The Most Successful Myth of All Time | Stephen Fry & Jordan Peterson
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / rationalityrules
To support me TH-cam (thank you): / @rationalityrules
To support me through PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/...
To visit the DEBUNKED card game website: www.debunkedca...
To support me through merchandise: teespring.com/...
To follow me on Facebook: / rationalityrules
To tweet with me on Twitter: / rationalityrule
-
References:
1) An Atheist in the Realm of Myth | Stephen Fry | Jordan B Peterson Podcast - S4: E22: • An Atheist in the Real...
2) The Global Divide on Homosexuality Persists, 2020 | Pew Research Center: www.pewresearc...
3) Women in the Early Church | Elizabeth Ann Clark: www.google.co....
4) Man's Work in Paradise and Woman Is Made As His Helper, Chapter 11 | On Genesis : two books : On Genesis against the Manichees ; and, On the literal interpretation of Genesis : an unfinished book
5) Distribution of Population by Socio-Economic Characteristics | 2019 Kenya Population and Housing Census: housingfinance...
6) Question 92: The production of the women | Summa Theologiae
7) Women's History | About The Secret History of Weeds: juliahughesjones.com/aboutweeds.html
8). The BEAT; Does The Bible Support Slavery? • Does The Bible Support...
9). Cross Examined; Slavery And The Bible: • Slavery And The Bible
10). Southern Seminary; Does the Bible endorse slavery? • Does the Bible endorse...
11). The Daily Wire; Sam Harris | The Ben Shapiro Show Sunday Special Ep. 9: • Sam Harris | The Ben S...
12). Answers of Genesis; Doesn't the Bible Support Slavery? • What the Bible ACTUALL...
13) 3 Justifications for Scriptural Slavery - Debunked | Rationality Rules: • 3 Justifications for S...
Listening to Stephen Fry is always a pleasure.
I'm getting certain audiobooks simply because he's narrated them. Nice voice and excellent narrator!
Indeed
@@designtechdk I'll be doing the same.
@@lloydchristmas4547 Good man! Take the opportunity to listen to Harry Potter read by Stephen Fry if you haven't. Amazing audiobook with Fry's voices.
That man is a god damned treasure to this world. He is kind and his demeanour and general knowledge on almost any topic is something we should all aspire to.
Wonderful to see that erudite analysis on the religious debate is alive and kicking in a younger generation than my own. Was a tragic loss to those of us on the empirical side of the aisle, when the late, great Christopher Hitchens died. Thank goodness there are people of your intellect keeping the torch of truth and logic alight for many more years to come.
I absolutely loved this video! Keep up the excellent work my friend!
Thanks, legend : )
Listening to Fry is truly a gift. I'm glad I live at a time that I have the privilege to be faithless. May we come to a point where everyone can at least choose to do so without fear.
Define Jordan........define Peterson.
I think Fry in his first premise confuses values with norms. Yes, people in different generations had different priorities, they weighed different actions differently. For example, as he correctly points out, 50 years ago, people were more wary of who someone would sleep with and when. This does not mean that certain- and indeed many - values have not changed for millennia. Not killing is still valid today as it was 2000 years ago. The principles that have to be held in high regard for a society to function hold true as long as such societies exist.
also, it's one thing to say that we don't know the objective truth but there is one, and something else entirely to say we don't know the objective truth because there is none.
But is not killing people really that objective? Just a cursory glance shows that as long as you don’t kill “your own kind” it’s perfectly acceptable to go to war and kill others for any multitude of reasons.
@@dr.floridamanphd You have to distinguish between accepting doing something morally bad in order to do something you perceives as morally good, and just doing something morally bad. Id say this applies to ancient times even more so than modern ones, since killing another person back then was REALLY hard, REALLY bloody and REALLY disgusting, so you had to be either seriously fucked up to do it or it took some serious convincing. Most people want to think of them as good and most people dont like to do terrible things. and most people think that things that feel terrible actually are terrible.
How many wars have been fought in the last 2000 years? Every war produces dehumanizing propaganda for the express purposes of lowering the status of the enemy to a point where it becomes acceptable to kill them.
Every soldier knows their targets are human. The soldiers, and the general public, are awash in an subjective morality that places higher value on the reasons one must kill the enemy, than on the lives of the enemy.
Killing has never been objectively wrong, especially when power, wealth, or religion have been a factor.
@@InigoMontoya- Funny how what you said doesnt match your conclusion at all. The fact that in order to make killing acceptable the enemy has to be dehumanized and the soldiers brainwashed shows clearly that throughout history, killing another human HAS been seen as objectively wrong, across cultures. Now, to be fair, this doesnt have to be a moral imperative, it could be merely biological, but I would argue, as RR does, that moral imperatives are rooted in our evolution.
Here to like this masterpiece - I will be back to actually watch it later - RR!
That actually hurts the channel by reducing the average watch time.
@@lindumenzidludlu2213 but what if he saw it later?
@@lindumenzidludlu2213 I do not understand how that is. Could you enlighten me? Thanks ✌️
@@justoalejandrogonzalez5097 Exactly. I am back to watch it. Thanks 🙏
@Check proofs of Islam in my playlists
Islam is so wonderful, it couldn't even save the Arab world from Ghengis Khan and genocide.
Love the hairstyling, brother. Great video
Rationality Rules, listening to you is sublime. Adding Stephen Fry, major bonus! It's no wonder he and Hitch were great friends, such great minds!! You and Alex, right up there. 👍🥰🤎✌
Hi Laura....OMG I love this channel! Hope you are doing ok!💕
@@jeanine219 HI Sweetie! Yes, I love Stephen! Both actually, lol. I'm doing better, got pins and stitches out! Ugh, but relief after. And healing ok for my age! 👍💝🤎✌🥰
@@laurajarrell6187 In 2017 I fell roller skating and broke my right wrist. It was so painful and took about 8 weeks to heal . It still bothers me here and there.
I have found that I am a lot more aware and observant of every step and movement.. Balance and proprioception changes throughout all stages of life, and so you can´t afford to be as fast, impulsive and careless, as you get away with when you are younger 😢😭😱
And roller skating.....probably not a wise choice. I never went again.😩🤷♀️
@@laurajarrell6187 🥰😘
@@jeanine219 You are so right. I assumed you in your 30s, lol. I'm 63 this month. And, yep, now I'm hyper aware.🥰✌
Great! Please, make another video on Jordans and Stephens conversation!
Peterson once again proved to be anything but a serious thinker when it comes to religion, morality, and God. Anyone with even the slightest bit of literacy and knowledge in the said topics would be able to see through his attractive facade and recognize what a charlatan he is.
Thank you for introducing me to Stephen Fry. Need to look into him more.
Nice overview and really nice commentary and synopsis.I like your work,Stephen.It makes me think.Which is good exercise for my 65 year old mind.
Of course, "objective morality" is an oxymoron, something that people wish for. Actual, "practical" morality is simply a social agreement.
Whenever I ask theists for examples of "objective morality" they either cite common morals (don't steal or murder) or they bugger off. More often the latter.
The idea that if I say a culture is inferior in some aspect that equates to saying my own is superior just doesn't follow, to my way of thinking. I don't have to be living in a tidy house before I can observe that somebody else's house is messy.
A singular 'culture'? What are. 'the values of the West'? Peterson is an orator nothing more than assertions.
culture is like language, it evolves, as soon as the dictionary is published, it's out of date.
Peterson is a cheap hack. And he doesn't even have the courage of his convictions. He's a Christian Theist but will never out and out declare it in front of adults. An intellectual and moral coward.
