> And even if you are an atheist, you probably still accept the bible is the closest thing we have to a human origin story.
I can't imagine why he believes so. Apart from the modern materialist origin story, what about all the mythical ones from other cultures? Of all of them, this is my favorite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckiNNgfMKcQ
edit: to the people who want to argue this: show me a body of work which has been more influential on western society. What people seem to identify as 'western' values are largely just judeo christian values. The influence of the bible is so ingrained into our society that you will live out the values within it even if you don't realize it.
And that kindof makes sense, doesn't it? Some guys wrote down some stories which at the time were being passed orally, these stories became really popular, and the society which was telling these stories and using them to pass their moral philosophy became prosperous.
The Catholic Church was a (not so)pseudo government in Europe for almost 2000 years, and was the leader and authority in philosophy and art. The idea that somehow none of this is foundational to western civilization is absurd and completely ahistoric.
People hear "the bible is foundational" and I think they're hearing "the magical stories in the bible are literally true. God sat on a cloud and poofed western civilization into existence!"
What I'm saying is that, the Dawkins sense, The Bible was an extremely successful meme. I don't think that's even up for debate.
>Not everyone eats everything Jordan Peterson says.
People need to find more internet people to hate. Christopher Hitchens was saying the same thing to impressionable teenagers in the early 2000s, and so was Richard Dawkins. Before that there was this little known German Philosopher saying something similar too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Death_of_G...
I would say at the very least the bible is one of the most important pieces of literature in the world, has had a tremendous impact in all its forms, played a role in the formation of the modern world's moral codes, and at the same time, is not the unique, one, and only "foundational" document leading to the modern western world- there isn't one.
(FWIW, I really do respect the King James bible as a world of literature, even though I am agnostic and consider the Silmarillion to be a more enjoyable origin story)
He absolutely has relevance considering he's the most recent prominent public figure pushing the Bible as "the foundational stories" without which we cannot live. Yes, there are others and it may be that OP arrived at this independently, but I've heard this most from his followers.
I acknowledge that I may've been slightly nudged by OP's unfounded "You have no time to waste on western civilization's foundational text?", which sounded extremely judgmental to me, but shouldn't have jumped on the bait.
I think it's a pretty dull tactic to namedrop e-celebs you don't like as a very crude way of making a point. Clearly you have some fairly progressive views, so it'd be a bit like if I brought up other e-celeb clowns like Hasan or Destiny specifically so I could make a bad dunk. That kind of discourse just doesn't have a place on HN, imo.
I don't doubt you can think of better ways to articulate your points, and I'd encourage you to do so.
I came across this sort of thing a lot in my life from Christians trying to convert me so I don't necessarily have the same amount of patience as others might to these sorts of tactics.
Note that I'm not even arguing against reading it to inform oneself, (something I've done multiple times), just this particular tactic of trying to get people to read it.
That's all.
That's not what I hear. What I hear is more along the lines of "What's in the Bible is somehow original/more profound than what came before and so THAT is the book to take note of", which just isn't true.
> People need to find more internet people to hate. Christopher Hitchens was saying the same thing to impressionable teenagers in the early 2000s, and so was Richard Dawkins.
Yes, they all pander to similar audiences be it back when Hitchens and Dawkins are more akin to Sam Harris imo.
That being said, there are lots of Bible references in the canon of English language literature. So if ones goal is to understand that, then a synopsis of the Bible stories and commonly quoted phrases might just be sufficient. The book is dry, repetitive and a bit inconsistent. It's value is that it is really old and is associated with a big religion. If a modern writer created the same thing it would have a really low rating on Goodreads.
You will find no mention of The Bible or any of its characters in The Federalist Papers. You will find much discussion of classical governments and several references to Montesquieu. John Locke specifically cited Euclid as his influence and structured his writing to match. Lincoln, perhaps the most stridently moral of America's presidents, was known as the village atheist when he was a young man, studied Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which put much of the blame on Christianity, and Paine's The Age of Reason. He carried Euclid's Elements with him until he could derive any of the propositions in the first six books at will.
