§ Sam harris and jordan peterson: Vancouver 1 (WIP)
Is there a difference between religious and non-religious totalitarian states? Yes, dogma is the commonality. In the case of stalin / north korea, they are almost religions that are not branded as "religions". ~ Sam
the problem with dogmas is that they do not allow revision. The moment someone has a better idea you have to shut it down. ~ Sam
Free speech elevates error correction of dogmas above dogmas. So Free speech must be on the pinnacle in the hierarchy of values ~ Peterson
The only problem with the religion is the dogmatism. I've got no problem with the buildings and the music and ... ~ Sam Harris.
What is the phenomenology of spiritual experience? That phenomenology is real! This phenomenology seems to confirm the dogma.
The core element of tribal alliance is independent of the religious substrate? Religion can allow clearly good people who are not captured by tribalism are able to perform atrocities. This suffering is not from a "ape like" urge. If you buy the claim that quran is the perfect word, then human rationality is bounded pathologically which leads to worrying outcomes.
Christians were the ones in egland who were against slavery ~ Petersen Yes, because they were the only ones around, so they must have done everything then ~ Sam Don't forget that the christians used their christian faith as an argument against slavery ~Petersen Well then it's unfortunate that they were on the losing side of an argument. If only the bible had said "don't keep slaves" imagine how much easier their movement would have been ~Sam.
Rise of postmodern interpretations of literature. Take a complex narrative, there are many ways of interpreting it. For example, consider a movie with a twist at the end. The twist changes the emaning of the entire movie. So while the bible may contain, sentence by sentence, things that are "just wrong" from a modern lens, perhaps it's not so when viewed holistically. Everything in a narraitve is conditioned on the entire text. While you may argue that some sentences in the bible are so horrific that it's impossible to use context to massage them, you have to give the devil his due. The Christian bible is a narrative.
OK, what does this do to Moses' laws of war and doctrines?
the notion of revelation and prophecy destroys a whole bunch of soceity. I've read to the end of the book, it's scary to the end as well!
there is an idea in the bible, that things are always going to be falling apart, there is an apocalyptic crux to everything touched by humanity. Hero is born in the darkest point in the journey. When things fall apart, that is the time of the hero.
You can read into any story psychological insights ~ Sam. But you can do that with any set of facts too ~ Peterson. This why fundamentalim has an edge over modern theology. Modern theology concedes that we can't read it literally. But the more you get away from the literal you can broadcast whatever you want.
This notion that redemption is to be found in truthful speech is embodied as a person. you want to ground values in something that is true. But the problem is that i can't see how you can inerpret the world of facts without an a priori structure.
Kant identified time and space as a priori intuitions. I claim that stories are another kind of a priori intuition. You can write down stories of utpoia and dystopia; When you do, you're already two thirds your way to heaven and hell. Why not go all the way?
Literal versus metaphorical truth. There are some truths that are literally false but if you behave as if they were true you come out ahead.
Imagine a universe where every possible mind is tuned to the worst possible experience that they can. If anything is bad, that's bad. If the word bad is going to mean anything, it's bad. I claim that this is a "factual claim". Every claim we make about anything, turtles all the way down, gets us to something that's bedrocked on intuition [Perhaps even math, in terms of the axioms we choose? Mh, I'm not very convinced, but sure]. If we are going to use the word bad and good, there will be an implicit acknowledgement that the worse possible misery for everyone is bad. It's built in. ~ Sam Jordan disagrees that this is a factual claim.
Why did people do the worst things