Gasp! I Agree With Richard Dawkins
In this post I discussed a video by Alex O’Connor in which he pointed out the futility of Jordon Peterson’s entire enterprise. Peterson understands there is a profound moral crisis in the West. And he thinks he has hit upon a solution: Get people to act as if they are Christians. The problem is that Peterson does not actually believe in the truth claims of Christianity. He takes a purely instrumental approach to Christianity. O’Connor points out the obvious. What if I don’t actually believe Christianity is true? When push comes to shove I am not going to act on the basis of something I don’t believe.
I just spent an hour and a half watching O’Connor moderate a discussion between Peterson and Richard Dawkins here. Again, Peterson is extremely good at diagnosing our present spiritual crisis. And he points out that the solution is to adopt the sublime ethical system developed within the Judeo-Christian tradition.
In response, Dawkins asks a profound question: “Are you saying that Jesus really did die for our sins? I mean do you believe that? Do you believe that as a fact, that Jesus died for our sins?” As he usually does, Peterson dissembles. Dawkins continues by conceding that even if Christianity has some instrumental value, “that doesn’t in any way increase my trust in the validity of Christian propositions like the resurrection, the virgin birth, the miracles and Jesus is the son of God.” For example, “Christianity may have some kind of historical facilitating effect that led to the Renaissance, that led to the scientific revolution. And that would be a very interesting historical analysis. But it doesn’t bear upon the truth the propositions of the Christian religion.” Then Dawkins dismisses Peterson’s project. He says that if Christianity’s truth claims are not actually true it is useless. He says he is not impressed by Peterson’s attempt to instrumentalize Christianity.
I agree. Christianity is good because it is true. It is not good because it is useful. C.S. Lewis once wrote: “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance, the only thing it cannot be is moderately important.” In response to Peterson, I would modify this to say: “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance, the only thing it cannot be is merely useful.”
Peterson is hoping for a fix from within the intellectual and cultural system that will somehow maintain it. That isn't possible. A system built on Judaism and Christianity does not survive their rejection. And the new forces at work cannot maintain any similar system.
For example, Billboard Chris writes, “And if you believe in evolution, this ideology is stating that somehow one billion years of the process of natural selection has failed, and it's now up to a pharmaceutical company to help our children be their true selves." In fact, the Top People now do not really believe in science OR religion. They believe in getting or keeping power, however they do it. There is no hope for Peterson here. In fact, he has been Canceled by his own profession in Canada.
Yes, Kant would have considered Peterson's argument for adopting Christian values as a hypothetical imperative, as opposed to a categorical imperative, which is a moral action governed by intrinsic truth. However, Dawkjns' entire morality necessarily must be grounded in hypothetical imperatives, simply because he is a materialist-reductionist. That's really why western culture is facing an existential crisis right now.