There is No Good Argument For Atheism? Critique of Jordan Peterson

Jordan Peterson recently came out with the statement that there are no good arguments for atheism. Today, we review it!
--
⏰Timestamps⏰:
0:13 Atheism is an illegal chess move
1:34 Materialistic Determinism as an Argument
2:48 Materialistic Determinism as an Axiom
4:09 Religion not as a form of evidence
6:02 Conscience as an argument for God
9:43 Jordan Peterson and Religion
12:04 Fine-Tuning Argument and Randomness
--
If you found this video helpful, like and subscribe, and share this video with your friends!
--
--
Take part in a ministry which reaches 5000+ people with the Christian message per month and gain access to Joshua’s private collection of notes (on over 200 articles and books), pose questions to leading scholars, suggest videos, and more:
--
--
Feel free to join my discord server:
--
Check out Christianity for All, my guide to Christian life in the 21st century:
--
About the video:
Jordan Peterson recently claimed that atheism was an illegal chess move in an interview with Matt Fradd at the Pints with Aquinas Podcast. In today's video, I analyse Jordan Peterson's claims and arguments, analysing some of Jordan Peterson's theological assumptions and influences while also discussing the arguments that he provides.
--
Some product links are affiliate links which means if you buy something I’ll receive a small commission.

[BarrySometimes]

Jordan redefines theism as useful fiction, this is how he pseudo-argues against "atheism". By redefining theism as a necessary fiction, he subsequently redefines atheism as the natural corollary of as much - a non-belief in necessary fiction.

Jordan’s argument is a false equivocation, it’s a straw-man. Notice how he never defines himself as a theist, though defines those opposed to his non-theistic views as "atheists".

For instance, he begins with proclaiming the “best” argument for atheism is materialism & determinism. Atheism isn’t a position held in reference to materialism or immaterialism, likewise it isn’t a position held in reference determinism or non-determinism. By definition, an “atheist” need not be a materialist or an immaterialist, such as an idealists, likewise an “atheist” need not be a determinist or a non-determinist. It is simply a person who is unconvinced by theistic claims - that an intervening literal God exists.

[marios.]

Peter Jordanson would ask "what do you mean by atheism?" in reverse.

[saintsword]

I found what he said to be one of the most idiotic things I've heard said. I normally like JBP but this is a huge blind spot. Materialistic determinism is the best argument for atheism? Wtf? It's not even an argument for atheism nor do atheists all hold to materialism or determinism.

And then he just special pleads away the "you have no evidence argument, " which is the real best argument for atheism. You can't just claim the minotaur exists and then say asking for proof is an "illegal move." It's just special pleading to say God is some exception.

Sam Harris is dead on with this stuff. We can keep the contemplative and moral parts of religion while jettisoning bronze age superstitions. Why is this so difficult?

[brainnfire]

This is how you get to 'God' from a positivistic newtonain worldview:

1) Recognize that your perception of reality is not a fact but a relationship with existence that is translated as the experience of a subset of existence (reality);

2) Recognize the insufficiency of concepts and language that partition reality, biased according to observation discrimination, which does not allow for a holistic perspective where everything is clearly connected and one 'body';

3) By identifying a global identity tied to a total existence you can then simplify it by calling it 'God' (I like to call it 'the whole' as well).

That's it.

====

Technically, 'God' shouldn't even be simplified with a word-concept because it's like using a pointer as if it was the thing itself. God is therefore undefinable because we can't define it because we are [a part of] the whole and not the whole whole. When we coin a word, we are simplfying for sake of discourse and communication, but it should be acknowledged that it's a deliberate faux pas and taken with that in mind.

That said, God is the whole and you don't need to 'believe' in it. It just is.


====

Now, as Peterson often mentions, you can believe in more ways than it's usually understood:

- You can believe, as in 'accepting an axiom, ad hoc, without sufficient evidence';

- You can believe, as in 'commitment through participation' or 'placing trust/confidence in X';

They are both the same thing from different angles, but atheist types usually focus on the first definition, as they are afraid to be wrong and invest in something that may not be in accordance with objective truth. But as much as we can try to prevent that, in some area or another, we will always be fooled on occasion.

