without being spotted and ostracized thus being successful. Again, like the ecological problem we have, the problem comes with numbers. Too many of us.

    (whoever moderate can join my two posts)

  16. Michael says:

    And I can tell, cause I am both. And getting out of nihilism is hard. Very hard. Not because of atheism, but because society and humanity and science as we know ihas come to its last golden age ever, unless there are drastic changes that are incompatible with most people anyway, because of religion (believers are the worse when it comes to accept changes) to begin with.
    We are consuming the planet by both end.

    Please. Stop trying to use religion as some convenient scapegoat. The problem is, and always has been, human nature. Science merely amplified and empowered it. That’s why it doesn’t end well.

  17. Stephane says:

    >Please. Stop trying to use religion as some convenient scapegoat.

    Please stop denying the chilling effect religion has on the human mind. It just makes people stupid from the start. That is a large part of the population that then reach adulthood in a state of mind that is then impossible to reason with. Yes human nature is a problem, religion just increase it tenfolds. Just see the result in muslim (islam being the most backwards religion there is) countries…

    And to paraphrase you, religion amplify and empower stupid people in large numbers. Good for Jordan Peterson then. And you. You can then keep on going thinking you are doing no harm with your stupid ideologies…

  18. Kevin says:

    riendf: “because society and humanity and science as we know ihas come to its last golden age ever, unless there are drastic changes that are incompatible with most people anyway, because of religion (believers are the worse when it comes to accept changes) to begin with.”

    It’s not because of religion – it’s because of science.

    Whatever perceived end of society and humanity you are talking about is due entirely to science. Every single environmental disaster, every single military threat, all are due to scientific advancements. Our current consumerism, society’s insistence upon acquiring more and more material goods, is not only at odds with Christianity but is made possible only by scientific advancement and materialistic thinking arising from it. The Amish aren’t responsible for global warming, after all.

    I can see, though, how someone battling nihilism would look for a target that he himself does not partake in, but in this case, “religion” – whatever that is – has nothing to do with it. It’s science.

    riendf: “It is math. The purest form of truth you will ever find.”

    I would disagree. Math is not a reflection of reality. Not all solutions correspond to something that exists or even can exist, nor can it even begin to describe all aspects of existence.

  19. TFBW says:

    @riendf:

    And I can tell, cause I am both. And getting out of nihilism is hard. Very hard. Not because of atheism, but because society and humanity and science as we know ihas come to its last golden age ever …

    Don’t confuse nihilism with grumpiness. If you think that life has meaning or value, which I think you must if you describe something as a “golden age”, then you are not a nihilist.

  20. Ilíon says:

    <TFBW:… if you describe something as a “golden age”, then you are not a nihilist.

    On the other hand, this counter-factual claim-and-condemnation of “believers [being] the worse when it comes to accept[ing] changes” —

    <riendf:… Not because of atheism, but because society and humanity and science as we know ihas come to its last golden age ever, unless there are drastic changes that are incompatible with most people anyway, because of religion (believers are the worse when it comes to accept changes) to begin with.

    — indicates, or at least implies, someone who chases after change for the sake of change. Such a mindset is rooted in hatred of what-is, which is to say, in nihilism. So, perhaps he’s simply an inconsistent or incoherent nihilist. Most of them are, after all.

  21. Stephane says:

    >The Amish aren’t responsible for global warming, after all.

    The Amish though, is an hopeless community that is doomed to disappear on this little planet. Basically, they are useless. They add nothing to the common knowledge of how the world works, nothing to how we can escape earth and colonize space. And they add nothing at all in term of resources needed to reach this goal as well. They are a waste of space. The only thing they have for them is they don’t use much rare resources… They are entertaining in a sense. Like a child can be. But mostly moronic, as a child. But a child can grow to be better. Amish wont..because of…..heh..;religion again.

    >If you think that life has meaning or value, which I think you must if you describe something as a “golden age”, then you are not a nihilist.

    Wrong. I do believe it has value, but I do not think we can do anything about our condition at the point we reach. Destroying the meaning it had before.

