Oliver Donovan You are right. When I was growing up, raised as a fundamentalist, literalist Christian, this was a core claim - if I had responded to inquiry "Do you believe in Jesus/God" in the way Peterson does, I'd have literally been beat for it. Physically beat for it.
You can make the argument that most theists actually behave as atheists, don't truly believe in god. Ask them to drink poison, and then pray not to die, they won't do it. Or, to go preach the bible to lions*. I'd not be surprised that there may even be some bible part that would make it more explicitly that YHVH wouldn't let someone die in such a situation if they truly believe in him or something**. * but the mentally ill will do it on their own: jdstone.org/cr/files/mantriestoconvertlionstojesus.html ** There is: *_Mark_**_16:15_*_ He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”_
Not a fan of Hitchens's weird neocon Trotskyism, but he would be an effective demolisher of this hysterical fool Peterson. Peterson loves to debate dismal centrist libs who are only slightly lefter than him on class issues (not idpol stuff). Not hard to get the better of careerist media types who have no convictions.
@@Fwazonly Lmao, ‘Neocon Trotskyism’ is a brilliant way to describe Hitchen’s late political beliefs. His positions were all right wing but he was nominally liberal or left wings because he was so embarrassed of the aesthetics of the religious right and tea party. However I think if he were still alive he would be a firm anti-sjw. RIP Hitchens.
This argument again? Known kook William Lane Craig made that argument 20 years ago. Hell, Pat Robertson has been using this argument for even longer. And Peterson using it doesn't make it any more valid.
Nice catch. It is rightly debunked EVERY time it is asserted [thus far without any evidence]. Anyone wiling to prove that assertion with factual evidence?
Katt Flee Actually Craig's appeal is straight forward, evangelicals want to see "rekt atheist" debates. Peterson is more of mystery because so many hyperrational new atheists became fans of him and his Alpha Lobster Great Chain of Being.
I don't think you've adopted the proper framework for "self" to understand things like unconscious knowledge and behaviour here. In other words, you've construed "belief" with what you *say* you believe and not how you truly act. And in more words, there's a lot more to a human being, and to yourself, than you think and know.
Correct. You mock that which is telling you to do good. Why would you mock something that tells you to do good? If you claim to be 'moral' or 'good' why mock it?
Peterson already made his argument for why people are religious by default. Can you summarise his argument? If not then you don't know what it is and should not be commenting.
Yes of course he has the right to comment. My point was that he does not know what he is talking about and would be better served researching the subject before commenting from a place of ignorance.
theawecabinet. Peterson basically says "Good people don't know they're a Xyzist, but they are because only Xyzists can be moral. Here's the proof: if you weren't an Xyzist you'd be immoral. QED." Lol... It's a laughable argument.
To say to another person, "I know what you really believe, and it is the opposite of what you say you believe. You are concealing your real belief in my God, because you want to evade His judgment," is a form of intellectual fascism. It is to say, in effect, "I can no longer burn you alive for your offense to my sensibilities, but my God can, and is going to." And to say, in effect, "Just wait till my God gets ahold of you, haha!" is the sort of intellectual infantilism we find in servile minds.
The fool is blind to that which he serves and thinks himself to be the master, and the one who is wise knows and accepts his servitude and wishes to be as far from the position of "master" as possible. Why do you think you are portraying him as a classic, arrogant religious nut? Why do you wish so greatly to see this in him? Your unjustified suppositions seek something subordinate to your intellect. In your search for external arrogance, you have, yourself, manifested it. You could have chosen patience rather than working yourself up to that point, no?
JP is the champion of redefining 'spiritual' concepts. He produces so much word salad he could feed a Webster's yet, still starve it of understandable definitions. He pulls more PRTT apologetics out than Craig, Ham and AiG, and both Hovinds combined. To steal a quote from MB20 ,"...Same old trailer trash in new shoes".
+Sports Fan - He doesn't articulate it too well here, but people who study the psychology of religion tend to think the same way. It would've been more interesting for him to ask what Matt would do in Raskolnikov's shoes.
Peterson: If we didn’t have religion we wouldn’t have art. THEREFORE: Ipso facto....If you create art, you MUST HAVE religion ....whether you know it or not! David, this confused man needs to watch your most remedial “Critical Thinking” TH-cam vids!
"...If you create art, you MUST HAVE religion ...." And yet what separates Art from all the modern wank which masquerades as Art is a religious insight / response to being alive. This is precisely what the modern wank lacks, and why it is so shit.
theawecabinet much modern art is crap. But Its lack of religious inspiration doesn’t prove anything about whether there can or can’t be great art without it.
Appreciating or creating art is a religious experience. Modern art often veers towards an intellectual endeavour, rather than a religious one. Modern art often comes with a blurb to explain the intellectual concept being demonstrated. Without it the art just looks like a rocking chair covered in used tampons.
Miss Kitty Fantastico Fairy tales? Those stories came out of the desert from goat herders who had nothing but rocks and sand. Then came to dominate the planet. To regard them as simple fairy tales is arrogant & foolish.
Co-opted ancient stories: other earlier ''gods' were concieved miraculously, performed miracles, rose from death, yada yada... Anyone who believes in a magical invisible being who created us to test our loyalty, with no proof other than a series of books put together by a Roman committee centuries after the story took place will fall prey to any con.
Goat herders wrote the Bible. The Bible is an incredibly influential document. Therefore, the Bible isn't a bunch of made-up fairy tales. Yeah, there's an utterly gaping hole in your logic there.
It really is shameful how this guy guy became famous for basically lying to fit his agenda and taking advantage of the insanity of the far right. I'll never take anything he or his followers say seriously. It's pointless babble.
Urrcreavesh I have a theory that deep down those far right and alt right conservatives know they are wrong. And that's why they gravitate towards people like Peterson, because the comfortable lie is easier than the hard truth.
What bothers me the most in him is that he used minorities that are already miserable (transgender people) to elevate himself in the eyes of the naive - he had no problems with throwing them to the lions. I kind of wonder if Trump did not give him an idea of making lots of money this way... After all, he is supposed to be a psychologist, so probably thought "if that idiot can do it, I can do it too."
Urrcreavesh : That's the entire principle behind religion. People who find the world scary and want to be lied to. Told that there's an afterlife and that they'll be rewarded with heaven. It's all about selling people hope and they want it so bad, they're willing to turn their brains off and just accept anything a conman says because it makes them feel good.
You're a fool. As soon as you deem someone else as "other" you're avoiding the responsibility of righteously and legititmately upholding your own beliefs. You'd know this is you listened to any of Peterson's lectures. I could say everything you say is "pointless babble" to avoid giving you attention or challenging myself, but I already know what you are, so I have no need to call names or lament you. You're just young and naive. -an atheist
The Jordan Peterson problem is, he is a genius but very eccentric. He forgets to explain himself fully when he is talking with reporters or people questioning him. Therefore, he leaves a lot of unanswered questions laying out there, in which people will start to make assumptions about and or answer his questions in public for him. It sets off a lot of people, who really don't understand what he is truly trying to communicate. If you watch a lot of his videos where he is teaching, you will notice how much thought is going into the process to get it right. As it has been said many times, people sometimes don't want to know or hear the truth. They generally become defensive and shut down their listening process when presented with an idea they don't like. Peterson has that effect on a lot of people. I have often said to myself and others, that Jordan Peterson needs a PR person that he will listen to, so they can show what he is ding wrong in public. Then he possibly might not be misinterpreted as often. Jordan Peterson though, is a bit thin skinned, so I don't know if he could change. What he says about Atheists, I believe to be true. Not saying they are not Atheists , but they were brought up in a religion based environment, which taught them socially morals. I am an Atheist myself, but due to my upbringing, I catch myself once in awhile falling back to my religious thinking that there is something out there. I have know people brought up in non religious families , and you catch them frantic moment thanking God. Why, who knows. As religion is pushed away through the years, you will likely see less of these circumstances happen. As I said, Jordan Peterson is a genius, but geniuses usually have a hard time expressing themselves properly, without upsetting some people around. Watch his teaching videos and maybe you will gain some new light on him. I don't agree with everything that comes out of his mouth, but the man is truly trying to get to the base of issues presented to him.