For me and understandable objection to peterson's timeless and valuable variables, "beauty is more valuable than ugly" is that the conceptual use already contains a generalization trap. The beautiful and the ugly can be exactly the same thing or being, for a group of people, or for an individual. But I think there is a greater objection, since even if we ignore this analysis, derived from what is reflected in the video, it must be argued that thinking with such broad categories leads to the requirement to differentiate "beauty is more valuable than ugly "from" The good is more valuable than the bad "and in turn, reducing to the absurd" The most valued is more valued than the least valued ", but there is no longer an eternal truth, we are in the field of generality, not universality. (That is why there is a need to postulate something eternal beyond change, since if such a thing did not exist, one could not appeal to a morality beyond the current state of affairs)
I’d like a continuation of the topic from you for sure.
Thanks, this was very insightful and easy to follow. I always find it hard to write down my thoughts into understandable sentences, so here it goes. You are the only youtuber at the moment that I want to be a patreon for. Why? Because your content helps me to become a better understanding person towards other peoples opinion. Please keep on doing what you are doing.
i distinctly remember being younger and disapproving of homosexuality. i was pretty brainwashed by Catholicism. after i left the faith i began to realize that what consenting adults do in a bedroom is none of my business and i began to approve of these things. This all occured over a 3 year period.
A solid analysis, good conclusions. I like Peterson quite a bit, he is great at picking out strong narratives and biological overlap, but he has a massive blind spot for different societies over time and how social construction plays a vital role. His logic is black and white. His biggest failing is not seeing how European Socialism (healthcare, education, etc) is awesome, lumping it in with Communism and instead celebrating the US unsustainable inequality, consumption and pollution like it's the pinnacle of human achievement. It's amazing to see how far public discourse has come since early 2000's where the four horsemen were just reactionary against theism. Now (with the help of Sam Harris Moral Landscape analogy) we collectively have the words to construct the successor to Christianity. We construct the social structure that allows the pursuit of meaning, value and ethical behaviour. We do this consciously, explaining the metaphysical framework in way that even a child can understand.
Over time, JP has evolved from a somewhat sensible personality to a complete quack
he makes for a great apologist, that's another nail in the coffin of religion.
@@HarryNicNicholas only when he doesnt make a salad out of all the words in the dictionary
@@adamprickster i used to think it was just me that had a hard time even understanding what he was even talking about so i " forced " others to listen. I feel better now that I'm not the only one.
@@markhaunert5029 he skirts around his points with multitude of stringed words to appear smarter than he really is...and dumb people stand in awe
@@adamprickster " skirts " is the perfect word I've been looking for. I just get lost or bored with him.✌
Acting, comedy, hosting, philosophy, social pragmatism with care; Stephen Fry is a beautiful person, and a personality to be cherished, for many reasons.
Removing a tumour or pathogen IS constructive, by removing a cause of destruction.
i've been waiting so long for this video! glorious day
People value boxing and all the "ugly" it brings. They love looking at it. Its valued more than beauty in that setting.
I can't believe anyone takes JP seriously
Same way people take religion or nationalism seriously.
JP is very insightful. What exactly are U trying to say?
@@cyrusbisan2533 that the results of the insights are questionable at best.
@@Fernando-ek8jp What results? There are no results to his obfuscating word salad :/
@@cy-one A result isn't necessarily a good one. If you drive at top speed against a brick wall, it'll result in a crash
Soooo the universal moral truths are:
1. Beautiful is more important than ugly... even though we disagree on what beautiful is, and some people hold that ugly can be as important.
2. Seeking truth is preferable to falsehood...even though we cannot define truth, or ignore the fact that some falsehoods have better outcomes than truth.
0 out of 2 there, JP.
Perhaps the points are true in a nice society and false in a nasty society?
@@leonais1 I wouldn't consider a society who dislikes ugly people as "nice". 🙃
@@vebdaklu I would reverse the logic. The smells we dislike are 'ugly' to us and the smells we like have 'beauty'.
@@leonais1 exactly. But that makes it relativistic, since smells you like aren't smells some other member of society likes. Hence it is impossible to define once and for all.
How can you argue against such a beautiful truth?
The greatest thing that Peterson has done in his life, is to try to convince people that he is not just a moron in a cheap suit.....Epic fail Jordan!
the more he talks the less he says.
@Check proofs of Islam in my playlists there is no such thing as atheist morality.
@Check proofs of Islam in my playlists AN ATHEIST?!!? PETERSON'S A GODFORSAKEN ATHEIST??! NoOoOo!! why would you say that?
@Check proofs of Islam in my playlists Not only is JP not an atheist, your description of atheist morality is so fractally wrong you're not even just incorrect.
While i disagree with Peterson on religious issues i must say that the man usually is a deep thinker and has a lot of interesting thoughts to offer.
Unless we enter Bizzaro world here, if I ever find myself on the opposite side of Stephen Fry, I have some serious soul-searching to be done about my worldview.
If some opinion has increased from 25 to 44 percent it has increased by 19 percentage points, not by 19 percent. Or you can say that it has increased by 76%, i.e. the opinion is now held by 76% more people than before.
Thanks for the video :)
I was a big fan of Stephen Fry until he had Thanksgiving dinner with a bunch of racist Americans in October 2008. This wealthy southern family had the audacity to brag about the fact that on their plantation none of their slaves left after they were freed in the 1860's. What they of course didn't discuss was that these slaves had no education, no money, nowhere to go and would probably be murdered on the road traveling alone. Family mythology had them convinced that they treated the people they owned so well that they were beloved for the kindness they bestowed. Stephen just nodded and smiled rather than use his intellect to challenge their ridiculous assertions.
Great video. Clear, sound arguments, way to go, Stephen ! We don't need an ancient, desert Bedouin Jewish sky-fairy to tell us what is moral - morality is innate in humans.
Excellent video. Thanks for pointing out Fry's argument. Personally I feel Jordan is not honest in his discussion/view of faith.
The main, and possibly only problem, I have with this video is that they all seem to be equating culture with morality. In reality morality is only a part of culture, not the whole.
Fry shines here and RR is as clear and effective as usual. Great video. Probably one of my favorites.
For me as german, who has not grown up with Jordan Peterson being declared as pinnacle of modern philosophy, 5 minutes of Stephen Fry contain more and easier to understand morality than 1 hour of Jordan Peterson's long-winded, self-celebrating gibberish.
I hate this idea that Peterson is spouting gibberish because he uses flowery language. I get that there are definitely people who don't understand what he is saying and think it just sounds smart, but it is equally bad to not understand what he is saying and assume it is dumb. There is a lot to be learned from him, but people like to take a few highlights that they disagree with to mark him as an unreliable source then discount everything he says.
A couple years ago I went on a journey to try and throw out my preconceived idea that I didn't have much justification for and I realized how much I missed out by discounting everything someone would say because I had gotten a bad impression early on. I would see Tucker Carlson being a jackass on Fox News and I always thought that was all there was too him, but I found a couple things that were much more insightful when he isn't on air trying to "expose liberal stupidity."
I really encourage people to try and avoid these traps of thinking people who you disagree with on certain issues have nothing of value to say. Kind of long winded, but it bothers me more when I am on Atheist channels which tend to attract the most open minded crowd in my opinion.
@@jaketerpening3284 You might say I am over-generalizing, but imho philosophy tends to clog itself up, discussing endlessly about its own word creations.
I just wrote a long response to an "anti-mandater", meaning that it is not about masks and vaccinations making sense or not, but in the moment they are made mandatory that mandate must be fought with all means or you lose your FREEDOM.
He claimed that the Dems politicize covid, and when I told him how, he had nothing.
I called him out for that - he hates it, of course, but still has no arguments - just his opinion.
About Tucker Carlson - nobody says he is not an intelligent man that CAN say reasonable things, the issue he is paid millions to play a role, a vicious role, of denying covid, downplaying the insurrection, glorifying Trump, vilifying dems and Biden - all for rating and TV ad revenue. He literally does not care whether that kills hundreds of thousands of people, destroys the US, destroys democracy worldwide, all that counts is that NOW, today he earns his money.
We can discuss what is worse: being deluded and promote a phantasy, or know exactly how wrong something is and because of greed promote is nevertheless.
@@feedingravens I just want to note that I did indeed think Tucker Carlson was an unintelligent man who never said reasonable things, outside of the most obvious low hanging fruit. I still am not a supporter or fan of his, but I think it's a really easy trap to discount all the points regardless of their merit. I am probably reading into it too much, but when I hear Jordan Peterson's flowery language used a tool to discredit him, it comes across to me as someone having a preconceived disagreement with him, then finding an arbitrary feature of him to justify their distaste. I consider this arbitrary because I think it is easy to say if it someone you agree with, instead of long-winded, self-celebrating gibberish, it becomes thoughtful and intelligent vocabulary.
It seems like you personally do actually have more specific issue with the vocabulary of philosophy, which is another argument entirely that I haven't looked into enough to make a decent claim either way, so I suppose my rant probably didn't apply to you, but still might apply to someone just reading comments and nodding along.
@@jaketerpening3284 I am a (software) engineer, therefore I prefer KIS (keep it simple), that things are boiled down to the relevant parts, that no part can be left away anymore without affecting the function.
The shorter and clearer, the better. The better you can grasp the full complexity. And THEN, only then, you can enhance it by additional functions.
Do not tell me that all people grasp the gist of JLP's sermons immediately.
There is a nice example for that: Eric Dubay's "200 proofs the earth is flat". A video of over two hours of droning on "proof" after "proof" after "proof". The classic gishgallop.
People are not used to factcheck, so they listen to that sermon. After the 30th or 40th "example" people stop really listening.
They do not notice that all claims are easily debunkable.
But the tactic works out, the "200 proofs" are one of the primary entry points to the flat earth delusion.
I do not say that JLP is like that. But the tactics works everywhere. Sounds good, sounds important, the man is renowned, so it must be good.
I "talk" with a lot of people here in the YT comments, and it is surprising how hard it is for many people to find real arguments for their position - they mistake their opinion (often taken over from someone else who sounded "convincing") with persuasive, irrefutable facts.
Well said
I'm always amazed by Fry's arguments. He has a way to explain things in such a simple and direct way. Brilliant man.
Yes the man is astonishing
In this case he is clearly wrong. The Catholic Church deliberately changes its teachings periodically knowing full well that it is changing its teachings. It does not claim to believe the same thing it did 1500 years ago or even 50 years ago.
There are many views within the Church, but generslly iIt sees itself as searching for the constant correct morality and trying to approach it despite the fact that it can never be precisely and fully specified.
The fact that it hasn't and perhaps can't exactly find it does not mean such a thing does not exist - either as a goal to work towards or for practical putposes as a useful thing to approximate..
little bit of a nitpick. he said that there is no eternal truth. that's false, there s no eternal perception of truth, but truth is always truth, regardless of proof or belief. in other words, we may not always arrive at it, it doesn't mean its not there. maybe hell address it later, in which case ignore this
@@andrewluscombe497 Can you provide an example of that claim?
@@andrewluscombe497 isnt the church protected from errors by holy ghost?
Also you are just making stephen point simpler by granting church's moral are relitiviistic.
Stephen Fry for me is one of the greatest intellectual's of our time. His stance, candor, understanding, delivery, but overall sense of joy is always so refreshing.
And so much better than Stephen Chip
Stephen Fry is a gift to humanity
Fry is a beast. Love him.
- beware that casual charming sometimes frivolous exterior.....beneath all that, commendable as it is, lies a mind that is as sharp as a razor - always ready to cut through any bullshit that may be throw at him....
@@panchopuskas1 Omg, the missing commas in your first statement are going to give me nightmares for at least a week, god help me.
I love him sooooo much.
Omg Fry can stand toe to toe with Peterson and I can't think of many who can.
@@fecalmatter4195 Peterson is not that good what atheist doesn’t make a fool of him?
Every generation of Christians reinvents Jesus in their own image.
@Check proofs of Islam in my playlists He is also a prophet of the Mormon faith. Why do you not believe in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints?
"God was the dream of a good government"
- the secret AI, Morpheus. Deus Ex 1.
th-cam.com/video/pKN9trFSACI/w-d-xo.html
@Check proofs of Islam in my playlists "that i believe" stop mangling god's language.
@Check proofs of Islam in my playlists
There is ZERO chance that your stupid religion is true.
Grow up and stop destroying humanity.
You could say this about any historical figure in history. Attitudes of historical figures of the past change.
Where can I order a Rationality Rules tankard?
I've broken two mugs today, so happy to replace with one RR and one Koolaid.
You mean The Holy Grail?
@@facundocadaa9020 - The Holly Chalice? Does it have branches?
@@wickedcabinboy how about now (English is not my first)
@Facundo Cadaa I know it wasn’t intentional, but ‘Holly Grail’ is genuinely funny! Thank you!
It seems that Fry is asserting that even theists are creating their morality, meaning it isn't actually objective, but attributing it to a source that defines it into objectivity.
Yes, he is.
Thats how it always was. Religion is not only arbitrary, it is also arbitrarily interpreted depending on your pastor. Not to say people shouldn't adhere to a specific set of values. However religion isn't some sort of lighthouse in the fog. Its very much just a random line in the sand drawn by some priest and even redrawn overtime.
The only thing the church has is this aura of legitimacy over it because of its long history. Something various new forms of religion is trying to emulate. Such as this new woke ideology peterson frequently critiques. Its concerning because to me, both these forms of ideologies expect you to take their claims at face value and take it for a given.
I do kinda agree with peterson saying thats what we need. A lighthouse in the fog. Something on firm ground. Too bad thats not how it is.
Yes, theists are doing things in 2021 that would have been considered immoral 100 years ago.
Theists have to subjectively decide which religion is true, so really their morality is subjective.
"Seems," madam? Nay, it is; I know not "seems"
- Hamlet
Until now, I didn't really know how TH-cam Member icons work, but now... :D
How do we get a Hitch one? Drink 3 gallons of Johnny Walker?!
How did you get those?
Just a quick stats side note: when you talk about raising acceptance rates of homosexuality, the difference is in percentage points. For instance, during the period considered, it increased by 12 pp in the UK, not by 12% --it actually rose by more than 16% compared to the beginning of the period! Sorry for being "pignolo" :)
Don't apologize, these are necessary semantics that change the ultimate outcome.
@@marshallhaskell4040 An increase from, say, 50% to 60% is an increase of 10 percentage points, and an increase of 20% because it's 20% more than you had to begin with. Or to use an even easier example, an increase from 1% to 2% is an increase of 1 percentage point, but 100% because it's doubled. The percentage points is how many steps you take, so to speak, whereas the percentage is how big a part the increase is of the original value. 10 is 20% of 50, 1 is 100% of 1.
@@KreeZafi Oh, ok gotcha. Thanks!
@@marshallhaskell4040 let's say there are 10 people. 1 thinks that pineapple pizza🍕 is good. That's 10%. Let's say they convinced another person. Now, 20% of the the total think pineapple pizza is good. There was an increase of 10 percentage points.
But 2 is twice as much as 1. So it was an increase of 100% because twice as many people now believe that pineapple pizza is good.
@@trybunt Dear God, imagine a world where 20% of people are so detached from reality, so completely and totally unhinged, as to believe that pineapple pizza is in any way acceptable in modern society. I get a cold shiver down my spine just thinking about those psychopaths.
