ציטוטים גואטיים של פיטרסון:
I have a lot of respect for atheist types because they spend a lot of time thinking and that's generally a good thing. I see most of their thinking however directed at the fundamentalist types,the fundamentalist Christian types mostly of the American persuasion who suffer from the somewhat understandable illusion that the biblical corpus has the same epistemological and ontological status as a scientific theory when it clearly doesn't.if you're a religious thinker,let's say, if you're a serious student of religious thought and a serious philosopher,one of the things you can't claim is that whatever story the bible is telling is a scientific theory and that's just self evident.first of all,like when was the first scientist?Descartes? bacon?Newton?Maybe you could chase it back to the Greeks but no farther than that. So the idea that whatever the people who conjured the old testament creation account were doing something akin to scientific theorizing is a mistake that would only be made by people who don't know how to distinguish between different kinds of truth.
I specifically don't think that the celebrity atheist types take it with due seriousness from a biological perspective or phenomenological perspective or literary perspective or a metaphoric perspective. The fundamental presuppositions of our very functional cultures or Western cultures are nested amovibly in a metaphorical substrate and that when you enter that metaphorical substrate,you're in the domain of religious phenomenology and I think that not only can you derive that conclusion as a consequence of deep philosophical thought and literary analysis but that if you know enough about brain function you'll also come to the same conclusion.I think you come to the same conclusion as well if you look at the evolution of religious cognition from the perspective of an evolutionary biologist and not from the position of an evolutionary biologist whose head is addled by the belief that most of human morality was established in the 500 years since the enlightenment.
At the beginning of Genesis,there's a proposition that it's truthful speech that generates habitable order from chaotic potential. There's something dead accurate about that because we do generate the world as a consequence of our communicative effort and then there's the second preposition:The world we generate from the chaos of potential is habitable to the degree that the communication we engage in is truthful and that's why g-d who uses logos at the beginning of time to generate the world is able to say that his creation is good . The proposition the world you bring into being truthful speech is GOOD and that's the image of G-D that's implanted in men and women. It's not just a fiction,unless you don't believe that in some manner you partake in the creation of the world and that you have ultimate responsibility that might well be described as divine and to participate in that process properly! Truthfully! And with LOVE . And there's every reason to think that it's an elevated ideal so high that it's worthy of conceptualizing as divine and also to presume that it represents some fundamental metaphysical reality.
טחנתי 10 שעות בכמה ימים של דיון על זה אבל היה אחד הדברים הכי מספקים שראיתי.אגב,אלו שנגד פיטרסון היו להם ממש טיעונים טובים ואי אפשר באמת היה לסכם מי ניצח ומי לא.בשבילי אישית לפיטרסון היו את הטענות הכי משכנעות ואני אומר את זה בתור מישהו שלא כל כך עף עליו.
אם למישהו השאלה הזאת מעניינת אם אלוהים קיים או לא, זה סרטונים חובה שצריך לצפות בהם.