For a a while I vacillated over whether Peterson was a barking lunatic or a cynical charlatan (not that this is an exclusive disjunction) but the more I've seen of him the more resolutely I've concluded that he's a calculating charlatan.
Normally l avoid the 'Atheist v. Believer' debates because it's the same shit over,and over, and over, and over. The apologists give the same old PRTT, but in thst clip it looked like Matt was actually holding back on ripping JP a second asshole. I'ma have ta look that one up now. Thanks for the heads up.
Didn't sound much different to the dozens of other apologists debates I've heard. Just with dumber language like "We'd lose the metaphorical substrate of our ethos."
this is extremely disappointing to see Jordan Peterson come out and say the same “moral compass” rhetoric as Steve Harvey. I’ve been a fan of some of the talks I’ve seen from him over the past year but some of the things lately have been very much a let down
Bigbeef Studios he’s right, it’s a very annoying and over-used insult, it along with that god-awful “autistic screeching” meme. also you’re not qualified to discern whether or not JBP has brain damage, that’s a ridiculous statement to make.
How did you not flag him as a cryptofascist on first sight? I did, so did everyone commenting above me (er, possible exception of the one directly above).
MaybDefinitely ~ except that "sjw" is a meaningless snarl word used by reactionaries hiding in pseudo-leftist skin to get rich on Patreon on the newest internet fad. Edit: Bina beat me to it. "Very clever young man (woman?), very clever..." Edit II: Apparently so did Mayrana, but this skeptic was never fooled, and is ashamed of these other "skeptics".
Deep down Jordan Peterson believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he denies it, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster believes in him, and looks forward to Peterson acknowledging the FSM as the creator of the universe, the Earth, hills, trees and a midget. Ramen.
LOL. Jordan Peterson is a clown. Whenever he is grilled on his indefensible belief in god, he plays with semantics every single time. "What do you mean by god? What do you mean by belief? What do mean by divine?" He is intentionally dishonest and tap dances around his own beliefs. And to claim that Atheists deep down believe in god too is even more hilarious.
So true! In this video th-cam.com/video/RIB05YeMiW8/w-d-xo.html he is asked if he believes Jesus was literally resurrected from the dead. After doing his "I'm thinking seriously" face (aka "poop face") he asked the following clarifying questions: * What do you mean by Jesus? * In a physical body? * On earth? As if the interviewer was sneakily trying to get him to admitting to believing that Jesus was walking around on Venus. When he couldn't get around the fact it was a simple, clear, direct question he said he was "agnostic" to the claim, and said this was different from not believing it. He is dishonest when it comes to his own religious beliefs. I would have no problem with this is he was a random celebrity, but he comes out in the media and tells people that he knows what's in their "heart" better than them. That they're not really atheists. This is offensive and arrogant. The guy's a douche.
When it comes to gender he’s all about "objective facts", but when it comes to "god" he’s like "oh, well it’s all subjective, what does ‘god’ even mean? What do you mean by Jesus?" lmao, he’s a joke.
Peterson is well spoken in terms of some of his vocabulary, but his actual points aren't valid. It's like he tries to coast on sounding smart, but all he does is appeal to pseudo intellectuals who are like just him, and then he'll completely go over the heads of those who just want to believe the points he tries to sell, despite not having the ability to grasp his ideas. He's not a great mind, though. He's quite obviously a con. Some of the time, I struggle trying to understand his points because he likes to use the occasional big word in the wrong context. When someone tries to sound smart as a way to overcompensate, then they're going to end up sounding stupid.
It's amazing how everyone in the comments is smarter than a professor of UT who has had his work cited countless times. He's obviously and painfully wrong here - doesn't make him an idiot.
I find it highly implausible that Peterson achieved the ~155 score he claims. I'd bet serious money his IQ is in the low 130's. When you spend your childhood and adolescence in gifted programs whose IQ prerequisite is 130, you get a pretty good sense of just where that threshold lies and Peterson very much appears to be right on it.
I have an IQ higher than Peterson claims to have, and I simply don't share your perception of his intelligence. He's moderately bright, nothing more. And he's not insane, he's a calculating opportunistic charlatan. Some are born to mediocrity, and some have mediocrity thrust upon them.
This is why you should try not to fall head over heels for someone just for one broad correct sentiment. He called out some idiot college students once, and everyone acts like he's a genius for it. That'd be like worshipping anyone who ever called Trump an idiot. This is a good lesson for this apolitical/psuedo-political new generation in the West: you need to look into things in depth before forming an opinion, period.
Can I just point out the irony of so many atheists falling for the same tricks evangelicals like Ray Comfort used to employ? Remember all those videos where evangelicals would "debate" random college students and claim evolution to be wrong because these random students would say something stupid or wouldn't know how to debate, it's exactly what Peterson does!
Ironically, it is the purported Christians who-deep down-don’t believe in God and heaven. Don’t believe me? Ask a Christian what their reaction was the last time a friend told them they were dying. Did they congratulate him? Did they throw a going-away party? Of course not. They were sad. They mourned. They cursed their dying friend’s luck. Show me someone who smiles and congratulates a dying friend, and I’ll believe that Christians really believe in god.
I used to watch Matt on the Atheist experience for kicks back in the day... yeah... he is brilliant at destroying Religious Stupidity...spent many years honing his craft on this show... some of the call in's were downright hilarious!!
Who knows if he has any profound points or not. I lack the energy to understand what he is saying when everything is hidden behind redefined terms. Examples include but are not limited to truth, religon, god, marxism, & postmodernism. You need a code ring to make sense of the guy.
Yep and when you redefine Christianity, Jesus Christ, and God/Jehovah to be no more real/true/divine than The Avengers.... Holy fuck the level of dishonesty...
Dillahunty is presumably a statist. That means he believes a bunch of ancient texts, old guys in wigs and their modern day descendants have 'special powers' and 'the divine right' to rule everyone by force. So you see he is just as religious as any church goer.... except of course all religions in the west agreed to stop ruling people by force a long time ago. As is so often the case Dillahunty is able to apply critical thinking to everyone else but not himself.
theawecabinet "Presumably"? Meaning the rest of the bullshit you spout is actually what you are going to assume. The reality is you have no idea if Dillahunty is. Even if someone is, say, a "constitutionalist", or simply recognizes the importance of laws in any civil society, it is bullshit to conflate that with something like religion where people are expected to completely submit unquestionably to a supernatural higher power. An important belief amongst secularist is to generally to worship nothing, question everything.
".."Presumably"? Meaning the rest of the bullshit you spout is actually what you are going to assume..." Yes the chances of Dillahunty not being a statist are about 10000 to 1 "..The reality is you have no idea if Dillahunty is..." Yes, but I can take an educated guess. Also if he was not a statist he would be known for this fact, yet I have never heard him referred to in that way. So it is safe to assume he is a statist. "... Even if someone is, say, a "constitutionalist", or simply recognizes the importance of laws in any civil society, it is bullshit to conflate that with something like religion where people are expected to completely submit unquestionably to a supernatural higher power.." Why? How are they different? A church is a group of people in impressive buildings. A government is a group of people in impressive buildings. Why should one group have the right to rule over other humans and not the other? You need to present an argument. "..An important belief amongst secularist is to generally to worship nothing, question everything..." Right, and worshipping any group of people and placing them above ordinary human beings in terms of legal rights is religious behaviour. Statists fall into this category, and I am 99.99999999% sure Dillahunty is a statist.
theawecabinet it is fucking embarrassing to conflate or even try to implicitly compare people in a civil society mostly agreeing to abide by certain laws, to a *worshipping of a u questionable, Supernatural, higher power. We can respect the Constitution while believing that it can also change over time and probably should. We also believe that no man should be worshipped and neither should any law.
That's funny, I totally think the opposite. I don't think religious people actually believe their own religious dogma. They'd just have to think. It's a social grouping defense mechanism, they are too afraid of reality and themselves.
Kyle Dickinson when I grew up I didn’t grow up knowing what god or religion was. But in seeing many of my friends from religious families I tend to feel the same. They don’t believe it and in order to truly believe they have to be fanatics or extremists and what good does that do when you are living thousands of years in the past?!
Lol what? There are thousands of gods I don't believe in. What's stopping their believers from saying that I believe in their god deep down? How does he determine that it's his god that people believe in deep down and not somebody elses.
It is another label for those "Anti-SJW" youtubers, who also make some videos about stupid religious apologist. Those are the annoying atheists that probably never in the slightest dove deep into the epistomology or some other more sophisticated background for the atheist position. That is why someone like Peterson talking about axioms is convincing to them. Because they don't know what axioms are and how they are also an integral part of the epistomological groundwork of atheism. If you want some of those arguments I recommend the youtube-channel of AntiCitizenX, he has some videos on the basics of pragmatism, truth and others. If you have any understanding of the philosophical arguments for the atheist position, and not just that those speaking for religion talk a bunch of BS, you will not fall for an apologist who tries to hide behind a little more sophisticated BS.
The "skeptic" community, from the beginning, focused more on rhetorical pwnage than on teaching people critical thinking. It was always just internet bloodsports dressed up in a tuxedo. So, fans of the genre never learned to practice to actual skepticism or use logic for anything other than confirming their preconceived ideas: a trap called motivated reasoning, which intelligent people are especially vulnerable to, because they're able to craft a reasonable sounding argument to support whatever biases they started with.
The problem is that half of that community stopped being skeptical about their own biases and fully embraced reactionary alt-right anti-sjw politics as their new religion. The other half, people like Matt Dillahunty and AronRa never went in that direction in the first place, they stayed true to skepticism and critical thinking.
Antisjws, anti-feminists, Pro Religious, climate change skeptics and trolls does not equate skepticism. It’s a case where these clearly, disruptive elements are somehow seen as the face of skepticism. Labelling oneself a particular viewpoint and showing a pattern of doing something that is contradictory or often sidelining that original view point is deceptive and is a means to undermine a community.
Yeah we are here and David Parkman was amazingly ignorant in his response. Matt Dillahunte didn’t even comprehend what JP was getting at because he put on his Ray Comfort glasses. The keyword is ”ACT”. ”You act as if you believe in god”. That is a very different thing from saying deep down you believe in a litteral god. David made a fool of himself in this one.
"You act like you believe in god" is just an empty assertion. You can literally say that about anything. "You believe in X because you act like you do, therefore I'm correct." Utter bullshit!
In the ''Theory of Moral Sentiments'', Adam Smith makes the argument that our morals and values are driven mostly by empathy, the natural capacity of human beings to put themselves in the place of other people, which makes them feel good when people around them are doing well and feel bad when other people suffer. One doesn't need to believe in a religious system of morals and values to feel empathy. But again, like David said, the argument about deeply believing in a god even when you explicitly don't cannot be falsified. in the academic world, unfalsifiable hypotheses are not receivable. It is mind boggling that despite making such an unverifiable claim, Peterson is still considered a scholar...
I think it’s much more plausible that people deep down don’t believe in God. The evidence is in the common evil actions of the God- fearing people which wouldn’t happen if they actually believed.
I think Peterson is confused. That Peterson doesn’t believe a secular system of ethics is justifiable on a meta ethical level doesn’t imply that an atheist doesn’t believe or follow their secular system of ethics on a personal level. He’s taking an assumption he’s already made about secular ethics on a logical level and is applying it, as if the issue has already been decided, in order to criticize personal belief in those ethics. In other words, not only is this a red herring tactic since the issue of “what one believes” (psychology) is separate from the issue of “is that belief logically defensible” (philosophy), but he’s also begging the question here. For the religious people who may read this comment, let me put it another way. By Peterson’s logic, an atheist can suggest that no Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. really believes in God since such a deity does not exist. Now you see what happened there? With just one fallacious assertion, the topic is no longer about what the theist believes, but the actual truth of those beliefs, and it’s all due to the assumption that the theist is wrong.
You're way off with C16. It's amazing how many American commentators are dismissing the concern about C16 based on a legal interpretation that assuages the obvious concerns. It shouldn't shock anyone that there are other valid opinions that disagree. C16 was quoted went Lindsay Sheppard was interrogated by two professors and an administrator at Laurier University for presenting a Peterson video without describing him as being wrong. She needed to tell the students what to think.....and if she didn't she might be breaking the law. To me it's clear that the kind of language in C16 is open to misuse and that's why it is a bad piece of legislation. Peterson turned out to be right about that. His position on Atheism is, as you say unfalsifiable stupidity....but he does make sense on other subjects....hence his popularity.
I agree. Frankly, I think it's bizarre that David is attacking Peterson on his position on bill C-16 of all things. Furthermore, it's strange that he brought it up over a topic unrelated to bill C-16. It's clear to me that he has an axe to grind for Peterson. It's not clear why and I would really like to know.
The Lindsay Sheppard situation was the most damning vindication of Peterson imaginable, and thus it was completely ignored by mainstream coverage of the man. Check out the Channel 4 interview with Cathy Newman; not brought up once. BBC bits on him, not a mention. The media are desperate to keep a lid on the fact that tranny politics are being used as an edge issue to slip the knife against our throats quietly.
People say you are misinterpreting a law and your answer is that two professors and an administrator at Laurier University interpreted it like you are misinterpreting it. What makes those two professors and an administrator the authority on that law? I've seen senators and congressmen (who are responsible of making laws) misinterpret laws(be it, usually, not the ones they made themselves ) and then get shut down by the justice system. Legislators make laws and judges interpret them. NOT professors (especially not psychology professors) and certainly not administrators. The bill purely adds gender identity to a big list of bases of protections like race, disability, sexual orientation etc... That would mean if she was breaking the law by showing a video of Peterson talking about transgender people then she would have broken the old law by showing Peterson talking about gay marriage since sexual orientation was already protected. But I haven't heard of anyone going to jail or being fined by showing a video of an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage person and that law has been on the books for some time now.
You don't seem to grasp what's happening. First of all showing a video on any subject at of all places a University should not require teliing students what to think about it. That goes against the core value of higher learning....its about learning how to think not what to think. Having this small incident exposed with Profs and Admin both lined up against this core value quoting C16.....its not a coincidence, this is happening at these institutions everywhere. Do a little digging and you'll see. Its why there is such high support for identity politics and other questionable ideas among grads.....its producing young people who are not thinking critically for themselves out of the humanities.
Full disclosure: I love Peterson. 1. He isn't really hiding his Christian leanings at all, though he's stating he's *nominally* Christian more and more lately, which is fair. 2. All his religion and mythos stuff is super rooted in Jungian psych, stems from the ideas of archetypes (Peterson talks about them as meta-memes occasionally, which I like). Peterson does not believe in God. Peterson believes in the concept of God and he believes the Judeo-Christian mythos and ethos prop up our civilization. His biblical lecture series is evidence of this. 3. Jordan Peterson is stubborn with his word choice. The idea seems like he's trying to come up with more refined conceptions of very semantically loaded religious terms. I feel like this is due to his affinity for Nietsche and the idea that rampant (and importantly, non-pragmatic) rationalism is corrosive to moral truths that aren't self evident but have been selected for and articulated in successful religious traditions. 4. He isn't a huckster or snake oil salesman. He's sincere in his beliefs. His clinical psych work is well cited and he's highly influential in his field. 5. His material rooted in Maps of Meaning is less accepted and much more controversial. Annoyingly, you *do* kind of have to know about the book for his takes to make sense. Same way you have to read all of a Kant book before the ideas fit together into a cohesive whole. These ideas can have merit or be flawed, fair, but scoffing at the idea that an academic might have complex ideas that aren't easily digestible is silly. No one reads one chapter from The Critique of Pure Reason and goes "lolwat this guy is stupid." 6. Failure to make distinctions between the different types of work Peterson has done makes it easy to dismiss any criticism of him. Pretending he hasn't been smeared is disingenuous.
When he said that having a spiritual experience on mushrooms is evidence for god, he proved that his logic isn't much better than William Lane Craig's. Matt was awesome, he killed it while Peterson babbled about metaphysical substrates. That Peterson guy just gets on my last nerve.
Chris Rees, I've watched Craig debate and have yet to see him posit anything even remotely persuasive. It's always the same old, tired arguments dusted off, taken off the shelf and presented as if they're something new.
I think as a psychologist most of Jordan's work is great but the connections to religion are where he and I disagree. In this debate Jordan looks so out of character but I've noticed his behavior polarizing towards fundamentalism and that's where you start losing common sense.