It is only by the power of the ideas that Euclid's Elements (written in Alexandria) survives today. The Library of Alexandria was partially burned when Caesar set fire to the fleet in the harbor, which spread to the library and destroyed some part, to Caesar's embarrassment. Later, Christian zealots under Theophilus destroyed 10% of the collection. Finally, Muslim zealots under Caliph Omar destroyed the rest. Nobody looks to Theophilus's or Omar's governments as models of good government today.
A potential competitor would be Ancient Greek Philosophy (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle). Though it is hard to measure.
> What people seem to identify as 'western' values are largely just judeo christian values.
Nope, 'Judeo-Christian values' is a horrible Christian-Americanism that seems to erase the vast differences in Jewish and Christian experiences.
Judaism is a tribal religion with a huge focus on commandments given to said tribe and understanding the texts. Christianity is a religion concerned with the beliefs of all people, including non-Christians. The structure of their societies are quite different and historically Christian countries did not treat Jews well.
So I would add 'Judeo-Christian values' to the list of absurd and completely ahistoric ideas.
Any Christian or Jew will obviously acknowledge the many differences between the faiths, but I'm confused that you seem to be saying there aren't HUGE similarities in their value systems. Do you have many Jewish or Christian friends? I feel as if your understanding of Jewish/Christian culture is much more based on internet comments than lived experience.
If you want to understand, I encourage you to spend some time with devout Jews or devout Catholics and you'll begin to see the similarities.
I didn't know that, but this phrase seems to be common in the US. I have not encountered it much elsewhere.
> I'm confused that you seem to be saying there aren't HUGE similarities in their value systems
I don't deny there are many similarities, but my lived experience is that the core values and tenets of the two religions are quite different. Maybe you have a different experience.
Judaism also has many similarities with Samaritanism and Islam. So why don't we speak speak of Abrahamic values? My point is I am suspicious of the term 'Judeo-Christian values'.
Check out the background on this book if you're not familiar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_Pervert.
I'm agnostic as well, but I think it's an ignorant position to take to pretend that the Bible hasn't had an enormous influence in the continued story of humanity.
Atheists think along the lines of evolution / natural selection. Not mythology. Before that, tons to be read, all of it science based.
Here is a basic summary though.
The atheist world, of no life after death, is scary. We have not invented immortality. And even if we do, well there is an even scarier thing called entropy, that will end the universe anyway. There is no escape from death, as far as we know, and this is a problem that faces every human being in the world.
Now what? What do we do now?
Do you just lay down and accept that? Do you just sit down and die when your time comes?
Or do you fight?
George seems to have chosen the fight route. And to do that, well, our options are pretty limited. It involves looking into things that likely are pretty fantastical.
Things like "are we living in a simulation, and is there a way to break out of the simulation, to a universe where entropy doesn't exist". Or, alternatively "does the bible talk about any magic, hidden portals".
And no, this doesn't involve just praying to a sky fairy, and hoping things work out in the end.
Yes, these solutions sound pretty fantastical. But what other options do we have? Because if the current atheist world is the real one, then we are doomed. We are in the death world. Game over. Thats it. The most important problem, ever, is unsolvable. And we are all going to die, and nothing other than this fact matters.
The silly part to me is his claim that everyone (including atheists) thinks that the Bible is the best answer.
Well, most of modern society has decided that once you've satisfied your basic needs, hedonism is the answer. Travel, good food, good times with friends, etc. That's what most people are living like and what the culture creates. No need to find hidden portals.
Tell me if you started from scratch right now you'd be worrying about this 2deep4u shenanigans instead of doing cool shit again?
By the way, I really respect your work and think you've done great things and enjoy reading your rambles a lot.
Unfortunately, every single person in the world is an individual. Every person faces the same problem.
> The fact that we exist today as sentient creatures able to contemplate their own mortality is entirely due to the fact that those who came before us died.
Indeed that is the case. But what does it matter to those people who came before us? They are dead. They lost the game of life. They didn't escape the simulation, or go to heaven, or any of that. They are decomposing in the ground.
Just like everyone else is going to lose eventually.... unless we fix it.
All evidence points that this is true so far. What is wrong with that? It doesn't mean life doesn't matter. This passage from Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g
This is unfortunately an axiomatic philosophical disagreement.
