Harris & Peterson

30 Mar 2019

Ethical search - how can it not arrive at god? Is it possible for science not to have an endgame?

For Harris it need not to; the Church of old is over, confessions (e.g.) do not have the same function. Now people rather seek god by “searching.” And so many people have the means to search.

Christendom is over as a phenomenon that is considered fairly pure and a structure that is fairly consistent. Donatism is the consequence of a similar world today where complexity is much higher.

The ways of achieving salvation is what spelled the fragmentation for a world that was well adapted and united in god. So the very permissive individuality is what recreates phenomena like individuality. Some religions do not have that (like Islam perhaps), but rather have more robust coding of meaning and rules of a good life. So atheism and faith can be reconciled, because everyone seems to be in a quest for meaning and spirituality.

Seems to me that Harris is a purist who is unwilling to accede that the “old” idea of spirituality as religion, because religion is tainted to him.

Personal growth is the idea of this era’s road to salvation.

But perhaps self-growth is to reductive, because it does not allow for contact with god which extends beyond the growth of the self.

So religion could be seen as a major challenge to the current politically correct society, in a way a challenge to the individualism of our lives, that was brought by capitalism, which also brought enourmous good for more people, but needs to be transcended (there will be chaos of the kind at the end of Roman Empire, when similar context existed, etc., etc.).

Atheism definitely keeps religion honest, so much so that more conversation is needed, so Harris and Peterson are perfect for one another.

But the question remains as to why revelation happened when it did, argument can follow from there, and there were different revelations in different epochs, different archetypes, too.

There is value in the insistence of moral values through stories, also in the sense that theological understandings of the world are needed in politics, too, they are desirable. So the challenge is how to reintroduce theology in a liberal society - why? - in order to reintroduce moderation.

In a very clear division of labor, Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson are a philosopher/theologian pair. Harris grasps all the problems (consciousness) better than anyone else, he is that good, analytical. Peterson holds the mystery of knowledge, the code, through revelation - he cannot know the source of that knowledge of course, so Harris can just continue to ask. The question is when will they be content with that dyad and start working together on a real issue (maybe they are already through the starting of a school, etc.). Problem for Harris is that ratio is always part of the spirit of the time, of the context. Why can’t he see it as a passion or his own cross, this science quest? A journey? Religious experience is a journey, certainly. Harris and Peterson moderate one another thus.

Maybe include Plutarch’s An seni respublica gerenda sit (Moralia)