Thank you so much for this! I've been thinking so much about these ideas lately! Also, Peterson melts into a puddle of incoherent metaphysical goo so cutely though, I almost forget his argument and what he's defending. That's why I mostly stick to Peterson's classroom lectures. He can be extremely hard to follow when he doesn't have structure. After I wrote my last couple of essays I've been thinking about the nature my beliefs and religion in general. I think I'm quite nihilistic in general when it comes to hearing out someone's religious beliefs.
For example, just last night I got into a twitter argument with a jpeg about Satanism and Christianity and I think it summed up what I've been thinking about lately. I said "Satanic symbols I choose to represent myself are simply symbols. Satan or Jesus as symbols don't matter. It's what you do with those symbols that count. Too many Christians (not just Christians) are using their symbols to control, shame, and degrade. Too many people are wolves in sheeps clothing. I don't care if a person is Christian or a Satanist but I have no patience for masks and subtle manipulation. "
You've summed up the two aspects of the Christian motte beautifully. Unfortunately for religious believers, "the God-shaped hole" and "the ground of being" aren't just unrelated to the specifics of any given theology: they're contradictory to each other.
There's a quote from Augustine (I think) that I read in a book years ago which I've never been able to find since, where he lays out these two aspects of God. On the one hand God is singular, infinite, omni-present, beyond space and time, utterly beyond our comprehension, incapable of definition... and at the same time loves us and sent his only begotten Son to die for us, etc... Augustine (or whoever it was) goes on to acknowledge this contradiction: knowing God's love is knowing an unknowable being, and so on.
I'm pretty sure it's even worse than that (there is an aspect of reality that conforms to theologian's notions of God, and it tells us that it has a kind of "strong unknowability" that makes revealed religion impossible) but that's bad enough!
"One cannot start with the Ground of Being or a God-Shaped Hole and reason one’s way to the resurrection."
Well, sure, one is a philosophical point and the other is a historical event. But I'm not sure anyone literally, simply does, there's always a whole load of other arguments and premises in between. There's a whole specific Christian apologetic defending the historical plausibility of the resurrection, for example.
For a lot of people though, the Resurrection seems plausible but they assume it's ruled out because physicalism describes everything and so miracles never happen. If they become convinced physicalism doesn't describe everything, that there's more to reality, then maybe miracles happen and the resurrection becomes more, or even sufficiently plausible. There's nothing illogical about that.
Most people in most societies will have basically a 1st and 2nd place most plausible belief system at a given time, so if they lose faith in 1) it's natural to shift to 2). For a lot of people in the Western world those are Christianity/Atheism, but in other times and places they might be Christian/Islam or Islam/Atheism or Christian/Paganism, etc. In which case knocking down belief system 1) can cause people to default to 2). Again, nothing illogical about that.
In your particular case, you've said you find the specific arguments for the resurrection to be unconvincing, so of course you don't believe in the Resurrection.
You might still be a theist in another sense, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc, all are, but you're not at the moment a creedal Christian. That's logical from your perspective, but it doesn't mean other people, for whom that's not the sticking point, are being illogical from their position.
Excuse me adding more points, I don't know how to edit comments.
But I think overall my issue would be that most people are giving holistic reasons to prefer one worldview over assumed default alternatives, not going through the arguments for every specific point item by item at the same time.
If you want to zoom in on those points, some people won't have a lot to say, others will be able to go into it in some detail, which again may convince or not.
I think we all accept aspects of our worldview that we're not experts in, because frankly there's isn't enough time in life. That's equally true of Atheists, Christians, Muslims, etc.
Hi there! Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts. Ultimately, the scope of this article is extremely narrow — it is an examination of one rhetorical and philosophical move that some Christians engage in when pushed on the creedal claims of their faith. I agree that there are historical arguments for the resurrection, but those fall outside the scope of this article.
I state that one cannot reason from the “ground of being” or “god shaped hole” to the resurrection as a response to this specific rhetorical move.
You state that your main issue is that most people have holistic reasons for preferring a worldview, and that when pressed on specific points, they won’t have much to say. I agree! From my perspective, as someone outside the faith, that presents difficulties for me! The points that need to be defended are not marginal — they are central to the entire edifice of creedal Christianity. The resurrection is not a mere point of belief — it is the henge of the entire structure.
To be clear, I think it’s ok that people haven’t thought through all this stuff, and do take a more holistic approach to faith. I don’t expect everyone to be as analytical as I am. Being merely human myself, I have a lot of time and compassion for people and their thoughts. But none of that negates the value of pointing out the trends and rhetorical moves that some people engage in. I see it as a mark of respect to do so.
