Jordan Peterson's god-ideas are difficult to grasp properly, and I have not spent too much time on them really. Still here's my two cents (selfreplies)
He also talks of bible stories as "true" in the sense that they are meaningful. Personally I do not like this use of "true", and I also question if you might as well use a well written
Yeap. I also don't see how people consider the bible a good book. Even when trying to view it objectively as literature, I still think it's badly written.
You don't have a problem with the slavery part or weird stuff like you should kill people who wear clothes of different fabric? Or god killing kids who make fun of bald man?
Of course I do. But the majority of Christians don't believe that any of these are good. So when I talk about christian ethics I mean what most modern Christians do.
Yeah. So maybe I shouldn't say christian ethics. Perhaps I mean western ethics, which, from my point of view, is something I see in christians, mainly.
So they fail to be useful to anyone. If you are smart, you don't need them in the first place. If you are stupid you are going to interpret them horribly unless someone smart feeds...
And it's understandable if they are addressed to idiots. That's fine. but at the same time they are so vague that no idiot can distill the moral of the stories to a sane conclusion.
Monty Pythons mocked the writing style of holy books in The Holy Grail. They were right on spot. The books sound like they are addressed to an idiot. Repeating themselves etc.
|use a comic like Donald Duck for the same purpose. As long as the story is relatively easy to relate to, you can understand it on many different levels.
When asked if he believes in god he has answered that "I act as if I do believe" which I believe he has from Pascal (of "Pascal's wager" fame). Some interpret this to belief pretension
Yeah and he says that it's one and the same to act as if you believe and to believe. I totally disagree and I have no clue how he come to that conclusion. (unless I'm misremembering)