Peterson vs Harris – Vancouver (Part 1)Jordan Peterson first debated Sam Harris on a podcast when the two disagreed about the definition of “truth”. Despite their differences, they many common positions. Both favor free speech over political correctness and believe in the existence of absolute moral truths. And both agree that a literal interpretation of scripture is counter-productive. In fact, what made the first Vancouver debate interesting was seeing them converge on some topics instead of disagreeing about everything, and what made it even more interesting was seeing exactly where they disagreed. This conversational pattern remained consistent across the series of five debates they had outside the U.S (so far).
The Root of the Disagreement
Peterson and Harris disagree about two fundamental propositions. The first is whether religious texts are still relevant today, and the second is whether we ought to use rationality as the only standard to judge moral propositions. Harris believes that religions may have been useful at some point but are no longer capable of guiding our moral intuitions about modern problems. And he also believes that we should base our moral systems on rationality and facts. Peterson is less optimistic about the power of rationality, let alone in the hands of flawed human beings. That is why he is not willing to throw out “the baby with bathwater” (an overused statement in their debate). Peterson believes that while imperfect – Christianity has acted as a precursor for sustainable political systems – something atheism has historically been unsuccessful at doing.
Peterson draws on historical examples (Nazism, Communism) and shows that our previous attempts to subvert religious influence completely has resulted in genocidal totalitarian regimes. The fact that our attempts have been a complete failure should force us to reconsider the proposition that religions can be replaced by rationality. Christianity, for example, seems to serve a function that is critical for staving totalitarianism. Since its central message is the communication of truth (The Word, Logos)– it is the perfect antidote to the innate decadence of totalitarian regimes. Since true speech commands top position in the dominance hierarchy of values, it gives rise to self-correcting political systems that do not fall prey to power-hungry bureaucrats.
Further, our experiences in our short life span (relative to existence of ancient structures such as the dominance hierarchy, religion, etc…) are insufficient – they cannot illuminate enough truths about the nature of reality. Peterson thinks that we are too complex to be able to guide ourselves by using a top-down rational approach. Moral systems are emergent, they develop organically. He cites Piaget’s studies on how children naturally develop moral systems bottom-up through play.
Unlike Harris, who believes that is possible to use rationality as the framework to develop moral systems – Peterson thinks that most people need religion, or at least a functional interpretation of it that is preferably not literal. Since reality is complex to navigate, and many people either are incapable of devoting the work to be develop their own moral rules, or do not have the time for it, religion serves as a functional and important foundation.
While Harris is clearly right that ancient religious texts are a poor substitute for moral education when it comes to solving modern issues, his position becomes weaker when we take into consideration how feasible it is to expect most people in society to rationally construct their moral viewpoints on everything from scratch.
In fact, Peterson agrees when Harris accuses him of insinuating that less intelligent people need religion more than intelligent people do. Peterson justifies his position by making a pragmatic argument. He agrees that Harris’ idealism may be perfect theoretically but implementing it has proved to be very tricky in the past – and it’s not clear how we can avoid making a catastrophic error if we attempt the same experiment in the future.
To give an example for why he agreed with Harris’ accusation, Peterson asserts that is far better for people with below average intelligence to be conservative. His logic is straightforward. If some people have a sub-standard ability to navigate through complex problems, then they will find it difficult to accurately navigate complex problems about morality. It is then wiser for them to adopt conventional ideas as they are at least somewhat effective.
But of course, he acknowledges that clinging to norms can be counter-productive. There are times when doing the conventional thing works, but sometimes you are required to be more innovative – when reality isn’t stable or predictable. In which case, it is far better to not be conservative or conventional. It would be more advantageous to be open to new ideas because you will then be able to adapt better. This is especially relevant to today’s world where conventional ways of doing things are getting disrupted more rapidly.
Thus, Peterson rejects Harris’ position for two reasons. One, it’s not clear that rationalism can get us to moral truths that will sustain the survival of our species. Two, it’s not obvious that the hole that religion will leave behind can be filled by a benign alternative.
This isn’t a deadlock that can easily be resolved. Both have solid reasons for their respective viewpoints that I will talk more about in this and other posts but looking at it objectively – I believe the question should be more tightly defined. And this is sort of what Peterson hinted at when he suggested that being conventional works for some people more than others. It means that Peterson recognizes that in certain cases, it is far more important to rely on facts to make decisions. And as he makes clear, it’s not that facts have no place in moral considerations, it is that they are insufficient.