    >indicates, or at least implies, someone who chases after change for the sake of change.
    No. This is totally unrelated. And since you base the rest of your rant on a wrong premice, it is just meaningless and just that…a uninformed rant.

    You are both wildly trying to interpret thing as to put all the problems into science. Science is just a tool. People using tools badly is a political problem and religion is a very strong and a very stupid political system that hate everything that is critically thinking.
    Nihilism is the loss of hope you can do anything about it. But the reason you cannot do anything about it anymore is because we will consume resources needed for science and humanity to progress before we can eradicate the bad political system religion (and any ideological system that think it does not need to prove it is right scientifically) is.
    If you are happy staying on earth that is scientifically proved to be doomed (while we still have doubt about the universe) good for you.
    But do not tell science is the problem: you are. Jordan Perterson mocked the Meadows report, Because he does not understand science. Because he is a political animal, and sadly a believer.
    He says a lot of very true things, when he stays logical and base his fact on science (like evolution) but as soon as he digress on beliefs, he is like all the great minds before him that tried to defend religion (the ontological proof as an example)
    You definitely do not need any god in your life. And there is no reason to think there is one to begin with. It is not needed.

  22. Ilíon says:

    It’s way too funny to see ‘atheists’ accusing “religion” of stifling reason.

  23. Kevin says:

    Stephane: “The Amish though, is an hopeless community that is doomed to disappear on this little planet.”

    Irrelevant to my point.

    Stephane: “Basically, they are useless.”

    Apparently you define “useful” as “contributing to science”. By this measure, the vast majority of people, likely including yourself, are useless. Fortunately, science is not a measure of worth.

    Stephane: “They are a waste of space.”

    You leave yourself wide open here, but I won’t capitalize.

    Stephane: “But a child can grow to be better. Amish wont..because of…..heh..;religion again.”

    Oh, so science makes people better? But wait, later you say “Science is just a tool.” So you are claiming that if one does not use a tool, they are useless and a waste of space? Yours is…a strange worldview, tools being virtues and all.

    Stephane: “religion is a very strong and a very stupid political system that hate everything that is critically thinking.”

    Says the guy eschewing critical thinking in order to make ideological talking points that have no basis in reality.

    Stephane: “But the reason you cannot do anything about it anymore is because we will consume resources needed for science and humanity to progress before we can eradicate the bad political system religion (and any ideological system that think it does not need to prove it is right scientifically) is.”

    Explain precisely how “religion”, whatever that is, stifles science in ways that keep us from advancing in meaningful ways technologically. Also, demonstrate that your ideological system is scientifically correct.

    I think you need to study critical thinking and align your beliefs with reality before you go accusing others of failing to do so. Just my helpful advice for the day.

  24. TFBW says:

    @Stephane/riendf/whatever:

    Nihilism is the loss of hope you can do anything about it.

    No, that would be “despair” or similar. You’re using words inappropriately. Go look up “nihilism”, and you’ll see that it means, “a person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles.” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy says the following.

    Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.

    Not much point trying to have a discussion with you if you’re playing Humpty Dumpty with your words.

  25. Stephane says:

    >Apparently you define “useful” as “contributing to science”. By this measure, the vast majority of people, likely including yourself, are useless. Fortunately, science is not a measure of worth.

    People are useful to science if they contribute to society by making life of scientist easier.
    religious people by definition are not, and Amish are, definitely not.

    >Oh, so science makes people better? But wait, later you say “Science is just a tool.”

    Science is a tool that can make people better. Religion cannot. Cause science is a tool you can improve with, not religion.

    >Says the guy eschewing critical thinking in order to make ideological talking points that have no basis in reality.

    Says…you.

    >Explain precisely how “religion”, whatever that is, stifles science in ways that keep us from advancing in meaningful ways technologically.

    Because religions are all make the teapot argument: If you cannot prove there is not a teapot orbiting the sun, then you must accept there is a teapot orbiting arond the sun…making people accepting anything stupid you can say and not being disproven. It makes you stupid.

