If you can't substantiate the existence of a certain entity, just arbitrarily define it as something that exists. It's super intellectual. Join the dark web today.pic.twitter.com/h1dIzhhlF4
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
I don't follow. What do you suppose he's attempting to do here? Are you reading this as an attempt at theology? I don't think it is.
If he's not making a theological claim, why use the term God? If he doesn't mean anything like what believers mean when they invoke "God," then he's just being intentionally obscure.
how about this as a definition of God that (I suspect) most believers would assent to: God is the organizing principle of all of creation. If you filter that through personal psychology how does it come out?
No, religious people believe specific propositions about the creator of the universe, what he wants, what will happen to them after they die, etc. Redefining these types of concepts to what you speculatively think might psychologically drive people is just wordplay.
excuse me but think I've missed your point. wordplay means what, here? "I don't like the words he used"? I think you're trying to say something more substantial than that but I missed it. Can you make a more specific criticism?
I've been very clear about my criticism. I'd just be repeating myself if I clarified further so I'll just leave what I've written in the thread for other readers. Thanks for the chat.
He's asserting a Necessary Meta-radicalism- just like the postmodernists, coincidentally. In *his* jargon, "faith" or "foundation" is his god. So: I'd call it theology.
I don't know what Necessary Meta-radicalism means. Google didn't help much. I haven't seen the term used elsewhere. I can accept that this is a variety of theology, but not done in the manner of a priest, or any authority figure. I really think it's just psychology though.
Yeah, but *he's* the one tangling up psychology and theology. "God" is the assumptions you make, and the implicit theories you reason with? Come on, Peterson.
how about "God is the organizing principle of creation" combined with "your own mind is part of creation"?
I'm not saying I agree with this. I'm saying that picking apart 280 character limit utterances requires us to be a little more charitable about possible communicative intent.
This isn't a one-off thing. He tweets about this stuff a lot and I've spent probably 20 hours now listening to his debates and lectures.
why? it seems to really upset and annoy you.
I spend almost all my time on Twitter arguing against what I think are bad ideas. It's a hobby.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.