4 ms·

"If people think they are atheistic, it means is they are unconscious of their gods.". No it doesn't. Atheists merely reject the various vacuous and frankly ri

by vixen99 10y ago

"If people think they are atheistic, it means is they are unconscious of their gods.". No it doesn't. Atheists merely reject the various vacuous and frankly ridiculous concepts of 'God' put about by religious authorities (folk whose word we are supposed to take on trust) simply because the evidence for these abstractions amounts to no more than that for fairy stories. Atheists are not stupid people unaware that they are subject to 'unconscious imperatives'.

dgellow 10y ago
The context was: > One of Jung’s propositions was that whatever a person values most highly is their god. If people think they are atheistic, it means is they are unconscious of their gods. In a sophisticated religious system, there is a positive and negative polarity. Ideologies simplify that polarity and, in doing so, demonize and oversimplify. I think you've over interpreted the sentence you've quoted.
orngjc 10y ago
If you see religion as an alternative to science instead of a philosophy that teaches great values (in its current form, not in the literal reading of the text), as americans often mistakenly (I think this is your point) do, it may seem that way. However men need values and it's hard to argue against the basic concepts of kindness and sharing that christianity teaches. You just have to not take it in a dogmatic way in order to understand mr. Peterson's point of view, I think.
pizza 10y ago
Following the discovery of this post, I did a little digging into this guy. I listened to a whole 2 and a half lecture by him. He doesn't mean a literal omnipotent quasi mythical unprovable creature. He even says something like "a clever thirteen year old boy would know that that's rubbish." By god, he means a system of ranking values. His argument is that religion is a kind of emergent, distributed evolutionary policy learning strategy that supervenes (if you will) from biological origins. In that sense, heaven is that which delays gratification for greater selection benefit, and hell is that eternal possibility of worsening one's situation. It's an interesting concept.

by vixen99 10y ago

dgellow 10y ago

The context was: > One of Jung’s propositions was that whatever a person values most highly is their god. If people think they are atheistic, it means is they are unconscious of their gods. In a sophisticated religious system, there is a positive and negative polarity. Ideologies simplify that polarity and, in doing so, demonize and oversimplify. I think you've over interpreted the sentence you've quoted.

orngjc 10y ago

If you see religion as an alternative to science instead of a philosophy that teaches great values (in its current form, not in the literal reading of the text), as americans often mistakenly (I think this is your point) do, it may seem that way. However men need values and it's hard to argue against the basic concepts of kindness and sharing that christianity teaches. You just have to not take it in a dogmatic way in order to understand mr. Peterson's point of view, I think.

pizza 10y ago

Following the discovery of this post, I did a little digging into this guy. I listened to a whole 2 and a half lecture by him. He doesn't mean a literal omnipotent quasi mythical unprovable creature. He even says something like "a clever thirteen year old boy would know that that's rubbish." By god, he means a system of ranking values. His argument is that religion is a kind of emergent, distributed evolutionary policy learning strategy that supervenes (if you will) from biological origins. In that sense, heaven is that which delays gratification for greater selection benefit, and hell is that eternal possibility of worsening one's situation. It's an interesting concept.