    >Also, demonstrate that your ideological system is scientifically correct.

    As an example, I do not pretend we can multiply on earth like Jordan does, without causing any problem as the ressources on earth are limited. Thus any people adding more than themselves to the number of people will and do cause a little more poverty, Or more ecological problems to an earth that is already saturated. (and guess what, a lot of religion need more fidels, so they empower people to do more kids, as religions do prosper this way, brainwashing kids as soon as they are born)

    >I think you need to study critical thinking and align your beliefs with reality before you go accusing others of failing to do so. Just my helpful advice for the day.

    I think you have no idea what critical thinking is to begin with, hence why you cannot understand what I am saying.

    >Not much point trying to have a discussion with you if you’re playing Humpty Dumpty with your words.

    Not much point trying to have a discussion when someone is definitely not reading, indeed:

    >Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ.ɪlɪzəm/ or /ˈniːɪlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical doctrine that suggests the lack of belief in one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life.

    That’s me.

    >Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1]

    Me most of the time. As I said, we arrived at a point in time where this apply, while it could have been avoided if people started to use science instead of politics (especially religion) as the basics of their way of thinking. It is too late.

    >Moral nihilists assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived.

    Definitely what I said (and is proven with game theory)

    > Nihilism may also take epistemological, ontological, or metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or reality does not actually exist.

    MAY. And that is closer to soliquoquism….

  26. TFBW says:

    Me most of the time. As I said, we arrived at a point in time where this apply, while it could have been avoided if people started to use science instead of politics (especially religion) as the basics of their way of thinking. It is too late.

    This makes no sense. You keep switching between “nihilism” as an actual existential denial of objective value, and “nihilism” as, “I’m depressed because everyone else is stupid and ruining the world because they don’t share my values in relation to science.”

    Whatever. I have no desire to try to argue against an incoherent position. Enjoy your self-satisfied blah blah.

  27. Kevin says:

    Stephane: “People are useful to science if they contribute to society by making life of scientist easier.”

    Yes, but that doesn’t mean they are useful to anything but science. You have yet to demonstrate that science has been scientifically demonstrated to be the sole virtue we should all celebrate. For every good you can name brought to us by advances in technology, I can name its dark side. Science is a neutral tool, not a virtue. It can be used for good or evil, and it greatly empowers both.

    You of course might have no interest in good or evil, as removing ethically necessary barriers to certain areas of experimentation would make the lives of scientists easier. Human experimentation is a virtue to you, maybe, but to normal people it is not.

    “religious people by definition are not”

    Even if we used your ridiculous standard of usefulness – which of course has no basis in reality and would lead to a nightmarish society if actually implemented – “religious” people do in fact make the lives of scientists easier.

    “Science is a tool that can make people better.”

    And a tool that can make people worse.

    “Religion cannot. Cause science is a tool you can improve with, not religion.”

    You don’t seem to understand the subject material. At all. Plus I know many people who were made better after becoming believers, because it changed how they viewed the world and their priorities toward other people. Science can’t do that. At best science can increase the effectiveness of a good person’s humanitarianism, but it can’t generate good behavior. Religion can.

    “Says…you.”

    I’m not the one making ridiculous ideological claims that are unsupported by evidence. That would be you, sir. You would do well to stop making such easily refuted generalizations about “science” and “religion”.

    “Because religions are all make the teapot argument: If you cannot prove there is not a teapot orbiting the sun, then you must accept there is a teapot orbiting arond the sun…making people accepting anything stupid you can say and not being disproven. It makes you stupid.”

    No, the evidence points toward there being a god. Neither position can be decisively proven, of course, but God makes more sense than no god. Also, I’m pretty sure than anyone who thinks the entirety of apologetics is akin to the teapot has absolutely no idea what they are talking about and should probably avoid embarrassing themselves trying to describe apologetics.

