Night 1:
Night 2:
There is a Jordan Peterson phenomenon sweeping the world, and I think his recent debate with Sam Harris proves why he has become so popular. Contrary to the mainstream media’s opinion of Peterson, it's not because he's some alt-right, racist, sexist, bigot. It’s because he is the only intellectual post-Darwin to provide a rational defense of religion and conservatism from a scientific perspective.
Peterson uses the theory of evolution (cultural evolution) to explain why religious stories have lasted the test of time. These morals and stories were naturally selected for by society because they helped keep order and ensured the survival of that society. His God is not some bearded man in the sky, but evolution itself, or the process for life to exist and to survive and reproduce forever. That is God. God is evolution, or those adaptations and structures selected by society that lead to the survival and reproduction of conscious life.
Therefore, Peterson would argue that we should believe in these religions, not because they’re literally true—all the stories from the holy books are fiction—but because the stories contain great messages of ancient wisdom and morals that are so helpful for survival and reproduction, we should act as if they are true. To please God, AKA evolution. If evolution is God, we should cherish that which was naturally selected for by evolution because it will help our survival.
It's a compelling argument, especially for rational scientific-minded conservative religious believers (if such a thing can exist). He's made the first and only scientific rational argument to believe in the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible that I’ve ever heard. And it’s catching on because Christians so badly want to believe. But I think Peterson is wrong. He’s saying Christianity and some 1950s America version of a conservative society was the peak form of cultural evolution. But that’s not true. The evolution of culture, morals, and society is continuing to evolve. Everything is always evolving, always getting better. There was no peak in the past. No golden age. Society has gotten better as we became more secular and more scientific and less dogmatically religious. So we will continue to do so on into the future.
Religion played a vital role in the evolution of culture and morals in the past, but it has outlived its usefulness, as many genes and traits do (like racism, rape, and murder). The natural progress of evolution is to let un-useful genes and behaviors die, no matter how useful they were to our ancestors. As the environment changes, we must adapt. And because of technology, the environment has changed dramatically over the past 2,000 years.
As Harris says, there's no need for religion at all anymore. Sure, you can form new spiritual collectives or even new religions based on the latest science that better suits modern times (like the Singulatarians). But don't cling to the dogma of the old religions. That holy book from 2,000 years ago is not only preposterous and blatantly wrong, but dangerously harmful to society because of fundamentalism. It’s not worth retaining religion if it will bring with it the fundamentalists (and it always will). Religious fundamentalism could potentially take down all of society, including all art, scientific knowledge, and technological progress, by destroying civilization to fulfill some prophecy. It’s insane. We can’t take that risk. We must extinguish religion in order to save civilization.
The closer you get to the time of the writing of the holy books, the more dogmatic the belief, the more violence, death, and suffering in society. The further you get from the writing of the holy books, the less dogmatic the belief, the less violence, death, and suffering in society. That clearly says something about religion and dogmatic belief. Things get better as we become less religious and more rational.
Jordan Peterson's argument essentially boils down to this: We have to pretend religion is real for the sake of weak-minded people because weak-minded people can’t handle the reality of life without religion. That may be true for some, but it’s a bit defeatist and doesn’t give people enough credit.
I for one was raised religious but became happier and more fulfilled with life the more I lost my faith and learned about science and the true nature of reality. I don’t need a God, the promise of an afterlife, or threat of eternal damnation in order to love my neighbors as myself. I simply have empathy for all conscious beings and want to inflict the least amount of suffering as possible. Not for repercussions in the next life, but to make this life the best for all. Because that will ensure the best life for me.
The golden rule is a powerful moral and guiding principle for life that all should abide, but you need not have supernatural reasons to follow it. If you act kind toward others, they will act kind toward you. It’s human nature, wired in our biology through evolution. The golden rule is really the only story we need to retain from religion and there’s nothing supernatural about it. It can be explained and supported entirely by science. We can still teach the Bible and the story of Jesus, while explaining that it’s just that—a story.
Christianity is essentially a death cult, designed to help people accept and welcome death, knowing that a better life awaits in heaven. Unlike Islam (at least the warped view of jihadists) it condemns suicide and values this life, ensuring you strive to live as long as possible (and your loved ones). But the real reason Christianity has outlived its usefulness for society is we are approaching, through technology, the possibility of actual immortality. What use does a death cult have when you never need to die? Death, resurrection, heaven, and hell will be obsolete when you can live forever, either biologically or digitally. This is why new religions or new stories need to replace the old ones from the Bible to better reflect modern times.
All of society is constructed by stories, and just because a story was useful in the past, doesn’t mean it will remain useful in the present and future. Useful stories from the past may not even have been as useful as other potential stories that never developed. (The Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment could have come along a lot sooner and everyone would have been better off because of it.) After all, evolution (whether biological or cultural) does not ensure “survival of the fittest,” but merely “survival of the fit enough.”
Today, humans have attained control over our own evolution, so we should strive for the stories and morals that are the “fittest” to ensure the best possible future for all, not merely “fit enough.” Science is the best guiding principle to that end, not thousands of year-old fables. Sure, there’s some wisdom we can retain from the Bible, Quran, and other religions, but it’s foolish and dangerous to maintain the facade that those stories were literally true and the actual word of “God.” The future of civilization may rest on it.
I admire Jordan Peterson's intellect, and I understand where he's coming from. He fears that a godless society will devolve into a living hell like Communist Russia or Nazi Germany. But I don't think that is the case at all. Those atrocities didn't occur because of atheism—they occurred because of dogma and tribalism. We must abolish all dogma and tribalism and embrace rationality. A truly rational society guided by science to reduce human suffering would never inflict the atrocities of the Soviets and Nazis.
Though honestly, if every religious person in the world had the same view of God and the Bible as Jordan Peterson, religion would not be a problem. It's the fundamentalists that we have to worry about, and maybe it would be easier to convert them to Petersonism than atheism. In that case, both Peterson and Harris should carry on. Some people will be drawn to atheism; others to Peterson's form of religion. As long as we move away from dogmatic fundamentalism, society will prosper. Perhaps that's the natural course of cultural evolution.