For those with my viewpoint, of nothing mattering to you, once you are dead and gone, this is basically unfalsifiable, as are most axiomatic disagreements.
And the quotes and arguments that you link in that video, basically just come off as a nice sounding cope, made by people who are distracting themselves from the horror of the reality of our situation. It is an emotional play, and humans are great at tricking themselves with emotions.
I don't really blame people for that though. My perspective really is pretty terrifying. It makes sense why people would hide from it. And the only way that recognizing it helps me, is that I am informed about fringe technologies, like cryonics, that currently are pretty unlikely to work.
On the other hand I view concerns about the afterlife to actually be somewhat depressing. So much time and energy from the limited time we actually have being spent on some fantasy that is completely unverifiable, and so much of it motivated by fear (of hell, emptiness, a vengeful god, etc).
To state my view point simply: The unknown is scary, concerning oneself with an afterlife (or singularity, life extension, etc) is a coping mechanism to avoid processing that fear, whereas admitting that our existence is finite is an acceptance that there are things we can’t know, can’t prepare for, and that we shouldn’t waste our time on.
That kind of discussion always reminds me of a very short poem by Stephen Crane
A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”
the second law of thermodynamics has never invoked any sort of feelings of impending spiritual doom, but more importantly even if it did that's hardly a reason to start retreating into fantasies, we're not owed a non-doomed universe, and not even a non-doomed individual life. And on a personal note I' rather take the embrace of the indifferent cold universe over jolly people reading scripture to me for all eternity because the latter sounds more like hell to me than the former but that's subjective I guess.
from his Lex Fridman interview.
The greatest implication is that we are responsible for good ourselves, and if heaven exists, something like us (or our descendants, or other beings entirely) it's up to us to build it (which I couldn't agree more). We should start now!
I don't know if there is an absolute need for something else, although clearly you do need some ethical framework to make decisions. Assuming you're a self-interested cell can have definitely different implications than assuming you're literally a tiny part of a whole (even if you are in favor of self-interested cooperation: this redefinition has many further implications). You could also assume you're are a cell, but decide to axiomatically value the whole as well. One way you could justify this axiom is through parsimony -- saying it's simpler than only valuing the self. Another justification (without appealing to Spinoza's definition) is that self-interested cells will fail in certain situations, s.t. whole-valuing cells can go much further -- that is, self-interested cells can turn into cancer or just don't survive as well as a multi- or omni- cellular organism. People already value their children and other people, this is a mostly logical conclusion.
This isn't just academic: we're going through crises right now that would be very different if people were less exclusively self-interested, and humanity's survival may depend on it in some way.
I like to put it this way: Love is optimal.
I think ultimately most ethical systems converge (to fundamentally valuing one another), so in a way some differences are aesthetic, how you prefer to think about it, etc. I think it's nice that we have more than one way of seeing those things coexisting peacefully (although like I said, I think it's very important they are consistent with the truth, at least for the most part).
To get a feel for an expanded mind, think about your cellphone (or PC or google, etc.). Some of your memories are stored in your cellphone. So in a very real way the digital world is an actual extension of your mind; think how some of our organs (like hair, or maybe cartilage etc.) are not living tissue yet we consider them part of 'us'. The definition of 'I' is in a way functional, and maybe more completely related to agency and information coherence. In a literal way also, Nature doesn't distinguish individuals. What is 'you' here is, as far as we can tell, a large amount of flowing interactions, which are not singular. What is 'you' is influenced by an entire past extended lightcone; what is 'you' does not live in a single moment in time, but is indeed distributed in time and in space -- 'I' is an abstraction over a cosmic soup -- a very useful, interesting, and important one, but nonetheless it isn't physically fundamental. What we are fundamentally changes in time as well -- you are fundamentally a distributed network of events, not a singular entity. In this way the fundamental distinction of individual seems to fade, and validate a greater distinction -- the maximum distinction is the one encompassing all that exists (i.e. Spinoza's God). In a way, you might call it just another way of seeing things -- just like the 'I' or the self -- but it can in the same way be interesting, useful, etc.. And again it fits the traditions in a way (this is also an insight of Buddhism but the interpretation is different).
Derek Parfit discusses some of this here: