,
9 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
I have some thoughts to add on a comment from @ThatsBSPodcast in our discussion of Jordan Peterson's fixation on the Judeo-Christian strain of religious thought in particular (link below). They're more clearly sorted in my mind now. Thread. /1
@ThatsBSPodcast I discussed how JP is looking at J-C religion like a Darwinian pragmatist, observing what's most useful time-tested for the most people across time. Jordan (That's BS Jordan) countered that if that's the motivation, hypothetically J-C didn't have to be the "winner." /2
He suggests, "If Islam were later to become the most widely useful religious framework for people instead, as a consistent pragmatist wouldn't JP have to do his tour all over again, this time talking about Muhammad's flight on a winged horse instead of Cain and Abel?" /3
In the moment, I agreed with Jordan's broader point that in one sense JP's approach lacks a solid objective tie-down. But on reflection, I do think the hypothetical about Muhammad's winged horse is missing an important point: Muhammad's winged horse doesn't teach us anything. /4
The reason why Peterson keeps going back to Cain and Abel, to the Fall, to the Exodus, to the patriarchs, etc., is that these stories contain *wisdom*. They lay bare deep, sometimes painful truths about human nature. They provide food for meditation and reflection. /5
By contrast, a flying horse is contentless. There's no point to the story. "Oh by the way, a horse sprouted wings and flew" is a triviality that offers nothing of value to the reader. Certainly it pales by comparison with the disturbingly close to home insights of Cain & Abel. /6
For JP, it's not *merely* the fact that abiding by this particular Holy Book has yielded positive pragmatic results in so many people's lives. It's the fact that this Book is a repository of wisdom in a way that other books aren't. So that's my fuller answer to Jordan. /End
PS: I should note that this doesn't mean I think it's irrelevant whether or not the stories in the Bible are literal. Fiction and non-fiction do teach in importantly different ways, and I think literalness confers something essential to the biblical text. That's another convo.
CC: @PaulVanderKlay
