I like Peterson.

Since the topic was brought up earlier in this thread, and many Christians aren't even completely aware of it, here is a more detailed Christian explanation of reason of Jesus's death:

Understanding Jesus's death and the moral influence theory of atonement

It helps to know the history. In simple terms God had made an agreement with the Israelites via Abraham to help them out if they believed in him and if they followed the Ten commandments. The Israelites did this for a while and as a result went from a small tribe to becoming a major power. Then they started worshiping false gods and violating the commandments badly. Over centuries their nation disintegrated to the point where they were on the verge of disappearance.

God said "you guys have screwed up so bad I can't help you anymore under the old covenant (Old Testament). In fact I've considered letting humankind become extinct. Bu I'm going to give you another chance. This time I'll give you more directions about you are supposed to do. To do this, part of me will come to earth in the form of a man called Jesus who will teach what you more what you are supposed to do to be good. He will serve as a teacher and an example for three years. As a final act Jesus will sacrifice himself to non-believers for his beliefs. His voluntary torture and death will be an example of how fervently you need to adhere to my laws. You need to be willing to die for for your belief in me. It will also mark the the day I'll forgive all the bad stuff you've done and start over again."

So Jesus's actions created a New Covenant (contract) of God with humankind. The New Covenant is that anybody who follows the teachings of Jesus (in the New Testament) gets to start with a clean slate of no sins and to experience the benefits of the love of God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_...y_of_atonement

Jordan Peterson was on the Joe Rogan podcast again - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USg3NR76XpQ

Typically science is seen as descriptive, not normative. So if we assume someone were to substitute "religion" for "science", then yes... in that regard and under that umbrella of science he would be correct.

However:

a) Descriptive science is almost by definition not an alternative to religion, so the point becomes rather moot. It would be like comparing to maths to dietary tips: Yes, there might be crossovers, but they're not competing unless the dietary tips apply math wrongfully.

b) There are sciences that are often normative, typically because they even in research may operate with some sort of value for "normal" or "preferred". Ecology and medicine are typical examples. Such sciences can (and often do) compete with religion.

c) Science can often take a normative direction, especially applied science. The minute you ask how something should be and use science to answer it, it becomes normative. We could use biology to answer what we should eat for example, and such tips could contradict religion.

d) There are many advocates who strongly argue that science should become more normative, and even be used to answer moral questions. Sam Harris is probably the best known around here.

Basically, the point is correct if we assume the typical definition / classification of science - but that classification doesn't really speak for all science, all applications of science or even all scientists. Peterson (at least in the cliff notes given here) seems to be taking a bullet point and making a speech out of it, without adding much except length.

This is a great podcast. I know it's 3 hours but if your curious at all don't think "It's 3 hours i cbfed". Think "I'm going to watch 20 minutes and then decide if I want to listen to the rest", I don't think you'll be disappointed.

In the podcast he touches on social justice warriors, conceptions of god, theology, mythology and a whole bunch of other good stuff. Well worth a listen.

Interestingly enough, in the latest Joe Rogan podcast I think Jordan Peterson talks about this exact story - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USg3NR76XpQ at 1:58:30

He said trump is intelligent....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxQyroQLr1Q - The video of him talking about Trump being intelligent. He makes some valid points.

You've had less than stellar intellects as presidents before, but mostly they had the insight to surround themselves with people who at least strove towards a minimal level of competence.

Not as many as trump himslef makes countering it. Read his words.

Whose words? Trumps? Would you mind linking to what he said?

Yeah trumps words. And actions. He is an idiot.

But no i dont want to link. Feel free to think he is intelligent. Just thought it was funny.

We're getting way OT, but if you have some spare time check out the following:

The Economist talks to the President of the United States about economic policy

It's genuinely hard to believe it's not straight from The Onion.

Peterson is right (trivially) in the sense that Trump is probably as intelligent as half the general US population, and wrong in the sense that Trump is clearly a complete idiot when compared with his peers. Which comparison should we hope is a good criteria for POTUS?

