1 Comment

I guess Peterson’s approach to religion is erroneous. He looks at religion as some kind of scientific phenomena. He uses words like probability, pattern… He wants to understand it as a psychological thing. This is completely demystifying and misleading, I think. He says: „The rationalists, for example, are not doing a great job at defending the culture”, but he also falls into the rationalist trap, he is just more sympathetic to religion.

You quoted him saying: “What happens when we don’t turn to more traditional forms of belief, we turn to forms of beliefs that are far more dangerous.” This is an incredibly weak argument for religion, like the „democracy is not good, but nobody invented better”. I think if one wants to become Christian, one must think about God as somebody not as something, not in the least as a „pattern”. Maybe the biggest error in Peterson’s way of thinking, that he thinks solely some intellectual journey can lead to Christ, but you ultimately need to have a spiritual element, but of course the intellectual element is important too, especially if you become uncertain in your own faith. You wrote: „Peterson stresses that it is possible and good to live according to a religious schema while being religiously sceptical. I think this is very important for the survival of the Church as well as the well-living of individuals.”, I doubt it. Because if you want to draw people into the Church you need to be credible, but you cannot be credible if you not really believe, if you just follow customs. The whole thing will be degraded to some lifestyle or worst to a couple of lifehack.

Tom Holland, the historian has a better grasp on faith. Check out this podcast episode!


Expand full comment