Re: 'destructive atheism': The claim that someone else's argument is wrong does not bring along with it the responsibility to replace it with a different claim. It can be sufficient to say, "You have not made your case." Without adding, "here's my argument for something else."
certainly not, how could it? But that doesn‘t change the fact that destructive actions are less productive than constructive ones. You don‘t *have* to act that way, but I sure hope *some people* do, because they are the ones who drive science and philosophy forward. Although what you say is correct, the critique is still valid (if not very heavy).
@@mekullag Is it valid? If the constructive impulse leads you down the wrong path, any subsequent effort will be wasted. Science functions through peer review and repetition of experiments, which are fundamentally destructive to mistaken impressions. Pushing this value forward deconstructs Peterson's argument, and doesn't rebuild, but maybe no rebuilding is needed.
Methodology is important. It's a word you won't see Peterson focus on or develop with any skepticism or value judgments. He wants to give impulse to his own methodology, of literary archetypes and symbolic truths, and these things are less than a step removed from religion.
@Check proofs of Islam in my playlists : We all have the right to express our opinions on anything regardless of our beliefs and others have the right to their opinions about our opinions. That freedom tends to be lost in theocracies where religion is the power of the state so neither can be challenged.
@@revlarmilion9574 of course it‘s important to check other‘s work, being destructive isn‘t bad in any sense, but a scientist who adds to the ideas will always be more valuable, no? So if someone build their career on destroying, I find it natural for someone to call tzem out and request some productive inputs
@Check proofs of Islam in my playlists Free speech logic: Because thinking is good and violence is bad, everyone is entitled to give their opinion about anything they want
I adore how eloquent Stephen Fry is, so undeniably intelligent
And ironically shallow.
@@aikaterineillt9876 Elaborate please.
@@aikaterineillt9876 Of every word in the English language, shallow is among the last I would use to describe Stephen
Stephen Fry's approach of demonstrating the moral relativism of religion itself is brilliant.
It seems brilliant because Fry simply misinterprets the Bible. Jordan Peterson is the wrong person to debate with Fry because he always tries to take a psychological approach instead of an apologists approach. Fry will never debate a person like Dr. John Lennox because Lennox would call him out on all his misunderstandings and misrepresentations. This is the same tactic Bill Mahr employs...pick someone who hasn't absorbed all of the facets of his worldview and then make him out to be foolish. Fry's worldview is an incoherent one .
@@markanthony3275 The nicene creed sends their regards and congratulates Stephen Fry on being a great example to prove his point
@@Wokenstein He proves his point to you maybe...but he didn't have a knowledgeable person to correct him. Dr. Peterson is outside his area of expertise here...a tactic that Fry and Bill Mahr both use .
@@markanthony3275 So far you have said nothing of relevance. Perhaps you ought to argue how Stephen Fry is incorrect? For that you have to deny the known history of the countless paradigm shifts within religion, here within Christianity throughout the last 2 millenia.
@@markanthony3275 ... Dr. John Lennox ...
> The emeritus professor of mathematics who seems to be incapable of grasping evolution?
God's laws are so eternal he even waited millennia before giving Torah to Jews, neglecting the rest of the world. After 2000 years he changed completely the law with Jesus and for Muslims he changed his rules again after few centuries. Not to count all reforms and new sects in the centuries later...
The majority of the “laws” of God were codified in the Levant for 1000 of years before he “gave” them to the Jews.
Code of Urukagina (2,380-2,360 BC)
Cuneiform law (2,350-1,400 BC)
Code of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (c. 2050 BC)
Laws of Eshnunna (c. 1930 BC)[1]
Codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (c. 1870 BC)[2]
Babylonian laws / Code of Hammurabi (c. 1790 BC)
Hittite laws (c. 1650-1100 BC)
Code of the Nesilim (c. 1650-1500 BC)
Law of Moses / Torah (10th-6th century BC)
@@kmarklandes8630 Careful. You keep talking about this you might accidentally tell the Christians their origin story was stolen from the Sumerians
@Check proofs of Islam in my playlists These do not sound like proofs at all. Was that your best example?
@Check proofs of Islam in my playlists : To judge people for lacking information from a god that allegedly has the power to make itself known and clearly understood but doesn't is irrational and unfair. Good thing it's a load of rubbish. Clearly no one agrees what any of these silly books mean or they wouldn't be slaughtering each other over them for millennia. One must blame the authors for cryptic, inconsistent, and confusing messages that are so easily misinterpreted.
oddly though god has never enforced a single rule he made, in fact "thou shalt not kill" is probably one he ought to be keeping himself.
Not only does it change generation to generation, but the rate of change is drastically accelerating now that the world becomes more connected every day.
My personal opinion is that because of the speed of social media, the religious are struggling to keep up with their own narrative changes that keeps it relevant in today's world.
Information is proportional to disappearing ignorance .
Just like Rationality Rules said.
Your morality is relative to your epistemic state.
I'm from Poland, and we are strong believers and religion is burning this society from the inside for centuries. Hitchens was right. Religion poisons every aspect of our life. We still have more religion lessons at school than physics, biology, chemistry and history together :D
Even Ireland has seen a huge increase in its population rejecting religion, lve often wondered why Poland is still hanging on to religion
@@johnlee5423 we had Polish pope and church have a strong political influence. Now, because of the pedofile and other scandals church is pushing young people away, but it's still part of a strong tradition and it's hard to change if you don't know anything else. Being an atheist is as bad as worshipping Satan and includes strong exclusion from society. My own mother told me that I'm not her son if i don't want to admit I'm a son of god.
And... We have the biggest statue of Jesus in the world. Tallest than the one in Rio De Janeiro, but it was built on flat field. Crazy place :D
Im sure Poland will eventually go the same way as western Europe in rejecting religion but will obviously take a lot longer, l never thought much of lreland would ever reject Catholicism in my lifetime.
@@RevilHermes Yes. It's funny how christians bleat "persecution" and they then hound and exclude Atheists. Even in England, speaking from experience, things go quiet for few moments in certain quarters ( weddings, funerals christenings, heretic burnings etc ) when you say you are an atheist like you had just shit on the cat. I was just kidding about the heretics btw. I NEVER own up at a good old bonfire.
Try putting up a "Jesus is a Myth" billboard up in the US then you'll get some examples of persecution by christians.
I believe someone put a non religious Christmas billboard up in Texas one time. By the reaction you'd think they were burning people at the stake (pun intended).Legal actions were actually taken to have them removed.
Freedom of speech is alive but not well in the US
@@RevilHermes,
Yeah, the influence of John Paul 2 largely explains why people haven't been weaning off religion at a faster rate in Poland. JP2 was/is not only a source of pride in itself, he was/is tied to nationality because he lifted the nation's morale and “solidarity” during its fight against communism. People are too sentimental and don't correct for it.
Nobody really believes that woman was made to be man's helper. God made woman because the animals were complaining about Adam, the sheep were the ones that complained the most.
Stephen Fry is an instant like. We should be reminding him of this fact whenever he feels down.
Indeed and I hope he reads this comment.
Having seen depression close up, I fear that knowledge alone would have little impact. That kind of defines the problem.
I'd still want him to know mind.
@@cmpc724 I'm bipolar like him. I don't know if he's type 1 or 2, but I'm 1. And I can confirm. It doesn't make the slightest difference most of the time. But it does just enough to keep me alive.
"That's scripture!" should be a meme.
"the gospels are anonymous" shold be another (with an * of course for paul).
"for the Bible tells me so"
@@HarryNicNicholas Are they not? Where in the gospels does the author reveal himself?
@@crowstakingoff I think he was implying that they are anonymous, except the letters of Paul have some backing that he was the actual author.