George Cortes he is looking for fame. Past colleagues and friends have said as much. He’s putting on a show and sucking up every dime because he knows he’s the “guru” of a certain type of people and it won’t last. He’s riding on the alt-dragon.
One of the best ways to refute this absurd argument is to ask these people if they would be mass-murderers if it turned out that God wasn't real. If they answer yes, then they are truly amoral people. If they answer no, it disproves that morality comes from God.
Nonsense, what people say about themselves is not nessesarily true. Besides, your argument sounds alot like, "lets settle this by flipping a coin, when its head i'm righ, when it's tail you're wrong". And you accuse JP of making an absurd argument?
Not really. If we say that they are right in their assessment that morals come from god, then their moral philosophy becomes entirely useless to most, as it essentially reveals that they are an amoral person. Just as a racist can say "I hate brown people because intrinsically, brown people make me uncomfortable" and still be philosophically correct on that position, that doesn't automatically mean that this moral philosophy becomes useful to most, as this moral philosophy reveals that they are amoral people by most individual's standards. When you argue Philosophy, there is no right or wrong: there is only sound and unsound, valid and invalid, and then the degrees to which people are willing to follow that Philosophy. Because most people are uncomfortable with the thought of being amoral, even if that Philosophy is sound and valid, there will be less people willing to follow that Philosophy when you point out the amorality of it, as has been the case with Racism being viewed predominantly as amoral over the past century.
+The Rustiest Venture If you had expressed the decent consistency of stating in your first post "If they answer yes, then they are truly amoral people in the absence of god" You may have had a point. Though it still doesn't account for the possibility of people lieng or being ignorant about how they will act. Scientifically spoken of course the only correct answer to your hypothetical question is "I don't know", just like with my coin flip analogy the coin could land on its side. "If we say that they are right in their assessment that morals come from god, then .... " "When you argue Philosophy, there is no right or wrong" So you were not talking Philosophy? You are contradicting yourself? Or only if I use the word "right" it invalidates me from participating, but it's okay for you to use the word "right"? See , I can play your silly game too.. I just dislike doing so, unless it can help understanding each other of course, like I hope it may be doing now.
I did say that? I didn't add "in the absence of god" to the end because it would've been redundant, as we already clarified that god is absent in this hypothetical. If they answer "I don't know," then there's no point in continuing the discussion. It'd be like asking someone "are you racist," and their response being "I don't know," or asking "are you a determinist," and them responding "I don't know." It doesn't add any value to the conversation in the slightest, and makes it entirely pointless to continue on. There's a difference between being factually right, as in true or correct, and morally right, as in morally good, justified or acceptable. I probably should've used the term "correct" instead of right when I said "If we say that they are right in their assessment that morals come from god" for the sake of clarity, but it doesn't make the statement any less valid. The term "right" has more than one meaning.
To clarify further, when I say there is no morally right or wrong answers, i'm talking from the perspective of differing philosophies. Someone who is racist might not see any moral wrong in discriminating against someone who is of a different race, while someone who is not racist would probably view that discrimination as a moral wrong. What i'm essentially saying is that morally right and wrong are relative terms in this context.
Hi, David. I just discovered your channel a few days ago and am enjoying it a lot. I myself cross some traditional lines because I am both religious, a teacher of religious studies, as well as strongly left-wing. I have several problems with Peterson, some of which you are outlining. But I want to bring to your attention, if needed, that Peterson is very questionably "religious." It's more like he uses religious ideas and models, but he refuses to be pinned down regarding any explicit commitment to religious faith as normally understood. Peterson has put a lot of effort into redefining concepts such as "truth" and "belief" to fit with his own system, such that "believing in God" is more or less equivalent to "acting in a moral and life-promoting manner." He doesn't really focus on whether or not there is an existing, all-powerful, compassionate, etc. Supreme Being. His thing is that he argues that it's important to individuals and societies to act "as if" there were such a Being. His concept of truth is metaphorical, symbolic, or archetypical. The actual existence of God, for Peterson, is pretty much besides the point. So in this sense, as many religious people are realizing, Peterson's "alliance" with religion is along the same path as what is known in Plato as "the noble lie." This doctrine holds that certain beliefs are good for the masses, even though the intellectual elite "know" that they are not real. Look up videos where people try to pin JP down about his religious convictions and this may become clearer.
I kid you not, but in the same video, he argues that since there are multiple people from all over the world who claim to have mystical experiences under the influence of LSD and since they are all independent of each other, that must mean that mysticism does really exist. I swear, this guy makes Donald Trump seem smart with his arguments, and has a very Trumpian way of making money without doing shit.
I don't see the problem with this one. Mysticism is a thing people do, specifically a thing their brains do. It really does exist, as evidenced by the multitude of independent accounts of it, with or without psychedelic drugs. In fact, count me as one of those accounts: I've had mystical experiences under the influence of psychedelics, which led me straight to the conclusion that all such experiences are nothing but quirks of brain chemistry, not evidence of any supernatural forces. Which brings me to my point, and what I think is the real problem with the kind of argument you're describing: The existence of "spiritual" experience is utterly useless for demonstrating the existence of "spiritual" beings or powers.
I read something someone else wrote about this discussion that I thought was bang on so I feel it's worth repeating. "Matt Dillahunty can take complex concepts and make them comprehensible, Jordan Peterson takes a simple concept and makes it incomprehensible".
i think you should do an interview with jordan peterson about your criticisms of him i think it would be quite interesting since i consider you both to be civilised and smart people
I know Peterson isn't the most sophisticated thinker ever but, did he actually use the oldest trick in the book? This is the cheapest and oldest argument ever made against atheists, and it has been refuted countless times. He could have watched any debate from any of the four horsemen to know there are standard responses to this bullshit. Very poor preparation by Peterson. As Hitchens would say: "You give me the awful impression, I hate to have to say it, of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position ever".
Are you sure about that? I have a hard time believing you've read all the arguments ever made against "there" position. That would involve a lot of reading and something tells me you're not quite a hardcore reader. Something about the way you express yourself. But I don't want to be mean so I won't say it. Stay in school.
i was responding to your quote regarding the subject of the video as that is perhaps what they believe. i will admit to not being necessarily learned enough in the subject of apologetic or other related subjects to offer more then an armchair philosopher 2 cents, but then again in a youtube comment thread what were you expecting , groundbreaking Socratic dialogue worthy of a treatise? both of the sides in the age old debate of theism/Christianity vs atheism/secularist have used the same tired arguments for going on hundreds of years because neither positon is provable or disapproval, either you understand faith or you don't. i've had debates with atheists and debates with hardcore fundamentalist types theat wont even admit to the evidence for evolution or that the bible cant be inerrant and have had very little headway in either camp . people are going to believe what they believe . if someones entire worldview shaped over ta good portion of their lives was changed by a 20 minute lecture by a publsihed intellectual with a fancy title like the four horsemen or with a self help book like 12 rules, then we would alll join a different cult every week. i believe in god literally and in the divinity of my lord and savior Jesus Christ , if you dont then thats fine but dont pretend liek it is a preposterous or unfounded/unreasonble claim, it only makes you look unlearned when you are probably reasonably intelligent .
That’s just your opinion. you should play his explanation of religion and God or even invite him to your show instead of playing short clips of his debates and being so jealous of the success that you don’t have.
Im a social psychologist and I agree with the trust of this video. Peterson is dead against empirical research. He is guided by firm beliefs without evidence. He attracts the alt right, and he knows this.
How is this guy Peterson considered edgy? This canard that the atheist secretly are believers is and old piece of christian apologetics. Even street evangelical preachers use it! I have heard it all my life and is one of the things tha are eyeroll inducing to me.
I don't believe in religion. I think people just made up stories to explain things. Like how people thought thunder was angry gods making noises. But I don't really care if other people are religious or not. Iust keep it to yourself.
The "Just keep it for yourself" part simply doesn't work out. It has never worked out. People indoctrinate their children into the same irrational beliefs, hindering or destroying the developement of these children to think critically and rationally. You should care about the perverse mechanism of childhood indoctrination.
Religion has been used to explain naturally phenomena and had gotten pretty much all of it wrong -- with the exception of thunder. Thunder is, as a matter of fact, the result of Thor being pissed off.
"People that like Rogan and Peterson are generally very dumb." I assume you have some kind of proof to back this up? Sounds like yet another ad hominem from David's audience of true intellectual giants.
The skeptics from 10 years ago are now backing this guy who is literally making unfalsifiable arguments fundamentalists used to make. Peterson would have been massacred in the skeptic debate in the past, but now he gets a pass. THAT is regressive.
Peterson was asked in the Joe rogan podcast what god is and to no one's surprise he didn't know how to answer. It amazes me how a guy who devotes so much of his life time to something can't properly define that something. Imagine the absurd concept of a chemistry phd, a physicist, a lawyer ect you name it, not being able to give a simple definition on what the object of their study is. Peterson can't, and what is even worse about that is that god is not only Peterson's object of study but object of his adoration and guidence to public policy and societal norms and I REPEAT he can't give a simple definition on what God is. But that doesn't stop him of throwing around that term within meaningless sentences that sound witty to his audience and they buy it. AMAZING.
R. m I found the same thing when I watched the Rogan interview. No straight answers. Just alternate social consciousness. Don’t know why people buy this crap.
Damn he really loves to pander to the right. Its statements like the one addressed in this video that confirms hes just another pretend intellectual looking to cash in on the right wings need to not be seen as fools. Jordan makes a long winded speech about something ridiculous then all his fan boys cheer because he made it sound thoughtful with big words and claims with no evidence.
If you have ever watched any of his teaching videos, you would notice he does not pander in any direction. He just doesn't know how to present himself properly in public. That has been his biggest problem. When he was teaching, he tried so hard to get to the truth of matters. Some people just don't understand him. That is not Jordan Peterson's problem. He seems to be doing rather well for the people who do.
David, you clearly don’t understand the point Peterson is getting at here. You start off by mischaracterizing it as a Christian argument, it’s not. It’s a Nietzsche argument. All Peterson is doing here is parroting Nietzsche’s point about how people say they don’t believe in God, yet act as if the 10 commandments still apply. Go read The Genealogy of Morals and then reevaluate this. All this video shows is that Peterson is better read than you are.
Jordan Peterson is a sexist. Saw him "interviewed" many times on The Agenda by his buddy and equally sexist Steve Paikin. Paikin gave Peterson a platform on many occasions to spew his contempt for females.
Why don’t I steal or kill people? Empathy and self interest. Why do I value those things? I don’t, they’re just a part of me and most people for good evolutionary reasons. Why do we punish deviant behavior? Self-interest extrapolated to the group Ok Jordan. Find God in that
faissialoo I realize that but there is a disturbing amount of people who think that there are no self-interested reasons to behave morally. There is an atheist rebuttal to Christian morality that goes something like “yes if there was no god I’d kill as many people as I want, that being zero” to which Christians have actually responded “well then you just lack ambition”
Yep, you were right, you did misunderstand him completely. What we saw here was a very short clip of a very short conversation, you've also left out another part where he was asked whether or not he believed in god and he never gave an answer, yet you painted him as "one of those true believers" anyway, what he did was the same thing he has always done, ask what they meant by god. The reason as to why this is important goes back to his work, I can tell you have not done any research, at all, on anything he does, say or represent, otherwise you would have known from any of the 17 2hours+ long videos from his playlist called "The Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories" that he can also, and does refer to god as life itself, fate, or even meaning, something that's not a theistic belief in any way shape or form, not refering to it as a creator, entity or "being", but as the state of being itself, a short example would be: If you sacrifice something of worth to god, you will get something of worth in return, that doesn't mean you have pleased the invisible man in the sky, it means if you take things seriously and spend some time and effort doing the things you have to do, you will naturally get results back, your effort, your efficiency is the worth of your sacrifice, meaning your time, your labor, your reward is the fruit of your labor, it is "given" to you by "god", but in reality it means you reap what you sow. Having that knowledge it becomes evident what he meant by "you act like you do", he never even did say "you are a theist", that was just a strawman, he's meant exactly what he said, "you act like you do", even if you don't believe something, you can still act like you do. How is that possible? Again,you can go back to his work, Christianity is not just a mythology, it's not just a belief in the supernatural, it is also a pillar in which our civilization have built itself around, like it or not, it was ingrained in our thinkers, in our philosophy, even the things we teach our kids, sure most of it have no supernatural element, we just take it all for granted because we've assimilated all the good parts of christianity in our culture, in a way it could be said that we won't need the rest anymore, sure, but that doesn't mean you can pretend our civilization, our ancestors were floating in the void, with no cultural influences, building codes of ethics randomly, without any references, so "but you act like you do" most certainly mean "you don't know the source of the things you think, but you're acting in accordance with the core principles of Christianity, assimilated by the culture you have grown into even if they make no reference to the supernatural". For the record, there is no so such thing as a so called free-speech warrior, free speech is a binary, either it's free, or it isn't, if you're not advocating for free speech, you're just a scumbag, and they are just pro free-speech. Jordan Peterson didn't misunderstand anything about Bill C16 and as for the last question: "When markets fail" I can spoil the end for you: They do when government gets involved, otherwise they don't.
There are plenty of videos of him spewing the same nonsense. We have definitions of what words mean you can't change the meaning to suit your purpose which is what Peterson does all the time. The most populated countries in the world have no connection to the abrahamic religions and they are far ahead morally. I can say if you aren't stoning adulterers or homosexuals you aren't acting like a christian and deep down inside you are actually an atheist but thats what foolish people like peterson would say.
Damn I'm glad you wrote this so I didn't have to. It's true, unfortunately for perterson the amount of effort required to understand his whole philosophy is ridiculous and requires tons of reading. It's not conducive to an hour long discussion. I think many atheists look at religion and say wait you're telling me there's an invisible Man who if I pray to will grant me wishes. However if I don't follow one of these 10 ridiculous rules written thousands of years ago I'll spend an eternity in a magical pit of fire. Yea that's bullshit guess I'm an atheist. These people seem to have interpreted religion at a surface level, and are no deeper thinkers than the fundamentalist who believe that stuff is true. Dig down into the mythology of all the religions and you'll find there are truthes, about how to live a virtuous life. That's mainly where Peterson stands. His claim that you actually do believe in a god is semantical and I don't know why he does it. In his view a deity is that which you aim to be. The most ideal version of yourself. If he'd just say it it would clear up so much. But u can see where if u take it that way then you would have to believe in a God. Because who doesn't have ideals.
+Jarod Smith You're argument is falling apart at the seams, and here's why: You acknowledge that atheists don't believe in any god: "I think many atheists look at religion and say wait you're telling me there's an invisible Man who if I pray to will grant me wishes. However if I don't follow one of these 10 ridiculous rules written thousands of years ago I'll spend an eternity in a magical pit of fire. Yea that's bullshit guess I'm an atheist." Then you turn around and say they must believe in a god, just because they have a moral system that works. "Dig down into the mythology of all the religions and you'll find there are truthes, about how to live a virtuous life." You've already admitted what Dillahunty said. You can have a code of morality that makes sense without believing in a god. There is nothing the abrahamic religion provides practically, that cannot be removed from the system and applied practically without belief in supernatural or other nonsense.
Canal do Void Jordan peterson calls what is not a god a god and then proceeds to make the claim that we are all Christians because of it; when it's the exact opposite. Christianity did not descend from the heavens in the form of a book but it was written from humans just like you and me, humans who were building the concept of Christianity itself while they were writing the bible, they simply injected their morals (THAT THEY ALREADY HAD) within a piece of paper so no, Christianity is not in every single one of us, rather atheism, common sense and a morals have been in each and everyone one of us from the start, before any religion was made up, exactly like they were present in whoever wrote the bible. He has to learn how to use definitions properly because I feel like he is just confusing a lot of people by giving words new definitions and then applying the "rules" of the first definition to the second, even when there is barely any correlation between the two.
