The problem with religion is religious dogma, not religious itself. It is the notion that certain ideas must be accepted without proper scrutiny. The culture it creates around self-censoring and the premium it places on pluralistic ignorance.
Religious fundamentalists double-whammy is that the religious books are the word of god AND that their interpretation of the books are correct
Religious texts hold ideas that are objectively reprehensible (condoning slavery, specifically sex slavery in the Koran). Jordan Peterson is telling his audience they can have reason, modern morality, and religious when in some cases those things are mutually exclusive (e.g. owning a slave and being a good person today).
The doors out of religious fundamentalism get opened from the outside (humanism, secularism, scientific reason and thought), not the inside. There is often no clear way out because there is no mechanism to update the dogma.
0% of UK Muslims believe homosexuality is okay
The hero is born at the darkest time
There is no objective path from facts to values because facts must be interpreted within a framework. The framework then determines the nature of the values that are ultimately extrapolated from the facts.
Historically the best interpretive frameworks have been stories and myths, and those have gotten us this far, but that doesn’t mean that is the best path forwards.
Infinite regress: when an explanation of something is predicated on an assumption that also requires an explanation (especially a similar type of explanation). The stake must be put in the ground at some point. Eggs are laid from chickens and chickens are hatched from eggs.
The homunculus argument is an informal fallacy whereby a concept is explained in terms of the concept itself, recursively, without first defining or explaining the original concept. The common example is the human visual systems which explains our perception of vision as light converted to a small image on the retina, leading to the problem of who is viewing that image. And then how is that “see-er” viewing that image. Etc.
Religion provides a framework to help people act in a way that reduces suffering (ideally). In that sense there is a functional and evolutionary aspect of these stories, because the best ones survive. We don’t know how evergreen these stories are. Some might have worked historically but are coming past due, while others might have a longer useful life.
There is a difference between believing that god exists and acting as though god exists.
People can share common intuitions that haven’t previously been articulated well.
If there is utility in Hinduism and similar utility in Christianity, but the two faiths are irreconcilable with one another, then there must be a deeper level of bedrock that holds the value. It’s not Christianity or Hinduism. It’s something deeper.
Descriptive relativism argues that there are no objective moral "facts" (as there are in the sense of scientific facts)
Normative relativism argues from the former that we ought to have no universal standard of morality
The is-ought fallacy occurs when the assumption is made that because things are a certain way, they should be that way. People move quickly from observations to facts to judgements about values. (championed by Hume)