@@bitcoinweasel9274 well he said that the phrase "the gospels are anonymous" should be a meme, so I don't think he believes it
I thought the Fry & Peterson conversation was exceptionally entertaining and thought provoking so thank you for reporting on it. Please continue to do so.
@Check proofs of Islam in my playlists from the sublime to the ridiculous - good one!
@Check proofs of Islam in my playlists Why would he? Hes just another kelb who was brough up in certein religion and that religion, by chance happens to be the only true one, how weird. Now who is wrong? Let me guess, they are and yours is true...
I always smile when the argument is made that religious teachings formed morality while its more reasonable that moral guidelines produced religious teachings.
Moral is not static and culture isnt either. Its something that evolves with society.
Edit: i would pay money just to lose an argument against Fry. He is such a good lad.
You are confusing morality with sociology. The latter is how a society does behave, whereas the former is how they ought to behave (given their nature as human beings).
@@joshuaraymond9541 yeah but what they're ought to act like with other ppl only develops in a society.
So if a society allows incest, ur telling me incest is morally right?
@@OmegaChad_7 yes, it would be. Morality is subjective, and it always changes, so if a society accepts murder as morally good, it would be morally good. The same goes for incest and other things.
@@no_bitches420 ur comment is too humiliating and the humiliation is enough of an argument against it. Furthermore, If a child were to kill someone, would he feel guilty or not? He wud, bc morality is ingrained into him before he has even learned any sort of behaviour from society.
I can't stand Peterson, however I love Fry. I will listen to it!
Fry respects Peterson, and has appeared on stage with him on the same side of a debate. How do you square this circle?
@@DieFlabbergast I'd fact check that Fry talked to Harris about Peterson, a mutual lack of respect was apparent for the ideas he was smitten with.
Out of curiosity, what is it about peterson that you dislike?
@@Permuh I don't know why Brproud can't stand him, but I can tell you why I think he's full off it. He's a reasonably intelligent person so the dogwhistles he puts in his work have to be put there on purpose. Intelligent people point the bigotry out and he cries victim. Unintelligent people take him seriously don't see the dogwhistles, and like him and fall in to hateful groups. Hateful people love him because JP makes them look good.
He's one of the biggest hypocrites I've ever seen. I don't want to compare him to a crackhead because he's lower then that. He was a drug addict that told other people to get their life together before trying to fix society, while he was addicted to drugs. Got brain damage because he wanted to hide his drug problem and not follow doctor recommendations.
But I think the most infuriating think about him is that he never speaks clearly.
@@matthewvandeventer3632 IQ is real. Inherited large and relevant differences in group IQ are widespread. Most humans don't even have an inner dialogue and can't even really in any advanced deductive way. The only people reproducing are the extremely religious and extremely low IQ ones.
This is not hateful. So I went pacing around my room for a while thinking one up.
Hate is good. It just means strong dislike. Strong dislike is a great motivator because in life and especially in the life of collectives, removing what is bad is many times as valuable as taking the risk of experimenting.
I also hate the shitlib type. Whenever I see someone carefuly chosing their words not to offend abstract categories who are not even in the room, I know I won't be friends with that person. Removing this sort of humans will improve society manyfold. :)
I am from India and I am respectful to western world not because of Christianity but because of skeptics born on western world.
Skeptics are born everywhere.
I am not saying that, I disrespect other nations. In India too, many skeptics were born like Raja Ram mohan Roy, Mahatma Gandhi(not particularly) , etc
Fellow Indian here, I agree with you, there are hardly any public figures in our country today discussing these questions. It's the religious and the conservatives that are the loudest and have the greatest audience.
Jordan Peterson is a man who has been educated beyond his intelligence. He knows a lot of history and literature, but he isn't capable of piecing them together in a clear or coherent way.
Meanwhile, Fry is a man who demonstrates intelligence beyond his education.
I'm from Kenya, I can confirm that the statements are very factual.... A closed minded lot is the vast majority
I'm also from kenya
I don’t always agree with you (although I mostly do), but this is a really well done piece of work. I feel like your ability to frame arguments simply, but without losing nuance, has really grown in the past year or so. Kudos, man.
Thank you for the kind words.
@@hiqhduke lol, I like your funny words, magic man.
@@hiqhduke What are you trying to achieve, besides making us feel pity for you?
Genuine question.
@Cultöerectus Indeed. In many cases the depression and suicide of atheists is causally linked to how religiously repressive the society in which they live is.
@@hiqhduke I have no idea what you're on, but if I were you, I'd talk to my dealer.
I think he's diluting your stuff with laundry detergent.
"beautiful is more valuable than the ugly" - well yea, that's basically the definition of those things. That's like saying "good is better than bad".
No shit, mate.
That's the clear sophistry Jordan falls back upon when pressed. He has to withdraw to this position to appear to have more 'yes he's right' points.
Every sentece that comes out of this man's mouth is a demonstration of what a charlatan he is.
Ah yes, good old "Mhm, yes, this floor seems to be made out of floor."
Restating the same point. Ugly and beautiful are of course, relative and always changing.
Beautiful is not always better than ugly, ugly Gargoyles and grotesques were designed to scare away evil so in their case ugly trumped beauty.
Stephen Fry is an amazing man. The ability of great wordsmith that Jordan Peterson can only dream of.
The main reason for this, is that Fry's intellectual grasp is lovely to listen to, while Peterson's statements tend to be either obvious or bullshit, wrapped in pseudo-intellectualism.
Peterson is more hard-gripping in his dialectic, but still really effective, sadly. Don't underestimate him.
@@Davidzxcv1 I am sorry, all he says is word salad bullshit. There is nothing of substance especially if you are left leaning in your politics. If you are a right wing patriarch, who cares about little things then he is perfect for you. Clean your bedroom, lobster.
@@keithlow3056 Em... i dont agre whit peterson almost in any subjetc....
@Scott Scotty I speak in the sense of having an actual discussipn whit him. Of course, some people archieve that salad, like Mat Dillahunty, but, is not as easy as you express i think...
Why do you think Stephen Fry wanted to expose himself to: "r bullshit, wrapped in pseudo-intellectualism"?. Are you calling Fry stupid?.
Yes, do continue with this series. I have always liked exploring "how it works" today and in the past, with an eye to the future.
@Check proofs of Islam in my playlists That explains why you feel so humillated that you have to ask for a take 2.
God saved the Israelites from the Egyptians that kept them as slaves and then gave them instructions on how to manage their own slaves. Perfect!
I also like the fact the Israelites were gods favorite people and yet he kills them all in a flood,you couldn't make this shit up...oh,they did.
@@freethinker-- Yeah! How about that and some other 1.000.000 "strange behaviors"
It's interesting to note the pitch and quality of the two voices in this argument. From the outset, Mr Peterson voice is pitched high with a quick cadence and a discernible stress in his tone and delivery. Mr Frye is more relaxed, calm and steady in his demeanor. Mr Peterson's first comment ends with " without that, you lose the argument instantly." Mr Frye stays calm and composed throughout, simply listening.
Barry, Peterson's demeanor and vocal pitch have a lot to do with his recent and ongoing health ordeal. Look back at some of his earlier discussions. His interview with Kathy Newman is a good example of him keeping his cool while under sustained attack by a particularly strident opponent.
@@crazierthan-u7571 Thank you I had forgotten her name, but in the interview, didn't he congratulate her on making him 'uncomfortable' - seems such a massive contradiction for such an intellect !?
@@johnkennedy7327 The point he was making, was that 'offending' someone (when expressing your thoughts) is not the terrible act that Newman was making it out to be. As an example, he pointed out that the interview had so far been uncomfortable for him, but that was what a good reporter ought to do ('dig below the surface') even at the risk of offending a guest.