I am surprised how many people on TH-cam watch 1 hours debates or 10 minute clips from them and then deduct that someone is an idiot, narrow minded or a huckster. I watched this whole debate and read some commentary afterward. These two seemed to get a long just fine. They had a good discussion with some agreements like on fundamentalism, and shared some laughs. They challenged each other. In the end neither was swayed by the other but I don't think either of them would call the other an idiot. I don't agree with Matt Dillahunty conclusions but I appreciate many of his arguments as does Peterson. I think Matt is an exceptionally bright person. He has his conclusions and I and others have ours. I like having my views challenged which is why I listen to all different perspectives. I was an agnostic for quite a while, it was through listening to guys like Matt that I became a Christian again. I was most influenced however, by the late Christopher Hitchens, a man I admired deeply. So much so that i tried for years to get to meet him, it never happened, and regretfully we lost him to soon. For me I don't see how materialism gets you consciousness, love, beauty, truth etc... But I can certainly understand that others cannot equally see how God exists, I have several close friends who are atheist. Reading the comments I noticed someone else already pointed out that Peterson did not say Matt really believes in God down deep. He said you "act" like God exists. Can't David or many commenting here not recognize the point? If God exists there is no way to live your life as if he didn't. That seems fairly obvious. Of course that does not mean God does exist. Peterson's point, is that what he calls the meta-physical substrate, is at the bottom of human psyche. So we act on it without recognizing it. He doesn't say that you will become a mass murderer. It should be obvious to a 3 year old that just believing in God does not make you a good person nor does lack of belief make you a bad person. The substrate Peterson is describing is not removed by lack of belief. C.S Lewis, an atheist had a similar observation and became a Christian. Many others listen to the arguments or have life experiences that lead them in a different direction, as did Matt. I am not saying any of this to try and convince anyone of anything other than reasonable people have different conclusions and sometimes even they change. I can't escape feeling that if Peterson were arguing for atheism the tone of many of the comments here would be different even from Mr. Pakman. Did it escape him that he has an audience and supporters and is trying to make a living via social media also? How is Peterson somehow questionable for the same motives? He starts off calling Peterson an pseudo-intellectual and anti-intellectual? Whatever you think of him, he is an educated man, spent a few years at Harvard and was already gaining admiration and notoriety after posting some of his lectures on TH-cam which is how I first heard of him, (I am a psychology student myself), long before the C-16 Bill debate, which brought him into political discussion. I nor anyone else can prove God exists neither can it proved that God doesn't exist, at the end all we have are arguments some good some bad. People gain and lose faith for many reasons, they are seldom intellectual ones. As Rodney King said: "Can't we all just get along" :)
Peterson believes that we are moral because we put faith in a presupposed set of moral axioms which exists beyond rationality and logic and is thus a metaphysical value. To state simply, these metaphysical axioms are what Peterson refers to as the supernatural or God. He uses the example of Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment in the debate to show what happens when a person breaks away from said metaphysical axioms (often provided by religion). They succumb to rationality for their sense of right and wrong and in times of trouble it goes as far to justify heinous acts with catastrophic results. Raskolnikov according to Peterson is a true atheist because he acts out a belief system that isn't aligned with a metaphysical moral axioms - or God. This is what it means to be an atheist instead of professing that you are not. Matt professes he is an atheist and yet still believes in a rationally unjustifiable set of moral axioms given that he can't explain why he believes in what he presupposes other than it being "common sense". Matt, in a way, still believes in God. You are almost never what you say you are. Peterson wants to argue that "actions speak louder than words".
Here we go again. The whole C-16 thing was not a matter of Peterson misinterpreting the damned thing. It was a matter of him "heading off at the pass" the subsequent outcomes of the bill. Because he said he would NOT use personal pronouns now or in the future without a sound basis for using them, i.e., we all come to a consensus on their usage, he was vilified by the administration of the university he was working at. In fact, he's on record admitting his awareness that he has broken no laws given the bill's implementation and interpretation was still being finalized. He was told as much by the bill's authors. It didn't stop them, whoever "them" might be, from admonishing him, censoring him, maligning him and so forth. Eventually, because he was out of favor with SJW types running the administration of the university, he was labeled a neo-nazi, racist, homophobe and other things not at all true. This also led to a weird situation with Lindsay Shepherd (a teacher's assistant) being censored by the "SJW Thought Police" while doing her job at another university merely for playing a video that had Jordan Peterson in it. Later she was given an open letter apology by one of the professors who had basically harassed her. She was basically told she was not to discuss, in a university setting, issues surrounding personal pronouns. If you can't discuss real topics taking place in the real world in an academic setting then where? Who is being a snowflake here? In our own country SJW's went overboard verbally attacking a professor at Evergreen College. Bret Weinstein. Heard of it? Black students attacked a white professor for reasons I still can't figure out. Hell, I'm black and can't figure this shit out. Let's not forget the interview he had to endure with Cathy Newman. Have you seen this interview? With all that said, I am not a Jordan Peterson clone of some sort. I am not a Christian. I didn't vote for Trump. I am not right wing. I am not even going to sit here and justify Peterson's claim that deep down I do believe in a God, I just don't know it. OK? But what everyone is doing is taking him out of context unfairly. Which is something neither Pakman, Rubin, Seder, Maher, Harris or any of the rest of us left leaning skeptics would enjoy if we were on the receiving end. Here's the real issue at hand. I am not a homophobe or a xenophobe. In fact, I am a black male that has put up with more than the fair share of racism, prejudice and so forth. I'm so used to it I basically tell people they have nothing to worry about before they go too far with it (try walking into a Wal-Mart nowadays. Or do my job in a hospital setting--every other day I get asked if I am stealing the equipment I brought to the goddamned hospital. Being black sucks!) So I get it. I even get what SJW's are all bent out of shape about. The conservative Christian right, evangelicals, NRA, Trumpists are truly off their rockers. That still doesn't give me the right to discard any individual, of any particular socio-political subset, without first giving them the same benefit of doubt I should expect from them. Sometimes I don't even get the chance and get prejudged before I even open my mouth. Those who do those things no matter what side they are on are wrong. Are we any different from those extreme right wingers if we start acting just like them?
TLDR: A ok enough guy with occasional good points but is wrong on multiple other points because he digs too deep. Followed by me ranting with evidence. If morality exists with the gods or god & the gods turn out not to be pure good then morality has never existed. We make of life what we want. Jordan has made some good points but sometimes i think he digs too deep or something. For example, he argued the disney movie Frozen was too focused on ideology. Now regarding this topic about him, Jordan you can't tell someone they feel something else it be the same as telling a Christian that deep down their really a Buddist or that they think something deep down they're not aware of, your digging too deep my friend. There are atheists then there are agnostic atheists for a reason. Now as for the Christian bible it certainly has questionable morales. It supports incest, slavery, rape, harems, killing your wife, killing your kids, war, & pillaging. Don't believe me? I'll give you the exact verses & before you say that's old testament, i assume you believe in the stories of Adam & Eve, The Flood & Satan's betrayal which is all old testament, your cherry picking. PS: Let's not forget scriptures were taken on purpose out of the bible watch a documentary called Banned From The Bible. The bible has been edited, mistranslated to a extent, & certain scriptures of the bible is forever lost leaving it incomplete. Bible verses that make you say wtf: Deuteronomy 21:18 - 21 Leviticus 26:27 - 30 Deuteronomy 25:11 - 12 Genesis 16:7 - 9 1 Peter 2:18 Deuteronomy 22:20 - 21 Deuteronomy 23:1 Leviticus 12:5 Judges 19:25-18 Exodus 21:10 Numbers 31:17-18 Numbers 31:25-40 & Genesis 19:33-34 Now to wrap this up with bible logic fails: -Why not vaporize Satan? You have nothing to prove to the incarnation of everything evil. -How did Satan become evil or rather sin come to exist if all there was, was God, heaven, & angels? Whom are all perfect. -After the flood wouldn't every human & creature have to commit incest to survive? As we know long term incest causes defects so wouldn't every creature have severe defects? -Why flood the planet killing millions of men, women, & children including pregnant woman but not kill the root cause of the evil, Satan? Same goes for that city he blew up with a meteor. -Why whisper your teachings to humans instead of making a indestructible magic book that cannot be destroyed or age written in every language that defies science? -Why even have the tree in the garden, or even let satan in the garden? -Why was God offended by the Tower of Babel when humanity later goes to space anyway plus if they succeeded God wasn't up there anyway plus they would've died from the zero oxygen in space too. -Magic. -Adam & Eve lived for hundreds of years. -Uh why allow everything evil, is it really worth it. Flesh eating disease, poverty, murder, war, etc. Really? Go on try to justify allowing JUST rape to be a thing if u could end it asap easily. -Why isn't God vaporizing hell? Whole place sounds like a abhorrent abomination. -Where does mental illness fit in? -Uhh what's the point of disease, death, mental illness, & defects. & lastly, So... does God believe in generational punishment just like North Korea? Yes because he blames future generations for Adam & Eve both getting TRICKED by the incarnation of all things evil that God ALLOWS to exist named Satan. Ty & that concludes my rant. Sorry lol
Most of these stories are allegorical, a blueprint of the human condition, or symbolic of nature and the cosmos. Atheists who take them literally are essentially the same as fanatical, literal interpreters of the Bible.
