That’s a lazy smear. Harris and Peterson are ideological opposites; atheist materialist vs. Christian traditionalist.
Sam regularly loses followers because he won’t bend to tribalism, which is the opposite of grifting. He’s not afraid to piss off his own base by saying the “wrong” thing.
You can call him arrogant, but suggesting he’s a fascist-in-waiting is stupid. His framework has always been about advocating for compassion and upholding the virtues of epistemology as a means of a more tolerant and equitable future.
Calling Peterson a Christian is wild. I strongly advise you to watch him react when asked about his belief. That man struggles to self identify as Christian, even when talking to his own people.
The whole jubilee video got re-themed because he was invited as a christian but his position was that un-christian. And that is not a 8yo interview snippet that already indicates that it isn’t a simple yes for him.
And yes religious belief is important for the topic, which is why I think it is wild to paint him as a christian. His position is not really Christian.
I’m not going to pretend I’m a mind reader. If someone says they’re a Christian, I’m not going to waste time telling them they aren’t.
We don’t know why he claims to be a Christian but refuses to spell out why. Perhaps he had an experience he can’t explain and knows it’s irrational.
Or maybe it’s cosmic fear of the abyss.
Or maybe it’s fear of God’s wrath.
Whatever the case, I agree, he’s not really a Christian. Nor is the overwhelming majority of Americans who identify as such.
Which is why I made the distinction: Christian Traditionalist.
The semantics of what those words mean independently is besides the point; it’s like arguing the Nazi’s (National Socialists) are not really Socialist.
Like, yeah, sure. They’re not socialists, but they are literal Nazi’s lol.
I misunderstood your position then because I didn’t understand it as “christian traditionalist” but “christian” “traditionalist”. I had that impression because you contrasted it to “atheist” “materialist”. Being a “atheist” is not in conflict with being a “christian traditionalist”, neither does being a “materialist”.
An atheist materialist is someone who does not believe in the existence of any gods and also holds the view that only physical matter exists. (No metaphysical realms, spirits or karma)
This is Sam Harris to a point.
A Christian traditionalist is someone who emphasises the importance of historical beliefs, practice’s, and customs within Christianity, often adhering to teachings and rituals that predate modern changes in the faith.
I call Peterson a traditionalist because he’s self identifies as a traditionalist.
Being a “atheist” is not in conflict with being a [“theist”]
I don’t care for Harris. So sure, he might is. And I know what it means.
I agree with your definition of christian traditionalist.
as you correctly described,
Being a christian traditionalist doesn’t require the person to actually believe in a god.
Being a “atheist” is not in conflict with being a [“theist”]
I think you’ll find that they’re polar opposites.
Is therefore a wrong conclusion.
Being an “atheist” is not in conflict with being someone who emphasises the importance of historical beliefs, practice’s, and customs within Christianity, often adhering to teachings and rituals that predate modern changes in the faith.
My point isn’t, peterson is a good guy (or a bad guy, while he totally is). But that positioning one as totally different as an atheist compared to the christian is wild, when the christian is struggling to call themself christian when talking to Christians.
The ideological divide between Harris and peterson might not be that big in their religious belief. Peterson might just believe that Christianity helps him in the causes that he cares about.
Well, it isn’t an important takeaway as the conversation is about that at all. And as it is a public discussion and you joined in to paint peterson as somewhat christian, you are moving the conversation from the topic of discussion to another topic that is more easily defensible. The classic goal post shift.
OK so what’s more important to take away from this thread? That Jordan Peterson himself refuses to say he’s a Christian, or whether his words and actions accurately paint him as a literal Christian Nationalist.
Sorry, I just thought the latter was more important.
Well his actions don’t paint him as a literal Christian nationalist. His actions paint him as someone who for whatever reason supports (or uses) christian nationalism. His motivation is not clear because there is no advantage to praise Christianity 24/7 while refusing to be labeled a christian. I would understand why he wouldn’t want to be labeled a nationalist but christian? I haven’t heard a single reasonable case for that behavior.
Against this is not about whether or not peterson is a bad person and supportive of bigotry and hatred. But his christian identity in comparison to Harris’ non-chriatuan identity.
You are welcome to shittalk peterson but this isn’t, and wasn’t about that and you are shifting the goal post.
That’s a lazy smear. Harris and Peterson are ideological opposites; atheist materialist vs. Christian traditionalist.
Sam regularly loses followers because he won’t bend to tribalism, which is the opposite of grifting. He’s not afraid to piss off his own base by saying the “wrong” thing.