What they don't see is that they relinquish the ability to deliberately invest (with risk of failure) in something. So they don't take risks nor invest, because they have to feel intellectually secure that their sense of truth will be validated by scientific consensus and empirical evidence, and that their trust won't undermine their own sense of identifying as a 'smart' person. As identifying as such is so fragile and easily underminable since every corner it dents will blemish the whole prideful identity of 'intelligence' (speciallly in lower essential layers).

But if you look at the history of science you'll realise that a 'fact' depends heavily on how it's framed in conjuction with the system it's part of. That is why a new theory that encapsulates more facts in can often reframe the whole framework. I.e.: geocentrism became heliocentrism and now we know galaxies swirl around a black hole. There was truth in all models but not the whole truth. If you take this to the extreme, no matter how many dimentions or how endless space-time is, 'the whole' (or 'God') will always be the totality. Which is why it can always serve as the pointer to the whole equation and the complete variable we always only know a fraction.

Ironically, even mathmaticians have the courage to entertain not knowing (incognito variables), but the clergy of scientism clings to the 'facts' and confuse them for existence - they end up eating the menu instead of the food.

Gold could be on the other side of the door but since they can't open the door they would rather actively choose to not engage with the possibility that it might there. But 'belief' is having the key to that door without actually having to open it and check. If you know you are taking a leap and ground yourself in that, you can venture past it without sufficient evidence and without losing yourself in fantasy.

You can have both empirical evidence based models and belief/trust guided/informed models running at the same time in your mental schematics and sometimes you'll entertain risking being wrong and other times you'll play your cards to your chest and refrain from being tempted into fantasy. But you'll aways have a choice - which is something atheists and the clerics of science haven't noticed they have forgone: their free will. Which is why they are obsessed with determinism (bird's eye view of human nature) and are relinquishing their own individual sovereignty by deeming everything they do as determined - genetically and environmentally driven - and no longer take positions outside of the sea of consensus and public influence.

[Friction]

I don't really consider myself a "determinist materialist", but I very strongly disagree with your points at around 2:10. Determinism does not entail modal collapse, and it doesn't entail "epistemic collapse". In no way does materialist determinism undermine or prohibit thinking, reasoning, consideration of evidence, rational deliberation, and the like. It may be that we were determined to engage in those activities...but that's obviously compatible with the occurrence of those activities!

Also, I'm confused by the accusation of circularity here. Which argument for atheism is circular? Any argument from materialist determinism? That surely isn't right.

I'll refrain from talking about Peterson's comments, apart from noting that they seem like an endless trail of confusions and nonsense spewed confidently.

[FernandoRomero-jkeg]

JP after his drug problem is just sad. Now he's closer to a televangelist than a scientist. It's like something has taken his soul.

[ZER--]

Gotta love JP's jacket. It says a lot about the man. He doesn't wear his heart on his sleeve.

[tedgrant]

When I was a baby, I did not believe in Brahma.
You may be shocked to learn that I still don't believe in Brahma !
My lack of belief is not supported by any rational arguments.

[existential_o]

It's strange that Peterson is so bent on discrediting natural theology, but then almost immediately follows up with an argument from moral knowledge (6:05). While I think Peterson is right in implying this type of reformed epistemology should be preferred over a classical evidentialist approach, to throw natural theology out the window is mistaken.

[Galaxyman]

God of the Bible is the highest form of morality? Has JP ever read the Bible? The Nobel physicist Steven Weinberg said " God of the Bible is a terrible character" Agree 100%.

[thecriticalone]

Jordan Peterson accusing others of playing games while trying to play word games. My only question about him is how much does he believes this crap vs how much he is playing into for his fans

[nwlly]

This is where I depart from Peterson. I am an atheist simply because I have never been presented any convincing arguments or evidence for theistic beliefs. And when those beliefs contain appeals to the magic or the supernatural, my standards of evidence massively increase.

[northernlight]

JP should stick to his field. He is way out of his depth. Matt Dillahunty destroyed him in their debate.