Metaphorical Truth
What he is trying to do is find the other things that are also relevant to moral considerations. Metaphorical truths (a term coined by Bret Weinstein) are one of those things.
Metaphorical truths are things you believe in that may be literally false, but carry some practical benefit. For example, it’s better to believe that all guns are loaded if you want to avoid a gun accident even if your belief isn’t literally true (Some guns are unloaded).
And perhaps this is where Harris’ and Peterson’s disagreement is most crucial. Even if Harris concedes that we are not capable of constructing a functional moral system by only using facts and rationality, that still doesn’t say anything about the utility of metaphorical truths. To Harris, metaphorical truths are open to multiple interpretations. The Hindus and Buddhists have different metaphorical understandings of the nature of evil, for example – and the fact that these understandings are different from those of the monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism), means that the metaphorical truths themselves are insufficient. There must be something deeper than religious mythology itself that gives rise to sustainable belief systems.
Harris doesn’t claim to know what that is exactly, but takes issue with two things that Peterson seems to do. One, if other metaphorical truths exist and are functional, then why is Peterson partial towards the Christian myth in particular? And the second concern is Peterson’s ambiguous position about whether he believes in God.
Why Christianity?
Harris’ issue with Peterson’s position is that he singles out Christianity from the set of belief systems, and there’s no reason to assume that the Christian story is any more valid than other stories.
Peterson has explained his belief in Christianity and God in several different ways and as he enthusiastically admits – it’s not simple. But it seems to me that his justification always gravitates to the following fundamental presuppositions. The first is his acknowledgement of Christianity’s role in shaping his own moral intuitions, in addition to the legal and political frameworks of western nations. Peterson believes that democratic systems are superior to alternatives – precisely because of free speech is the core mechanism underlying democratic systems. Since free speech is central to Christianity, he cannot but identify Christianity as the precursor to the only sustainable political system we know of today.
The second presupposition concerns the nature of “belief”. To Harris, beliefs represent what you think. But to Peterson, what you think you believe and what you say you believe doesn’t matter. What matters is how you act.
And according to Peterson, both he and Harris act as if God exists. They are both in pursuit of truth and believe that free speech is the mechanism by which to obtain it. They believe in the primacy of truth over power.
Peterson’s Definition of God
Harris and many others have accused Peterson of not having a clear position on whether he believes God exists. This is a question that Peterson has (to Harris) avoided in the past by stating that it’s not obvious what people mean by belief or what they mean by God or whether what they mean and what he thinks are the same thing.
This brings us to a key point in the debate, where Harris presses Peterson on his position about God. And Peterson proceeds with a lengthy explanation of his notion of God. This was the exchange that took place.
SH: What do you mean by God?JP: I’m going to tell you some of the things I mean by God.Here are some propositions…God is how we imaginatively and collectively represent the existence and action of consciousness across time as the most real aspects of existence manifest themselves across the longest of timeframes but are not necessarily apprehensible as objects in the here and now.What that means in some sense is that you have conceptions of reality built into your biological and metaphysical structure that are a consequence of a process of evolution that occurred over unbelievably vast expanses of time and that structure your perceptions of reality in ways that it wouldn’t be structured if you only lived for the amount time you were going to live. That’s also part of the problem of deriving value from facts, because you are evanescent, and you can’t derive the right values from facts as they portray themselves to you in your lifespan which is why you have a biological structure that is 3.5 billion years old.God is that which eternally dies and is reborn in pursuit of higher being and truth. That’s a fundamental element of hero mythology. God is the highest value in the hierarchy of values.God is what calls and responds to the eternal call to adventure.God is the voice of conscience.God is the source of judgment and mercy and guilt.God is the future to which we make sacrifices, and something akin to the transcendal repository of reputation.Here’s a cool one if you’re an evolutionary biologist.God is that which selects among men in the eternal hierarchy of men. Men arrange themselves into hierarchies, and men rise in the hierarchy and there’s principles that are important that determine the probability of their rise and those principles aren’t tyrannical power. That’s something like the ability to articulate truth, be competent, and make appropriate moral judgments. If you do that in a given situation then all the other men will vote you up the hierarchy and this will increase your reproductive fitness, and the operations of th