i've had more time to myself than usual as of late, so i've been having to rely on youtube for background noise more while i go about my business. more recently, i've stumbled upon a series of videos where this guy takes transcripts of debates and makes them musicals, which is more entertaining than i thought it'd be. out of all of them, one has stuck out to me more than the rest. particularly his musical adaptation of a debated between jordan peterson and matt dillahunty on the topic of the existence of god. obviously, i've always thought peterson, being a right-wing talking head faux-intellectual, was a hack. but my god, hearing some of the things he tries to claim in the debate only make me more and more sure of that.
Jordan Peterson and Mushrooms
one of peterson's more outrageous claims that speaks to one issue i have with people approach the idea of belief in the supernatural, particularly religion, is the idea that magic mushrooms are a more reliable way to induce smoking cessation as opposed to chemical treatments, but specifically only if they have a "mystical experience". he cites this as being "kind of like evidence" based off of an 85% chance that people who fit that criteria quit smoking after said "mystical experience". one issue i have when it comes to debates is being able to remember or cite or dispute cited data and whatnot. but even despite that, i can tell his point here is absolute bunk. one major hole i find has to do with what his rubric for "reliable evidence" is. he claims this magic mushroom treatment for smoking is "replicable" which is technically true on some accounts but i would say is fairly shortsighted, at least from my knowledge.
in his proposed scenario, the specification of having a "mystical experience" is something he makes sure to make a point of being very important. a common point people who argue the validity of religion try to claim in favor of religion having some basis in reality is the common or shared qualities between different faiths around the world. i've always thought this was bogus, but it also isn't even a very reliable point. what counts as a "mystical experience" for one person might differ greatly in terms of it's mental or psychological impact on the person long-term, especially if they consider it a genuine mystical experience. scaring the shit out of people about something that isn't even based in anything tangible as a method of breaking a vice is a horrible inconsistent way of going about something like that and can likely very easily induce long term feelings and probably, in this case, religious psychosis! not to mention how that could easily get entangled with the actual substance itself being used. it almost seems like switching out one vice for another.
Is Morality Tangible?
i don't have an entirely smooth segway from the previous segment to this one, because what brought this topic in my mind was peterson bringing up the book crime and punishment in the debate, which i'm not familiar with, but i do have thoughts on the general idea relating to why he originally brought the book up. a very common argument against the idea of atheism is the idea that we need to ground or system of beliefs and morality in the divine or spiritual or else there's no way to have coherent sets of morals. i think this is a deeply stupid claim on a multitude of levels, but it's a very common claim. i really can't describe it as anything other than stupid and wrong the more thought i give it. not only is it not correct or effective in practice in terms of benefiting the overall wellbeing of people and communities, but trying to argue this claim indicates a lack of faith in humanity themselves.
what makes this all funnier, is that doing what that claim tries to posit as impossible, making a coherent system of morality based on something other than the supernatural, is comically easy. people are just so unhealthily attached to their need for assurance and objectivity and are so afraid of being wrong, they refuse to take the risk of possibly being wrong about anything and putting their faith in reality by choosing to set a subjectively chosen but tangibly directed moral standard, even though it is much more reliable than anything to come out of religion. while it isn't exactly measurable by any unwavering objective standard, reducing the total amount of mental or physical harm to people and approaching managing that factor with empathy, patience, and community is not as impossible as people make it out to be. even if the effectiveness of that can be argued, religion has not had a great track record in terms of contributing to the benefit of humanity overall.
the idea that there is no reason to not to harm other people or that there is no innate benefit to altruism is a childish and silly claim and indicates a cowardly quality in whoever tries to argue it sincerely. not only does it also show a lack of faith in humanity and people and in the tangible world around us like previously discussed, but is also deeply shortsighted and cowardly. "is there any objective reason for me to not rape and kill and pillage however i like?" is a question that shows a lack of integrity and trust in a person to me. it is funny how, in a discussion like this, so much of it comes back to very basic moral principles most people learn at a younger age. "treat others how you want to be treated" really did not stick with some people in kindergarten. when you get down to it, there is no reasonable justification for choosing to inflict harm on others just because you want to and because you lack an objective reason not to, rather than not doing that and working in tandem with your peers to help your community thrive. the latter will always tangibly more likely lead to the thriving of individuals and communities overall, even if it isn't guaranteed.
Closing Thoughts
an issue that comes with debates like this is that these kinds of ideas and concepts are very fundemental and almost abstract, and generally hard to apply when it comes to here and now with human society being so deep in development and being so greatly influenced by itself an incomprehensible amount of times over. people are complicated and have their reasons for believing what they believe and are always shaped by their upbringing. but i do believe it's important to not just let this be and give people the grace they need to change (to an extent obviously) and hold these values of patience and empathy and community as important, even if it's hard. that's just what i think at least. i could write more about my thoughts on religion but this is getting long and i would want other subsections of this topic to get the focus they deserve so that'll be another time. that's all for now then :P