    “and guess what, a lot of religion need more fidels, so they empower people to do more kids, as religions do prosper this way, brainwashing kids as soon as they are born”

    One man’s brainwashing is another’s education, so that doesn’t impress anyone but the ideologically gullible.

    “I think you have no idea what critical thinking is to begin with, hence why you cannot understand what I am saying.”

    Well I am certainly curious what you’re saying here. What is the evidence that I haven’t understood? Is it that I disagree with you? That would say more about your inflated confidence in your own views than it would about my ability to understand. Maybe you aren’t expressing yourself clearly?

    It seems a more likely explanation, based on previous interactions with anti-theists, is that I understand perfectly and am responding the way I am as a result.

    “it could have been avoided if people started to use science instead of politics (especially religion) as the basics of their way of thinking”

    Science justifies nothing. It is up to moral people to properly utilize science for good – said morality not being based in science. Either you have to acknowledge that science itself is not a foundation for good, or you have to explain which scientific experiment(s) proved otherwise.

  28. Michael says:

    Please stop denying the chilling effect religion has on the human mind. It just makes people stupid from the start. That is a large part of the population that then reach adulthood in a state of mind that is then impossible to reason with.

    Wow. If you are going to lash out at others for being stupid, it’s probably a good idea to have something better than a stupid talking point to back it up. I had hoped you had something interesting to say. But it looks like dime-a-dozen atheist chest-thumping to me.

    I’m sorry, but when you rely on chest-thumping, scapegoats, and stereotypes, you don’t come across as someone who gets to lament about “others” being “stupid.”

  29. stcordova says:

    Michael,

    The following poll is 9 years old, but I suspect it would be valid today. They younger generation scientists (34 and younger) have a greater belief in God than older scientists (65+). It could be people become more atheistic when older, or some other phenomenon, but one can’t rule out the possibility the next generation of scientists find the idea of God MORE reasonable than the elder scientists.

    See:
    http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

  30. Dhay says:

    riendf > Peterson is right on a number of thing but he is dead wrong on atheism. And I suspect that he is afraid, very afraid to fall into what he accurately detected in many if not in the majority of scientist atheists: nihilism. And I can tell, cause I am both.

    That’s intriguing. I’m sure there’s many atheist scientists (and many agnostic or religious scientists), but I’ve never before come across the expression, ‘scientist atheists’. What’s one of them — an scientist who’s also an atheist, perhaps ** ; or perhaps, instead, a scientific ignoramus who cheers for whatever he thinks science (or ‘Science’) is, much as a couch-potato football supporter might cheer for Millwall to win whenever their match is on TV.

    ( ** While it’s common enough for a scientist to also be an atheist, scientists are a fairly small proportion of the population, so I deduce probably few atheists are also scientists rather than in other professions or in non-professional occupations.)

    If you are an atheist, a scientist and a nihilist, you fall into three categories, but you claim only to fall into “both”: which two are you, and which is the one you aren’t? Or are you a scientist who can’t count.

    And you claim that Jordan Peterson “accurately detected [nihilism] in many if not in the majority of scientist atheists”; on what evidence — preferably scientific evidence, since you apparently claim to be a scientist — do you found that claim.

    > Oh and to add some other mathematical notion, the game theory explains very well why cooperation is beneficial to society, instead of being an asshole. No need at all for any god or religion to understand that. It is math. The purest form of truth you will ever find.

    “THE game theory”, no less. Not only are you suspiciously lacking in ability to count to three, you lack knowledge (and presumably understanding) of basic mathematical nomenclature. Then there’s the question whether game theory doesn’t actually predict an abundance of assholes (“cheaters”), as I rather think it does, which raises further questions about your level of understanding.

    Maths is “the purest” form of truth, you claim. Then you can explain and defend your your criteria for assessing ‘purity’.

    Although not all scientists are good at using English, and some are dyslexic, a scientist needs to be able to organise their ideas cogently. I don’t detect that ability in your posts.

    Are you by any chance a scientifically illiterate, scientifically incompetent bullshitter?

    *

    On this evidence, I wonder whether it’s science and some atheists which are incompatible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.