@@hellalpha I take your point
@@johnkennedy7327 When Kathy asked Jordan, "Why does your right to free speech trump a trans-person's right not to be offended?" (the dumb question of the year), she was toast. Jordan had spent most of the interview laughing while spitting out the words she kept putting in his mouth, but then he moved in for "the kill." He told her she didn't seem concerned about offending him during the interview, which had been pretty uncomfortable. But then he lauded Kathy for doing what she was supposed to do (which I'm not sure I agree with), and Kathy was rendered embarrassingly speechless. Then, into the vacuum, comes Peterson's famous, "Ha -- gotcha." He might as well have been standing there with his foot on her throat.
Peterson has always seemed like a guy who believes he's really much smarter than everyone else, and he'll keep raising his voice to make sure everyone else knows it.
Exactly. He is full of himself and uses words and sentence structure in an attempt to prove how much more intelligent than he actually is. Once you actually examine what he said instead of how he says it his arguments are mostly circular and psycho babble.
If it's 'good slavery', would they consent to being a biblical slave, not knowing who their master would be?
They’d object saying they’d never do anything to put themselves in that situation so as to render the question moot.
But they’re only considering how they are today and not what life was like thousands of years ago when those verses were written.
@@dr.floridamanphd The problem is, that wasn't the question, and my response would be "This question only has a yes or no answer, and failing to give a yes or no answer is an admission that you know you're full of shit on the topic"
@@TheKyrix82 and that would only lead to an argument that further strays from the question you were initially asking.
@Dr. Florida Man; PhD
Yep, I can see people like this giving the answer. The issue is that Biblie slavery (at least the one concerning fellow Jews) was debt slavery. It means you could be simply unlucky to end up in this kind of position
@@dr.floridamanphd No, that would lead to them TRYING to stray. I'm remarkably good at not letting them do that, to the point where they get rather annoyed that I won't let them meander away from an uncomfortable question
Stephen Fry truly is an irreplaceable beacon of light
I get the impression that JP's mind is barricaded into this vertical model of thinking that is constructed by hierarchy; he simply can't see beyond hierarchical bounds and has difficulty interpreting anything outside of this paradigm. Perhaps that's why I get the sense of unease here when he's confronting someone with such a gigantic, evolved mind. Fry is free of hierarchical thinking and it shows. He's clear and relaxed and his thoughts flow easily-- and of course he has a phenomenally facile use of language. JP always seems to struggle when he's interviewing an intellectual heavyweight who sees him eye to eye. I don't think JP's mindset is confrontational at all. On the contrary, I think JP desperately wants to understand, but he can't get out of his hierarchical mode of thinking. It's evident in all of the many videos of his that I've seen. He's so close to being brilliant.
They are like total opposites. One is bound by the hierarchy and the other is free. This should be a good character dynamic in a book or something.
That's why Peterson is so offended by people wanting to choose their personal pronouns, based on more fluid understandings of gender and personal identity. It offends his sense of entitlement as an "Alpha". That hissy fit is the only reason he is famous today. His work as a psychologist is uninspiring at best.
Thanks Pete. What a perfect description of Peterson's thinking. I liken his polemical style to an old fashioned military unit that unsuccessfully marches in strict, lateral formations against flexible, asymmetrical tribal enemies. By contrast, Fry is more fluid and relaxed, allowing his opponent to defeat himself.
@@con.troller4183 as far as I know he was never offended by people choosing their pronouns. He was offended by attempts to force their usage by law. And he is correct in this. Only tyrannies forbids and commands what you can or cannot say.
@@lomitkodios5891 Isn't forcing people to use pronouns chosen by others who have no personal interest in the accuracy of those pronouns, also tyranny? It just sounds to me like Peterson imposing his own personal values while masquerading as a freedom fighter.
This was a good show Stephen. I do like your analysis with Stephen Fry. I did not know Jordan and Fry had a discussion. Thank you.
Not just s good show, but likely the best and most simply stated I've seen
Was going to write something similar, now i don't have to. Thank you.
"The morality of God and the bible is objective"
Me: then why is slavery condoned and why did God ordered several Genocides and to take sex slaves?
"Well... it was the context of their culture... everyone used to be like that back then"
Me: "Wait, wasn't morality in your religion supposed to be objective?"
"Yes it is!"
Me: "Then why was it different back then? Do you even know what objective morality is?"
"Well of course, objective morality means it comes from a God, it has to come through a higher power"
Me: "No, that is morality based on authority, your claim is just an appeal to authority. Objective morality must be actually objective, by the mere fact that everyone that reads the bible interprets different things, means it is subjective. Morals back then, should be the same as today, if they were actually objective"
"You might be right, but.. I will just redefine objective morality then, just to say that only through God you can achieve it"
Me: "That is not objective morality tho..."
You argued against the weakest possible argument from the other side. Definition of a strawman
@@beluga2841 Just because I made a hypothetical opponent openly show their cognitive dissonance (unlike a real human would). It doesn't mean it is an strawman. For it I have to misrepresent their view. But tell me how it is misrepresented? again not because I made the opponent openly show their cognitive dissonance, means it is an strawman.
But most Christians I have talked to, or Apologists I have seen give precisely that reason. Morality is objective because God.
I have been trying to get a reason as to why morality is objective under Christianism. I have gotten nothing but appeals to authority, meaning they say because of God. That is not objective morality in any stretch of the imagination.
The other argument I get, that is more sound, is that the law is written in our hearts... That one is more sound, because if that were true, then that would be objective morality indeed. But that is so easily falsifiable. Just look at humanity and how subjective morality is. If the Law was written in our hearts, morality would be more objective. Instead it is dependent on culture and time. The very argument I gave, of "Why is there genocide in the bible" and them responding with "the context of the culture" Proves it is not objective.
Maybe there is a third argument I am missing, but those two are the two I constantly see.
@@beluga2841 arguing against the other side's weakest argument is not the definition of a strawman. Arguing against something that is not the other side's argument is a strawman.
Additionally, in this case it is more than sufficient to argue against their "weakest argument", since if any part of an objective morality is subject to change it is by definition not objective.
Edited a typo.
Big fan. I’m interested to know if there are any former Theists that have “seen the light” due to viewing rationality rules?
His is the first atheist channel I watched. I was already done with christianity then but simply told people I was “agnostic”. After watching his videos I gained the confidence to ditch the “agnostic” label and simply go with “atheist” because if this is what an atheist is, I have no problem with that label.
@@omenala_ interesting! I come from a catholic background, lost faith about 12 years ago. I think the channel solidifies my doubts around religious thought with each video. It’s actually really encouraging to see people question and not just accept the world view they’ve been taught by their families/communities. Philosophy and critical thinking should replace religious education in all schools.
@@appoNo1 I agree. One important thing that I’ve started practicing more since watching skeptics is examining why I believe what I belief and making sure I can actually defend it and expecting religious people to be able to do the same.
Yeah this guy basically pulled me out of my Pentacostal cult upbringing. Big ups to him.
@@omenala_ i've always been atheist, i'm 67. i post on apologetics pages that in all that time i've never read a book "how to be a better atheist" never needed someone to argue for me, or prove on my behalf what i believe. if i can't think for myself then i'm in trouble. when it comes to god, my parents were spiritualist, so religion looked like a carnival act to me from the start, no one comes back from the dead is all i really need to know, all gods have been mythological til now, so although i can say "there might be a god" i can also feel secure saying "there are no gods". if someone claiming to be jesus appeared my "test" would be, lend me a fiver for an indefinite period, then get everyone with a weapon to put it down and hug the people they've been fighting, that would impress me.
never gonna happen though is it?
Ask 100 "Christians" the same 5 questions about what they believe about their religion and no 2 will have answers that match.... This is also demonstrated by the fact there are over 30,000 denominations. 2021 and too many still don't see that absurdity
ask the same people "if i drop this pen which direction will it go" and they'll pretty much all agree, funny that.
