Thread by @GSpellchecker

Now watching in the hope Matt skewers Jordan Peterson's flimsy ideas on atheism and his game of 'hide the ball' with religion

Watch "An Evening With Matt Dillahunty & Jordan Peterson" on YouTube

Ah, @Matt_Dillahunty is doing a great job of keeping Peterson on topic here and prodding away in all the right places. I've been waiting for someone to cut through his noise on the supernatural/religion.

Matt Asks what we would lose if the world was without religion.

Peterson:"You'd lose art & poetry & drama & narrative & story"

Matt:"Are there no godless artists & poets?"

Peterson:"There are artists & poets who think they're godless"

This is the level.

Now Peterson is arguing *against* Matt's claim that were Matt to be decapitated, this would be bad for his well-being.

Peterson:"Well, it depends how you define well-being"

That's it. I'm going to bed.

For someone who rails against postmodernism, Peterson does an uncanny impression of an infuriating postmodernist when discussing god. How his fans can't see this, I have no idea.

On a two hour train journey, so picking this back up again. It's not got better. A number of people sending me variations of "so what? He's bad on this but good on other stuff". I agree. But that's not the point...

I'm not suggesting JBP should now be jettisoned from the conversation because I disagree on something. On the contrary, I actually find value in some of his output. I'm simply pointing out that his worldview is contradictory.

Firstly, if you're confused as to why 'The Godless Spellchecker' is paying particular attention to his flimsy views on atheism and religion, I can't help you.

The reason I point out his poor reasoning on religion/atheism is because it's in direct conflict with almost everything else he claims to stand for, or even against. This isn't a differing view therefore, it's a point of inconsistency at best & hypocrisy at worst

You can't rail against post-modernism, yet pretend god can be anything, everything and nothing when it suits you. You can't claim to be an advocate of reason and evidence yet obfuscate on the supernatural.

A rational mind is about how you think, not what you think. And JPB is selective about where he applies those rational tools. You can't have it both ways. Especially when you've attained your infamy on the back of challenging the irrational.

Now again, I have nothing personal against JBP. He's willing to engage and has conversions in a constructive way. This is valuable. I agree with a lot of what he says and disagree with a lot of what he says. I just don't think this particular blind spot is inconsequential

It's clear to me from this exchange that @Matt_Dillahunty just knows these arguments back to front. He's not hearing anything new or sophisticated here. It seems almost effortless for him. Peterson appears to be way out of his depth on this topic.