Jordan Peterson on The moral argument
Peterson argues that religious narratives encode deep moral truths, whether or not God literally exists.
Jordan Peterson occupies an unusual position in the religion debate. He does not straightforwardly assert that God exists, nor does he deny it. Instead, he argues that religious narratives — particularly the Judeo-Christian tradition — encode profound psychological and moral truths that secular frameworks have failed to replicate.
On the moral argument specifically, Peterson agrees with the premise that objective moral values exist but reaches a heterodox conclusion. He argues that the structure of reality itself — the fact that some actions lead to flourishing and others to ruin — implies a moral order that is best articulated through religious narrative. Whether this constitutes a 'God' in the traditional sense, he deliberately leaves ambiguous.
Peterson's treatment frustrates both sides. Atheists accuse him of smuggling God in through the back door of 'archetypal truth.' Theists accuse him of reducing God to a useful fiction. Peterson's response is that the question 'Does God exist?' is less important than the question 'Can you live as though God exists, and what happens if you do?'
“You act out your beliefs. If you act as though God exists, then what exactly is the difference between that and believing in God?”
“The Bible is, for better or worse, the foundational document of Western civilisation. Its moral insights are not obviously superseded by anything we have produced since.”