Christian's don't cheat right
When I left Christianity, my biggest problem was deciding how best to live my life in a vacuum of faith. It took many years to come to terms with the loss. The one good thing about atheism is that when something terrible happens, you don't roll around screaming 'Why, God, why? Is this part of your vast eternal Plan for humanity?' Strangely comforting.
please continue this series, it is a joy to see Stephen Fry's brain work
Jordan is the greater creator of word salad.
Possibly the greatest of our time?
The language that we don't know are funny fart noises.
@@thoughtlesskills no. There are flat earthers that are much better at tossing…. Word salads.
Divorce is infrequently cited as an example of moral relativism. Not long ago, divorce was not far removed from adultery in its immorality. Divorced men could not run for president, and the king of England could not marry a divorced woman. Moreover, Jesus explicitly addressed the absolute permanence of marriage. Within the Catholic Church, divorced parishioners were relegated to a sort of tarnished purgatory… their unforgivable corruption standing as an impediment to participating in the sacred rites of communion
Divorced Catholics are not denied Communion. I'm not sure where you got that idea. What is not allowed is remarriage after a valid marriage.
Divorced Catholics are not denied Communion. I'm not sure where you got that idea. What is not allowed is remarriage after a valid marriage.
@@danceswithbears2521
So…. You agree that for a long time… divorced and re married people could not receive Eucharist?
Is this still the case?
@@MrArdytube Divorce is a legal term. What is important to the Church is the validity of a marriage. If a Catholic has a valid marriage, he is committing adultery if he "remarries." And he cannot get married again in the Church. If the Church determines his original "marriage" is invalid, it is annulled and he is free to marry.
@@danceswithbears2521
Yes…
And would you recognize that how that process happens has changed over time to be more of a formality?
The video literally 8 mins in and there's a dislike how you haven't even watched it 🤣🤣
Peterson has followers that look at him like he's a god.🤮
I am a villain in their narrative ;)
@@rationalityrules well, better prepare your trade mark evil laugh then... you know, just in case...
You know that bots and miss clicks are a thing, right? I have many times miss clicked dislike especially with the youtube app.
It’s Aussies thinking they’re clicking the like button. 😁
I enjoyed the parts where Jordan "Ketamine Kermit" Peterson wasn't squeaking nonsense into my ear holes.
I will say I laughed hard and loud at the ‘weeds grow faster than roses’ quote. Can you imagine saying such a thing today.
The anecdote also had a subversive irony in that the ridiculous premise of the quote is supported by the low intellectual quality displayed by the four daughters.
Stephen, this is, if not your best, one of your best. Thank you for all you do. I personally hope that you will make more videos about this discussion between Peterson and Fry. Cheers!
If morality comes from bible, why wolves doesn`t kill each other in wolfpack when they are hungry?
I find peterson to a smart and respectable person in the realm of psychology, but i must say that i very much disagree with him on religion for the reasons that harris pointed out in his debate with him. In short, he waters down religious ideas to the point where they become useless vapid appeals to the archetypal nature of myth.
Peterson does like a good story.
He might be a wonderful psychologist but the videos I’ve seen of him teaching his classes show me otherwise.
He doesn’t carry a lot of clout in psych circles down here in the States.
@@dr.floridamanphd thats mostly because he points out the insanity of the left (e.g. wage gap myth) so he isnt well accepted amongst liberal elites.
@@nickrondinelli1402 No its because he rants about nonsense like the "Dragon of Chaos" because he likes sounding deep without saying much
@@evitanigaminU sounds like youre unfamiliar with the works of jung and campbell, maybe do some research before you show your ignorance
Rationality Rules is in great form here, the content is getting better and better. Great analysis (as usual) and use of art styles to make every minute of the video impactful.
I wish I had half the intelligence of Stephen Fry and half of Christopher hitchens, wow, I would be a genius 😁😁
You're assuming that it's intelligence and not just hard work and a lot of reading. Given his knowledge of history a large part of it is certainly reading/hard work. And that's something you can do as well.
@@stauffap it’s just a joke my guy cmon
Accepting Atheist Kenyan here. Love your show bro.
Peterson, however charismatic is a pseudointellectual if you pay attention to what he says.
It's not so much that, it's more that he insists on straying from his specialised subject, psychology, and says silly things like "atheists are not really atheists, they just think they are".
@@tonybates7870 And he asserts that morality comes from a "transcendent foundation" which he surreptitiously identifies as Yahweh. He totally ignores the biological and evolutionary origins of morality in all social animals. How does a professor of psychology not know about evolution? Ignorance or deceit?
I've recently watched a video of a professor advocating for a position of 'amoralory as an alternative to moral truth'. That is, (as I understood his point) we ought to stop using the language of morality in secular society and instead adopt the language of what he calls 'scientific relativism' rather than 'moral relativism''. That is, what can we do to achieve consistent outcomes which improve well-being, relative to the conditions of society we live in at this time. That meaning that no 'absolute' standards exist
th-cam.com/video/NGt0I5MbQSI/w-d-xo.html is the video that I watched
that sounds clear as mud.
@@HarryNicNicholas ha, yes I know what you mean. To tie this back to the Peterson/Fry discussion, the point that the professor makes is that we should base our actions on what the empirical evidence show (what can be practically demonstrated) rather than base our actions on moral judgements, because our human 'reasoning' on morality is often influnced by our feelings (which are bias)
Using science as a substitute for moral is a moral standpoint.
@@jakecostanza802 True, but since this issue is so controversial and seemingly unresovable, - probably sounds the most soundest way forward, despite that flaw?.
I think Peterson is a miracle himself. It's a miracle how he's managed to conceal the fact that he's an utter fool.
Beautifully phrased - and true.
Peterson is a mealy-mouthed gentleman. His song and dance is all razzle-dazzle.
I agree with some of the things that Peterson says. I think as a clinical psychologist he is great but when it comes to religion his quality of arguments completely drops.
@@UmerFarooq-db5gu His motivational stuff is great! Anything he says on religion on the other hand…
I don’t see him concealing it that well. I am a bit surprised Stephen Frye even opted to speak with him, although I am glad he did, at least for this portion where he very politely exposed the flaws in Peterson’s argument.
just here to say I actually LOVE the new format, of taking propper time to analyze a simple, interesting philosophical argument. All with interesting visuals to keep you focused.
Totally agree. I was watching this video being really tired and it really helped me be able to follow along.
And this reminds me of conversations I had when studying archaeology, define the Roman culture...well it depends on where, when, and it changes depending on what you were trying to prove. If you disagreed with an interpretation then you stood against whoever made the claim, it must be absolute agreement!
Also I loved reading Augustine's City of God, it is (now I don't want to say hilarious but it is) an insight into Late Antique views on society but I couldn't see it being used as a template of modern society in any way shape or form.
Care to share some highlights?
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's ox. That's one of the Ten Commandments I've successfully lived by so far.
And do not murder, you've lived by that one. Right?
@Check proofs of Islam in my playlists No thank you.
@@FriedEgg101 Nobody's perfect.
@Check proofs of Islam in my playlists cut and paste eh. bit sad.
i was told that "thousands of scholars check the quran" - if it cannot have errors why does it need checking?
try this, give a friend a message, make it long enough that he has to practice rememebring it, then get him to tell it to a friend, then get him in turn to tell it to another friend and so on for five friends, then get the last to write it down and read it - it will be a completely different message, and you have no way of knowing what guy number 2 told guy number 3 - NO WAY.
do it, try it. the quran could be completely wrong and you have NO WAY to know.
You should see my neighbors ox! It is a beauty! You covet all day long!