[comegetzome]

An "illegal chess move" eh? My goodness, what a bold presumption to think human beings are intrinsically playing the same game as he is. I used to hang on every word JP spoke, but since he's pivoted to promoting religion as something fundamental to the human experience, I cannot tolerate that kind of rhetoric anymore.
It's not an illegal chess move in the slightest. Calling atheism an illegal chess move implies that we're playing chess. That alone is already a non-starter. Game theory tells us we are all playing a game of some kind & that we can switch games anytime we feel compelled to. So, with this in mind, someone who subscribes to atheism is - by definition - playing a different game. Yknow what's beautiful about that? The simple fact that human beings aren't born with instruction manuals assigned to them indefinitely.
We can be born somewhere & later on move & adopt entirely new perceptions on life. You could be an atheist one day, turn into a christian the next, then maybe become buddhist, & maybe fall back into atheism. It's all fair game. JP saying that he doesn't believe there's a good argument for atheism likely stems from a presupposition he has about the nature of humanity. It's the same thing Carl Jung experienced.
Jung basically believed that 'god' was imbedded in our psychology since before we were conceived, thereby permitting the ability to believe in a god as we mature. But most psychologists have pointed out the simple fact that we are not born with the intrinsic desire to believe in gods, but rather that we are born with the proclivity to believe in anything whatsoever if the experience of being introduced to that belief moves us!
JP's proclamation that there's no good argument for atheism is easily reversible. We could all just as easily say there's no good argument for belief in his subscribed deity of the christian god being the god that designed our planet & universe. Mind you, thats not the same as excluding the existence of a deity altogether. It only excludes the idea that it is the christian image of god that is the correct or accurate representation of a deity that lords over humanity & knows & judges all things. Hell, the belief in this god contradicts itself in its own versus! The old and new testament are riddled with situations where god flaunts his hypocrisy & permitting things that we are not allowed to do despite supposedly being made in "his image." The channel "MindShift" does an incredible job dissecting the bible & it's flaws. & since JP's definition of god is so contrived & unrecognizable as being anything like the christian god, I'm sure it's because of this that he believes there's no good argument for atheism.
But, frankly, there's only one HUGE flaw in JP of all people stating his case against atheism... If Jordan Peterson himself cannot define 'god' & his own explanations of 'god' are deeply nuanced & formulated from his experiences & observations then HOW in TF does he think there is no argument for atheism when his perception of god is vastly different from the widely accepted consensus of what a deity is??

[fr.hughmackenzie]

11:50 Heidegger is the big Existentialist influence upon Peterson -- and hence a similarity to Feuerbach and of course to Kant's moral argument for God. Heidegger's Dasein is a "practical-orientation" beyond being captured by propositions, but rooting them and therefore science and a certain naturalism. P. of course throws in Jung, which leads him back towards propositions. But P. has not yet quite squared the circle - partly because Heidegger himself, notwithstanding some key insights, is incoherent about the use of propositions.

[IanM-idor]

Atheism doesn't need a "good argument". Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods.

Basically, the atheist is saying that the theist hasn't presented convincing evidence for the existence of a god or gods..

Also, Peterson's position regarding the existence of a god is beyond ridiculous - he has stated very clearly that the god he "believes in" is fictional - he defines it as "useful fiction"
I'd say he's half right. I don't think theism is useful.

The best description I've encountered of Jordan Peterson's ramblings is "pseudo-profound bullshit"

[Christian-utsp]

I think when Peterson says atheism is an illegal chess move, he means it entails the destruction of the very fabric of reality as we experience it and therefore cannot be a viable option (to understand what exactly this claim is, one would then need to read Alvin Plantinga, and to 'feel' the force of this claim one would need to read Dostoevsky)

[ZoneTelevision]

Everything Peterson said is spot on. This "critique" video is just more deconstructionism which is really disinterested in the primary points Peterson and the process that Peterson engages in to reach his conclusions. There is no "formula" per se with which one arrives at "believing" in God and knowing what he is. The real and broader question is what does it mean to "know".

[AlgyPug]

I think Peterson is much on the same page as a professional right-wing troll like Milo Yiannopoulos: he flirts with theism, without committing himself to any established doctrine to make himself interesting and also to remain in sync with religious apologists. Were Peterson to align himself with thoughtful articulate atheists like Graham Oppy, he knows that he would lose much of his carefully curated mystique. Similarly were he to convert to a doctrinaire faith like Calvinism he would have to provide a stringent and well articulated justification for his religious beliefs. For Peterson definition is deadly. In particular he likes to dance with Catholic intellectuals like Bishop Robert Barron, with whom he can shoot the theological breeze for hours without ever having to land on a definite conclusion. As for Matt Fradd, he is following the path blazoned by Thomas Aquinas: decide what you ought to believe, and then find reasons to support your beliefs.

[jimmyfaulkner]

Peter Van Inwagen is both a Christian and ardent materialist/physicalist