moviefreakedmind said:
It’s just like with Jordan Peterson. He’s factually incorrect that religiosity prevents immoral behavior. The facts point in the opposite direction because the less religious a society, the less crime there is. To “agree to disagree” with Peterson on that point would mean that you’re just legitimizing a factually wrong position.You’re confusing facts and arguments.
Peterson is arguing against facts in that case.
That’s your argument. But he may be weighing facts differently and considering facts that you aren’t. I’m sure you’ve had the experience of conceding a fact and saying, yeah, but there are these other facts, considerations, context, etc.
No it isn’t. He is wrong on this. He says that Christian morality and a Christian worldview is a necessity for people to not rape and murder and steal, but crime rates are universally lower in secular states compared to religious states. This is true all throughout the developed world. Peterson’s argument in this case is anti-fact. It is. He’s 100% wrong, and to claim that he’s just got some context or different way of weighing facts is just giving credibility to a position that is at odds with reality.
I only have your 2nd or 3rd hand description of his argument so I can’t really know. I can think of additional considerations that could cut both ways even assuming you are accurately describing his argument, such as overcriminalization and over/under-reporting.
We can’t get very far debating an issue in this way.