4:26 "His audience just eats everything up because they like the anti-sjw stuff" Lol David no, that's just not true. He definitely has some fanboys that agree with him 100% of the time and of course that's completely irrational, but if you look through the comments or listen to other people's critiques of him, there's a lot of nuance in exactly what people do and don't like about him. He has a lot of atheist fans who find this type of stuff ridiculous. Even Sam Harris has said he thinks a lot of what Peterson says is valuable. If you're going to completely dismiss him because you've heard him say one or two things you disagree with, then you're just as irrational as his fanboys who agree with him all the time because they heard him say a couple things they agree with.
David Pakman doesn't do nuance. I'm confused as to why people like him. He's arrogant, patronizing and wrong most of the time. I suspect his love of the word "sophistry" comes from having heard it so often.
I am glad someone else thought the same thing I did, when DP said this. Every interview I have heard from Peterson, he clearly states what he disliked about this Canadian Bill of Rights change. He has stated exactly how it would change things in Canada. I think once people decide they don't like someone's thoughts, they tend to stop listening and put everything into the same basket, wether it is true or false. It reminds me of people following a religion. I do remind people that this is just my opinion. I am not saying anything too die for. Lol
I despise JBP as much as the next atheist but if you really think he's doing this maliciously, and that his fame is *only* build on his SJW stance and misinterpretation of some legislation, you're selling him short on purpose or are just as deluded as he is.
I like Peterson and disagree with him on this. Can you think of someone you admire you agree with 100%? These tactics of attacking him and his followers saying how much he makes and his followers are just idiot doesn’t put you in a good light
Let me try and explain Peterson's position to people who may not quite understand it. Jordan Peterson is an existentialist. Existentialist believe that belief is demonstrated through action. If you want to know where someones values are you don't ask them but rather look at there actions to see if they act as if they value what they claim. Peterson believes that much of modern morality is based around the idea that the Individual has a spark of divinity in them(being created in the image of God) and despite any obvious shortcoming or problems any person or group may posses there is a level of respect and humane decency that is owed to everyone. Historically Peterson is correct. There is no credible argument that the concept of natural and humane rights didn't evolve from this belief about the individual. Peterson then believes that if God falls out of the equation and man is just an animal tossed and turned by the winds of natural selection with no meaning or purpose then these moral advancements no longer have any justification. All that could be said is "we have inherited these morals and find them usefulness in satisfying whatever ends were currently pursuing". If ends or environment ever changed these precious and unique advancement could be discarded with barley a argument. Genocide could not be considered a horrible crime against mankind. Rather it could only bee seen as a means towards maximizing happiness that is appropriate right now. Peterson has been unconvinced by the arguments put forward by atheist to create a new moral foundation( I dont necessarily agree with him as I believe Albert Camus in "Myth of Sisyphus" provide a strong argument for meaning without reference to God). So when he sees an atheist act out a morality that he doesn't believe can be justified by the philosophy he says "There not really atheist because there not acting like atheists". There is logic to this. Atheism completely changes the foundations of moral thought in the western world. One would think there would be significant differences theist and atheist morality. Strangely enough modern atheist and theist probably agree on 95% of moral issues. Peterson view is that atheist are afraid to follow there ideas to there logical end and instead make big simplifying assumptions in order to be able to justify most of modern morality.
You are an extremely unskilled writer. You lack even the mildest talent for expository prose and said exactly nothing of substance. And don't admonish me to address your content, because there wasn't any.
Maybe. Or your just to stupid to understand what I'm talking about. Packman's audience isn't that bright. I'm sure you got lost the moment the word existentialist was brought up.
Surely it's the other way around. It's 'modern' theists that agree with atheists on 95% of issues regarding morality. If theists actually did what their God told them, the divergence would be much greater.
Jordan Peterson, William Lane Craig, and Sye Ten Bruggencate walk into a bar. The bartender asks: how are you gentlemen doing this evening? JP says: that depends on what you mean by "how" and "doing". WLC says: every question must be considered through the presupposition that god exists. I'll have to pray on it and get back to you. STB says: how do you know we are really here? How do you know it is actually evening? Bartender says: ok. Get the fuck out of my bar.
It's one thing to disagree with Peterson, but to suggest that he's a fraud (like many of the comments here) makes you lose all credibility. I'm an atheist myself and after listening to many of his lectures, I've realized that this man knows what he's taking about. He just has a deeper understanding of the concept of religion than the usual religious person. Now you can insult me for being a Peterson fanboy or you can take the time to actually look into some of his stuff. The latter might open you up to whole new perspectives you didn't think about before, the former will secure your place in this echo chamber. Your move.
Even his colleges at the university he started at said he was a windbag, projectionist out for fame. People that actually LIVED with him and were his friends say the same thing. He’s just rehashing old material pee WWII and putting a spin on it. He’s making a living off Social Darwinism.
regardless of whether he's an honest or dishonest whack, he isn't saying anything profound to anyone who has a fundamental understanding and ability to apply evolutionary and social psychology. his entire concept can be summarized with there's a utility in this belief, therefore this belief is true--which screams circular reasoning. he's pretty much the type of smart-ass that would tell you that there's a reason behind racial stereotype as if there's any or much truth in the reasoning. guess what, people eat tide pod too. doesn't make their stupidity any more justified as a means for whatever. even the lunatic who unpredictably kick a dog has a reason behind his action. even the way a given snowflake is shaped that way has a reason. randomness is still a reason in and of itself there is wisdom of utility behind cleaning your room. but there is also "wisdom" of utility in beating up your child (for the sake of straightening them out) to the point of physically abusing them. the means don't always justify the ends. however to add to the ridiculousness to this fallacy, there's also "wisdom" in utility in NOT beating up your child because beating him up might set him up to be a bitter person. when the method you employ to navigate truth is able to produce for you evidence and arguments just as well as counter-evidence and counter-arguments, then it's probably not the tool to use.
I won't be surprised if Jordan Peterson runs for political office as a Conservative (a conbot). Of course he is a believer, he believes in himself, he's male and god is male and that is that.
Read his first book and/or watch his three newest online lecture series. As much as you’d like to dismiss him as a fundamentalist Christian apologist, he’s actually providing everyone a naturalistic/psychological/evolutionary explanation of religion and mythology. People who watch sound bites of Peterson can understandably be confused by his ideas because they are fairly radical (to both the religious and the atheistic), but I encourage you to do your homework before opining on an incredibly complicated line of thinking. Also, you need to reconcile the fact that there are staunchly atheistic people, such as myself, who understand what he’s saying and aren’t actually being converted to Christianity.
Deep down, Jordan is an atheist. See, I can make unfounded, unwarranted claims too.
"Real" Christians, huh ;)
Voidsworn well, that statement isn't that far off. Where atheists don't believe in 3000 or so gods, he most likely doesn't believe in 2999 or so gods.
Oliver Donovan
You are right. When I was growing up, raised as a fundamentalist, literalist Christian, this was a core claim - if I had responded to inquiry "Do you believe in Jesus/God" in the way Peterson does, I'd have literally been beat for it. Physically beat for it.
You can make the argument that most theists actually behave as atheists, don't truly believe in god. Ask them to drink poison, and then pray not to die, they won't do it. Or, to go preach the bible to lions*. I'd not be surprised that there may even be some bible part that would make it more explicitly that YHVH wouldn't let someone die in such a situation if they truly believe in him or something**.
* but the mentally ill will do it on their own: jdstone.org/cr/files/mantriestoconvertlionstojesus.html
** There is:
*_Mark_**_16:15_*_ He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”_
How many atheist go to church? How many thiest do things completely contrary to their religion or don't even attend services?
Where's Christopher Hitchens when you need him.
Not a fan of Hitchens's weird neocon Trotskyism, but he would be an effective demolisher of this hysterical fool Peterson.
