Can someone explain what Jordan Peterson says about "god"?

Plaffelvohfen

Peterson’s definition of God is a sprawling, book-length collection of abstractions, some of which are grounded in narratives about the human condition, while others are mere descriptions of psychological and temporal realities (“…the future to which we make sacrifices”). In other words, it’s a definition that’s so elastic and subjective as to be almost meaningless.

As Sam Harris put it in an event debating Peterson in Vancouver : “That’s not how most people most of the time are using the word, and there’s something misleading about that." 

Keyword here is misleading... And I agree with Harris.

MayCaesar

I think his main argument is that everyone should have their own "god", including possibly a lack of god as god (however contradictory it might seem, it makes a certain philosophical sense if you think about it - and it is somewhat similar to how Buddhists see the world, for example). The reason is the need to have a certain stable core, a structure that solidifies the individual's behavior, gives them a purpose in life and makes them feel fulfilled.

One of the main societal issues he combats is the lack of direction in many people. He wants people to know that their lives do not have to be a chaotic mess, that they can create a vector that will guide their life and create a sense of belonging, comfort and stability. People struggling with depression, procrastination, tiredness, frustration, anger - they all do so because they do not see a bigger picture and do not know what it is they are trying to accomplish in their lives.
He sees a possible answer in believing in a god - but, again, his definition of "god" is pretty broad and can mean any guiding concept.

I disagree with Peterson on many things, but he is a very-very-very deep psychologist, politologist and philosopher. Every single claim he makes has a very solid foundation and hundreds hours of thought invested in its research. He is the kind of an orthodox conservative person who I would absolutely love to sit down and talk with - and likely be completely destroyed in the process.

Sam Harris I respect a bit less. He is also very intelligent and deep - but I feel that he is biased on certain subjects. He seems to be aware of his bias, but cannot quite get rid of his intellectual dishonesty. I remember the discussion in which he sided with a person advocating for banning women's Muslim clothes, while simultaneously saying that he wants to defend people's freedom to wear what they want.
I have not seen such inconsistencies in Peterson's narrative. Granted, Peterson can get a bit overly passionate about some subjects (especially those regarding free speech) and talk himself into a corner by making an overly strong statement, but he tends to correct himself afterwards.

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen

P .....

Peterson’s definition of God is a sprawling, book-length collection of abstractions, some of which are grounded in narratives about the human condition, while others are mere descriptions of psychological and temporal realities (“…the future to which we make sacrifices”). In other words, it’s a definition that’s so elastic and subjective as to be almost meaningless. 

Dee .....So nothing new just the same old dance

AlexOland

@MayCaesar ; @Plaffelvohfen , Is there any reason you know of to why Peterson decides to label these "guiding concepts" as a god? 

Plaffelvohfen

Without asking him directly we can only speculate...  

I personally think that he fundamentally seeks an anchor for an absolute morality and will practice an extreme form of philosophical gymnastics and ontological jugglery to try to get there but he ultimately fails IMO... 

He may be trying to reconcile Faith with Logic, using the same philosophical gymnastics and ontological jugglery, not that he's not good at it mind you, quite the contrary he's quite agile and impressive in this, I wouldn't feel confident arguing him in a formal debate but I'd definitely enjoy a discussion with him in a casual setting... 

MayCaesar

Well, the concept of "god" has many different interpretations (possibly exactly because of how abstract and vague this concept tends to be, hence allowing for many different version of what exactly it means), and it being a creature levitating in the sky is merely one of them. Many religions, such as Buddhism, see everything as god; in fact, "god" and "nature" are somewhat synonymous in them. Other religions, mainly polytheistic ones, relate a god to a certain human trait or virtue - so that, for example, "love" could be seen as a god (Aphrodite/Venus). It is hard to say exactly where Peterson received the inspiration for his interpretation of god as guiding concepts in life, but it could be one of the less popular and forgotten religions. He is a very knowledgeable person, and I would be surprised if philosophically he limited himself only to the modern Western schools of thought.

In general, his logic seems to go like this:
1. People need guiding concepts in their lives to have the sense of direction and purpose.
2. Religion (namely god) can provide such concepts, and has been the main provider of them for millennia.
3. Hence it makes sense to relate the god to those concepts. And it makes sense for people to believe in god, however abstract that god is, as that will give them direction and purpose.

One could say that this is a fallacy (similar to the one "This person has murdered someone, and he believes that 2+2=4. Hence everyone who believes that 2+2=4 is likely to be a murderer"), but I see it more as a somewhat forced philosophical maneuver at finding patterns where they are expected to be, even if they do not actually turn out to be there.

ZeusAres42

@Plaffelvohfen

I was just about to say a similar thing but you beat me to the punch. As for Sam Harris, he truly is a remarkable intellectual and deserves the title as one of  "The four horsemen."