Values are NOT derived from tradition
Then from where?
Hey man! I am a JP fan but I love hearing your point of view about these topics. You have very compelling and nuanced views about the world. You earned my subscription!
The Christian's Categorical Imperative can be converted into a Hypothetical Imperative by adding the prefix, "If my God is real, then blah blah blah". By framing it as a categorical imperative they are smuggling in the assumption that the precondition has been met.
"If God does not exist then .... Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
If you think atheism is the same as hedonism, you clearly aren't listening to atheists. Go ask a thoughtful atheist what is the basis of their morality, or watch any number of youtube atheists who have done explainers on the topic. Why would you buy into the bumpersticker quote that one specific person wrote 2000 years ago when you can ask a real life atheist what they believe?
I have children and I would be a selfish jerk if I didn't try to make their lives as good as I can and didn't make some attempt to ensure the world is a decent place for them and their children to grow up. I don't rape, kill, steal, cheat on my wife. I've drink sparingly, never been drunk, eat in moderation (despite loving food). I contribute to charitable causes. I'm also an atheist. How do you reconcile your belief that atheism means hedonism when I'm here right in front of you defying your claim? And I'm just one of millions of counter-examples.
For most atheists, it comes down to something like humanism: suffering is real, it exists in the here and now, and often we can do something to alleviate it and so it is our responsibility to work to minimize it.
Go read (or listen to) Peter Singer's book "The Life You Can Save" -- it is free online. It is an easy read and short. Read that and then dare to tell me that atheists just want to party and damn tomorrow. www.thelifeyoucansave.org/
@That Fellow, Christian --
"It amazes me how many people jump to the immediate conclusion that I must never have encountered any."
One possible is answer to this is you have been perfectly clear and everyone else jumps to conclusions. Another possible answer is you are not clear and people make their best inferences from what you've said. If this happens to you frequently, perhaps you should reflect if it is really just that everyone else is unreasonable. Considering we are strangers on the internet, I can only go by the information you have provided me in these comments.
re: Eat/drink/be merry: "It simply means do not sacrifice the attainable good for a future that will not come." That is "simply" anything. It can be parsed more than one way, hinging on the word "for". It seems you intend to say do not sacrifice today's good, but it can also be parse do not sacrifice the good of a future that will not come. That might seem silly to be so confused, but it is buried into a double negative sentence.
Rather than being elliptical, can you just plainly state what you think the problem is with atheism instead of quoting Paul and then assigning it your specific interpretation and getting frustrated that not everyone interprets ambiguous phrases the same way you do?
"The Christian endures what they endure for the sake of what they believe." Another short, ambiguous phrase, so forgive me if I can't intuit what you are saying here. Are you suggesting Christians suffer because of their belief? Certainly that is true in individual cases, eg, Christians in Islamic-majority countries. But where I live, the opposite is true: Christians are privileged. The other way I could read "endure" in a more neutral way, such as "Christians behave they way they do for the sake of what they believe." If so, how is that different than anybody else? People live according to their beliefs.
The pattern here in my limited interaction with you is you like to write lofty-sounding statements that are open to interpretation instead making direct statements, then complain when whatever nuance you have is not read into it?
@That Fellow, Christian --
You sophist. If in rebuttal to you I said, "Christianity is flawed. Atheists believe the thirsty should have water to drink", how would interpret that? Would you take this to mean I was suggesting Christians would not? Would it be fair then for me to get puffed up and say, "Why, how dare you presume to infer such a thing from what I wrote? Nowhere I did I state that Christians wouldn't give a thirsty man water. You jump to conclusions and you should learn to read and think before replying."
That there are widely varying and, and sometimes contradictory views held by various factions of Christianity is not an endorsement of Christianity. No matter what I might say about Christianity, there will be someone in the comment section who will claim that clearly I know nothing about it as I got something wrong.
"For a second reason, the error is yours: Christianity is vast and varied and as such, making such a presumption is without basis. Am I Eastern Orthodox? Catholic? Am I puritan? I have not revealed anything that would give you a basis to make a presumption like that. "
Two can play that game. How dare you assume that I assumed what type of Christian you are? That error is yours and yours alone.
You throw up word pillows and complain that no matter which part of the pillow I squeeze it is the wrong part. You spend word and say nothing.
@That Fellow, Christian --
I forgot to address this: "Finally, It's not buried into a double negative sentence. Literally there are no negatives in the sentence. Check it: "Eat , drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die". See? Every word is not not not negative. "
You can't possibly have misinterpreted what I was saying. Let me paste the whole paragraph here:
(quote)
re: Eat/drink/be merry: "It simply means do not sacrifice the attainable good for a future that will not come." That is "simply" anything. It can be parsed more than one way, hinging on the word "for". It seems you intend to say do not sacrifice today's good, but it can also be parse do not sacrifice the good of a future that will not come. That might seem silly to be so confused, but it is buried into a double negative sentence.
(end quote)
It is 100% clear that the entire paragraph was about your sentence I quoted: "It simply means do not sacrifice the attainable good for a future that will not come". I state it can be parsed more than one way, and it contains a double negative, making it harder to figure out the right parse. It is not clever to quote the original ambiguous phrase, as if that was what I was referencing.
@That Fellow, Christian -- I'm done here. This is terrible forum for having any kind of extended conversation. Each comment leads to more statements, each which needs more clarification, and like a branching fractal it is hard to keep straight what point was being made in reference two what. I see it it in this very reply, where you take one statement you made, a statement I made about something else, and then you put them together as if the second was in reply to the first.
You cry foul that I assume things (which in fact I've done my best to understand what you are claiming), then go and assume I treat all Christians rudely. I thought have done my best to keep it civil until the sophistry point because you are utterly exhausting to converse with.
Happily you didn’t use much of the footage from Peterson‘s half of that conversation. I can scarcely stand to listen to him prattle on. It’s very much like the debates between atheists and Kent Hovind or Ken Ham, I just don’t watch them anymore because their points are a complete waste of my time. What was valuable about this video was the comments of Stephen Fry and you, Peterson’s inane points were a good takeoff point but not worthy of too much exposure. I’ve come to the conclusion that he is not sincere but can’t get off the gravy train of bilking his followers.
I disagree with "he is not sincere". I think he is totally sincere but the world is crashing down around him.
I am an atheist and I couldn't disagree with you more about Peterson: the depth of his wisdom and penetrating intellect really continues to impress in spite of disagreeing with him on many questions obviously. I mean...you think a Sam Harris would waste so much time as he did on so many occasions on an "insincere" person making "inane" points? I bet you and the masses of arrogant and frankly rather stupid and phony atheists like you never read or heard anything from Peterson and at the end of the day you all just make us real atheists (like Fry, Harris or this youtuber guy above) look bad... so it would be great if you would at least make an attempt to understand people before you start throwing mud at them out of a pavlovian reflex... just because you perceive yourself as being "on the other side" like a tribal idiot would do...a sad and pathetic person.
@@dexterquotidian My goodness so much anger and so many assumptions. I feel really put in my place by a “true” atheist who isn’t given to primitive Pavlovian tribal reactions. Nonetheless I persist in in believing that he’s a phony.
If one says that morality comes from a higher power, he or she has to prove the existence of that higher power ' first ' . Otherwise, it's begging the question... sorry, Jordan.
And the real killer: " Thruth is to be sort after in opposition of falsehood "
That’s like saying, “If the fossil record is a result of evolution, you have to prove evolution first.” No. There’s nothing circular about, “If morality exists, it must come from a higher power/morality exists/therefore, there is a higher power.” The first premise is unsound (and the second may be, too), but the argument isn’t circular.
The blatant misogny of these celebrated intellectuals made my blood boil.
Great video as always!