You can call him arrogant, but suggesting he’s a fascist-in-waiting is stupid. His framework has always been about advocating for compassion and upholding the virtues of epistemology as a means of a more tolerant and equitable future.
Calling Peterson a Christian is wild. I strongly advise you to watch him react when asked about his belief. That man struggles to self identify as Christian, even when talking to his own people.
Timothy Lott:
Jordan Peterson:
Interview from 2017
You:
When discussing ethics, morals, virtues, empathy and compassion, they are deeply entwined to religious ideology.
The whole jubilee video got re-themed because he was invited as a christian but his position was that un-christian. And that is not a 8yo interview snippet that already indicates that it isn’t a simple yes for him.
And yes religious belief is important for the topic, which is why I think it is wild to paint him as a christian. His position is not really Christian.
I’m not going to pretend I’m a mind reader. If someone says they’re a Christian, I’m not going to waste time telling them they aren’t.
We don’t know why he claims to be a Christian but refuses to spell out why. Perhaps he had an experience he can’t explain and knows it’s irrational.
Or maybe it’s cosmic fear of the abyss.
Or maybe it’s fear of God’s wrath.
Whatever the case, I agree, he’s not really a Christian. Nor is the overwhelming majority of Americans who identify as such.
Which is why I made the distinction: Christian Traditionalist.
The semantics of what those words mean independently is besides the point; it’s like arguing the Nazi’s (National Socialists) are not really Socialist.
Like, yeah, sure. They’re not socialists, but they are literal Nazi’s lol.
I misunderstood your position then because I didn’t understand it as “christian traditionalist” but “christian” “traditionalist”. I had that impression because you contrasted it to “atheist” “materialist”. Being a “atheist” is not in conflict with being a “christian traditionalist”, neither does being a “materialist”.
An atheist materialist is someone who does not believe in the existence of any gods and also holds the view that only physical matter exists. (No metaphysical realms, spirits or karma)
This is Sam Harris to a point.
A Christian traditionalist is someone who emphasises the importance of historical beliefs, practice’s, and customs within Christianity, often adhering to teachings and rituals that predate modern changes in the faith.
I call Peterson a traditionalist because he’s self identifies as a traditionalist.
I think you’ll find that they’re polar opposites.
I don’t care for Harris. So sure, he might is. And I know what it means.
I agree with your definition of christian traditionalist.
as you correctly described,
Being a christian traditionalist doesn’t require the person to actually believe in a god.
Is therefore a wrong conclusion.
Being an “atheist” is not in conflict with being someone who emphasises the importance of historical beliefs, practice’s, and customs within Christianity, often adhering to teachings and rituals that predate modern changes in the faith.
Peterson does though, explicitly (with an annoying amount of nuance)
Peterson is a self ascribed Christian and Christian Traditionalist.
That position is opposite.
I’m really not interested in arguing semantics until we reach the point where I say “when I said Peterson was a Christian traditionalist I meant both”
This conversation is splitting hairs over what?
Is there a point to be made here beyond “Peterson isn’t what he claims to be”?
Christian or not, he is a supporter of white Christian nationalism
Of course, but that is a goal post shift.
My point isn’t, peterson is a good guy (or a bad guy, while he totally is). But that positioning one as totally different as an atheist compared to the christian is wild, when the christian is struggling to call themself christian when talking to Christians.
The ideological divide between Harris and peterson might not be that big in their religious belief. Peterson might just believe that Christianity helps him in the causes that he cares about.
I’m not the person you were originally talking to, so I didn’t move any goalposts. Just pointing out the important takeaway here.
Well, it isn’t an important takeaway as the conversation is about that at all. And as it is a public discussion and you joined in to paint peterson as somewhat christian, you are moving the conversation from the topic of discussion to another topic that is more easily defensible. The classic goal post shift.
OK so what’s more important to take away from this thread? That Jordan Peterson himself refuses to say he’s a Christian, or whether his words and actions accurately paint him as a literal Christian Nationalist.
Sorry, I just thought the latter was more important.
Well his actions don’t paint him as a literal Christian nationalist. His actions paint him as someone who for whatever reason supports (or uses) christian nationalism. His motivation is not clear because there is no advantage to praise Christianity 24/7 while refusing to be labeled a christian. I would understand why he wouldn’t want to be labeled a nationalist but christian? I haven’t heard a single reasonable case for that behavior.
Against this is not about whether or not peterson is a bad person and supportive of bigotry and hatred. But his christian identity in comparison to Harris’ non-chriatuan identity.
You are welcome to shittalk peterson but this isn’t, and wasn’t about that and you are shifting the goal post.