Thank you so much for this! I've been thinking so much about these ideas lately! Also, Peterson melts into a puddle of incoherent metaphysical goo so cutely though, I almost forget his argument and what he's defending. That's why I mostly stick to Peterson's classroom lectures. He can be extremely hard to follow when he doesn't have structure. After I wrote my last couple of essays I've been thinking about the nature my beliefs and religion in general. I think I'm quite nihilistic in general when it comes to hearing out someone's religious beliefs.
For example, just last night I got into a twitter argument with a jpeg about Satanism and Christianity and I think it summed up what I've been thinking about lately. I said "Satanic symbols I choose to represent myself are simply symbols. Satan or Jesus as symbols don't matter. It's what you do with those symbols that count. Too many Christians (not just Christians) are using their symbols to control, shame, and degrade. Too many people are wolves in sheeps clothing. I don't care if a person is Christian or a Satanist but I have no patience for masks and subtle manipulation. "
Very well said ❤️
"It's what you do with those symbols that count." Love this!
Thank you!
You've summed up the two aspects of the Christian motte beautifully. Unfortunately for religious believers, "the God-shaped hole" and "the ground of being" aren't just unrelated to the specifics of any given theology: they're contradictory to each other.
There's a quote from Augustine (I think) that I read in a book years ago which I've never been able to find since, where he lays out these two aspects of God. On the one hand God is singular, infinite, omni-present, beyond space and time, utterly beyond our comprehension, incapable of definition... and at the same time loves us and sent his only begotten Son to die for us, etc... Augustine (or whoever it was) goes on to acknowledge this contradiction: knowing God's love is knowing an unknowable being, and so on.
I'm pretty sure it's even worse than that (there is an aspect of reality that conforms to theologian's notions of God, and it tells us that it has a kind of "strong unknowability" that makes revealed religion impossible) but that's bad enough!
Ohhh it didn’t even occur to me how the two Motte’s are contradictory to each other. Very good insight.
"One cannot start with the Ground of Being or a God-Shaped Hole and reason one’s way to the resurrection."
Well, sure, one is a philosophical point and the other is a historical event. But I'm not sure anyone literally, simply does, there's always a whole load of other arguments and premises in between. There's a whole specific Christian apologetic defending the historical plausibility of the resurrection, for example.
For a lot of people though, the Resurrection seems plausible but they assume it's ruled out because physicalism describes everything and so miracles never happen. If they become convinced physicalism doesn't describe everything, that there's more to reality, then maybe miracles happen and the resurrection becomes more, or even sufficiently plausible. There's nothing illogical about that.
Most people in most societies will have basically a 1st and 2nd place most plausible belief system at a given time, so if they lose faith in 1) it's natural to shift to 2). For a lot of people in the Western world those are Christianity/Atheism, but in other times and places they might be Christian/Islam or Islam/Atheism or Christian/Paganism, etc. In which case knocking down belief system 1) can cause people to default to 2). Again, nothing illogical about that.
In your particular case, you've said you find the specific arguments for the resurrection to be unconvincing, so of course you don't believe in the Resurrection.
You might still be a theist in another sense, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc, all are, but you're not at the moment a creedal Christian. That's logical from your perspective, but it doesn't mean other people, for whom that's not the sticking point, are being illogical from their position.
Excuse me adding more points, I don't know how to edit comments.
But I think overall my issue would be that most people are giving holistic reasons to prefer one worldview over assumed default alternatives, not going through the arguments for every specific point item by item at the same time.
If you want to zoom in on those points, some people won't have a lot to say, others will be able to go into it in some detail, which again may convince or not.
I think we all accept aspects of our worldview that we're not experts in, because frankly there's isn't enough time in life. That's equally true of Atheists, Christians, Muslims, etc.
Hi there! Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts. Ultimately, the scope of this article is extremely narrow — it is an examination of one rhetorical and philosophical move that some Christians engage in when pushed on the creedal claims of their faith. I agree that there are historical arguments for the resurrection, but those fall outside the scope of this article.
I state that one cannot reason from the “ground of being” or “god shaped hole” to the resurrection as a response to this specific rhetorical move.
You state that your main issue is that most people have holistic reasons for preferring a worldview, and that when pressed on specific points, they won’t have much to say. I agree! From my perspective, as someone outside the faith, that presents difficulties for me! The points that need to be defended are not marginal — they are central to the entire edifice of creedal Christianity. The resurrection is not a mere point of belief — it is the henge of the entire structure.
To be clear, I think it’s ok that people haven’t thought through all this stuff, and do take a more holistic approach to faith. I don’t expect everyone to be as analytical as I am. Being merely human myself, I have a lot of time and compassion for people and their thoughts. But none of that negates the value of pointing out the trends and rhetorical moves that some people engage in. I see it as a mark of respect to do so.