Roman and Greek culture has had just as strong an impact imo. For instance, Roman law remains the bedrock of most legal systems in western cultures. Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and so on contributed much more to our theoretical understanding of morality.

This overrates the importance of the Bible, which wasn't that widely read except by clergy before the Reformation.

I don't agree. Torture, slavery, human sacrifice were all common in non-Christian societies. My guess is that Christian values contributed more to these things being rejected by most modern Western cultures.

I'm also confused as to why you think the twentieth-century was not a Christian century. That was probably the high point of world dominance by societies with Christian backgrounds. For instance, the US, certainly still a Christian country in many ways, was the dominant power for most of the century. I suspect you are reading back from the increasingly secular society of today to the society of hundred years ago.

I think there are interesting lessons to be drawn from the Bible and religion more generally and that secular people who ignore them are making a mistake. The mere fact that the Bible has remained such a potent source of real change in people's lives over millenia should be sufficient for this to be true. It is a very reasonable life to start with a religion as your Bayesian prior and work from there.

However, religion is now just one of many things that can provide this sense of order in people's lives. Furthermore, religion's ability to provide this order has been greatly weakened. Insofar as they see their views as true, religious people are forced to confront the fact that most reasonable people disagree with them in a way they didn't need to as much in the past. This leads to the unpleasant choice between fundamentalism and religious liberalism.

I listened to the Harris podcasts, but I'm not sure what it is that people like about Peterson on religion beyond his adoption of a pragmatic view of truth. Sure, there are important cultures archetypes in religious mythology. But this doesn't incentivize me to worship Zeus.

As a side note, my old university was Peterson's, and I was staying up to date on UofT's social media when the Jordan Peterson phenomenon happened (he is far more infamous for his rejection of nonstandard gender pronouns than for anything religious). It was an absolutely incredible phenomenon the complete and total derail of all things UofT social media. Several high up regularly posting math professors who had used social media to engage ended up pulling out of platforms entirely. Really interesting stuff.

I'm guessing that Louis Cyphre's objection to the doctrine of atonement is to the more common satisfaction and ransom versions of the doctrine.

Although I didnt read all of it, I skimmed it, and I dont see anything that implies that trump is an idiot. Yes, he doesnt speak like an intellectual, he doesnt speak like an economist. That doesnt mean hes stupid though.

Of course you won't see it if you skim (and to be fair, who has time to read all that, right?!). I can only give you my assessment from reading his conversation, and the words he chooses to say out loud, but all anyone has to do is actually listen to him.

re: speaking like an intellectual - it's not that he doesn't speak like an intellectual, but that he doesn't even speak like a decently-educated person. You've probably heard his vocabulary has been compared to...I don't remember what grade level, but it's pretty low.
"I know words, I have the best words" - Trump, 2016.



It looks like this transcript has lead to some articles in the media recently, as Trump actually declared in the interview that he invented the economic term "priming the pump".

Anyway, calling him an idiot should be viewed in the context of his peers, and that he is holds the most important job in the world. Outside of that context he probably isn't quite an idiot. I'd just call him a buffoon.

This is so far off topic, sorry if I opened that door.

I didnt read all of it, I read about half, and then skimmed the rest.

I can see your point about his vocabulary. I have seen claims that he has an IQ of 150, but I would assume that even if they grew up not very well educated, just the fact of having that IQ they would absorb ideas and words and sentence structure. I dont know, what was einsteins vocabulary like?

Watched somewhere around ~130-150h of his lectures and interviews in the past 6 months.
He's basically a scholar of C.G. Jung I would say.
Never seen someone be able to conceptualize and articulate Jung's ideas in a way that even laymen can now finally understand them. Which is why he resonates with people.
Really fascinating stuff.

He just started his 12? part bible series a couple days ago, really great stuff so far. I could listen to this man's lectures all day long