Peterson loves to debate dismal centrist libs who are only slightly lefter than him on class issues (not idpol stuff). Not hard to get the better of careerist media types who have no convictions.
In hell lol
Now Christopher Hitchens is a man who I think is a Believer. Jordan Peterson is just a con man.
@@Fwazonly Lmao, ‘Neocon Trotskyism’ is a brilliant way to describe Hitchen’s late political beliefs. His positions were all right wing but he was nominally liberal or left wings because he was so embarrassed of the aesthetics of the religious right and tea party. However I think if he were still alive he would be a firm anti-sjw. RIP Hitchens.
This argument again? Known kook William Lane Craig made that argument 20 years ago. Hell, Pat Robertson has been using this argument for even longer. And Peterson using it doesn't make it any more valid.
Or ANY pre-sup Christian.
It appears on Plato's republic… and it has since been widely debunked.
Nice catch. It is rightly debunked EVERY time it is asserted [thus far without any evidence]. Anyone wiling to prove that assertion with factual evidence?
AldanFerrox OMG, yes... I will never comprehend the appeal of William Lane Craig, or Jordan Peterson
Katt Flee Actually Craig's appeal is straight forward, evangelicals want to see "rekt atheist" debates. Peterson is more of mystery because so many hyperrational new atheists became fans of him and his Alpha Lobster Great Chain of Being.
Are Peterson's 15 minutes up yet?
Gregory Foster
incels need someone to be sycophants to
Obviously he has 5 minutes left.
Give him a second-thought and he takes an hour-thought.
Nope
"Deep inside, you know that I'm right and you're wrong." Great argument.
I don't think you've adopted the proper framework for "self" to understand things like unconscious knowledge and behaviour here. In other words, you've construed "belief" with what you *say* you believe and not how you truly act. And in more words, there's a lot more to a human being, and to yourself, than you think and know.
Okay, checking deep down. Scanning, scanning...
Nope. Guess he's wrong.
pisse3000 ya but you know because your secretly god.
Its not too late. And yes you have a hard heart. Why do evil? Why not try to do good in this world?
Next thing you know his cult will be saying things like "Rejoice in the name of Jesus!"
+Frank Jay Am I doing evil by simply not believing in things for which I see no real evidence?
Correct. You mock that which is telling you to do good. Why would you mock something that tells you to do good? If you claim to be 'moral' or 'good' why mock it?
I just wish more people would see through Jordan Peterson
Deep down, everyone believes in a god.
Fine... but deeper down, everyone knows there is no god
Now, prove me wrong.
Peterson already made his argument for why people are religious by default. Can you summarise his argument? If not then you don't know what it is and should not be commenting.
theawecabinet It's internet idiot, of course he can and should comment.
Yes of course he has the right to comment. My point was that he does not know what he is talking about and would be better served researching the subject before commenting from a place of ignorance.
I don't care about the minutiae of his argument, and it's irrelevant. His conclusion is wrong, so the argument is wrong.
theawecabinet. Peterson basically says "Good people don't know they're a Xyzist, but they are because only Xyzists can be moral. Here's the proof: if you weren't an Xyzist you'd be immoral. QED." Lol... It's a laughable argument.
To say to another person, "I know what you really believe, and it is the opposite of what you say you believe. You are concealing your real belief in my God, because you want to evade His judgment," is a form of intellectual fascism. It is to say, in effect, "I can no longer burn you alive for your offense to my sensibilities, but my God can, and is going to." And to say, in effect, "Just wait till my God gets ahold of you, haha!" is the sort of intellectual infantilism we find in servile minds.
The fool is blind to that which he serves and thinks himself to be the master, and the one who is wise knows and accepts his servitude and wishes to be as far from the position of "master" as possible.
Why do you think you are portraying him as a classic, arrogant religious nut? Why do you wish so greatly to see this in him? Your unjustified suppositions seek something subordinate to your intellect. In your search for external arrogance, you have, yourself, manifested it. You could have chosen patience rather than working yourself up to that point, no?
Narrow mindedness is a common issue for the ultra religious.
Robo Tech I guess they know what they want.
What does that make atheists then ? Becasue we have become just as narrow minded and closed off to other schools of thought
TheSilverPhoenix100 you’re absolutely right, but that doesn’t negate my point.
No, he's wrong. Don't pretend to speak for others, silverbird, a lot of atheists are open minded. We just know bullshit when we see it.
Your not really proving that atimnie
JP is the champion of redefining 'spiritual' concepts. He produces so much word salad he could feed a Webster's yet, still starve it of understandable definitions.
He pulls more PRTT apologetics out than Craig, Ham and AiG, and both Hovinds combined.
To steal a quote from MB20 ,"...Same old trailer trash in new shoes".
What is PRTT?
Someone said JP is the Deepak Chopra of Christianity. I think that's very apt.
many people are too stupid to understand him....don't feel bad
The Peterson squad will swarm this comment section within 24 hours.
No matter what's been said he's been taken out of context and you don't understand his fundamental point.
Nope. They will avoid such a damning example, looking for stuff less obviously absurd, or more obscure.
New World they have pulled some crazy gymnastics to justify their fanboyism.
New World Idk how they could even defend this crazy argument but they will find a way.
+Sports Fan - He doesn't articulate it too well here, but people who study the psychology of religion tend to think the same way. It would've been more interesting for him to ask what Matt would do in Raskolnikov's shoes.
Peterson: If we didn’t have religion we wouldn’t have art.
THEREFORE: Ipso facto....If you create art, you MUST HAVE religion ....whether you know it or not!
David, this confused man needs to watch your most remedial “Critical Thinking” TH-cam vids!
He who possesses science and art also has religion; but he who
possesses neither of those two, let him have religion!
- Goethe
"...If you create art, you MUST HAVE religion ...."
And yet what separates Art from all the modern wank which masquerades as Art is a religious insight / response to being alive. This is precisely what the modern wank lacks, and why it is so shit.
theawecabinet much modern art is crap. But Its lack of religious inspiration doesn’t prove anything about whether there can or can’t be great art without it.
Appreciating or creating art is a religious experience. Modern art often veers towards an intellectual endeavour, rather than a religious one.
Modern art often comes with a blurb to explain the intellectual concept being demonstrated. Without it the art just looks like a rocking chair covered in used tampons.
For what motivation does art make its name?
“Hey Jordan, do you believe Jesus was real?”
“It depends on what you mean by Jes...”
“Never mind...”
Nope. Still think it's the biggest crock of shit and can't comprehend how any sane adult could believe in fairy tales.
Miss Kitty Fantastico
Fairy tales?
Those stories came out of the desert from goat herders who had nothing but rocks and sand. Then came to dominate the planet. To regard them as simple fairy tales is arrogant & foolish.
Co-opted ancient stories: other earlier ''gods' were concieved miraculously, performed miracles, rose from death, yada yada... Anyone who believes in a magical invisible being who created us to test our loyalty, with no proof other than a series of books put together by a Roman committee centuries after the story took place will fall prey to any con.
Vile Crocodile, did I stutter?
Because you're morons.
Goat herders wrote the Bible.
The Bible is an incredibly influential document.
Therefore, the Bible isn't a bunch of made-up fairy tales.
Yeah, there's an utterly gaping hole in your logic there.
It really is shameful how this guy guy became famous for basically lying to fit his agenda and taking advantage of the insanity of the far right. I'll never take anything he or his followers say seriously. It's pointless babble.
Urrcreavesh
I have a theory that deep down those far right and alt right conservatives know they are wrong. And that's why they gravitate towards people like Peterson, because the comfortable lie is easier than the hard truth.
What bothers me the most in him is that he used minorities that are already miserable (transgender people) to elevate himself in the eyes of the naive - he had no problems with throwing them to the lions. I kind of wonder if Trump did not give him an idea of making lots of money this way... After all, he is supposed to be a psychologist, so probably thought "if that idiot can do it, I can do it too."
Urrcreavesh : That's the entire principle behind religion. People who find the world scary and want to be lied to. Told that there's an afterlife and that they'll be rewarded with heaven. It's all about selling people hope and they want it so bad, they're willing to turn their brains off and just accept anything a conman says because it makes them feel good.
So far right: i.imgur.com/UyW6HcN.jpg
Average is dead center and liberal.
You're a fool. As soon as you deem someone else as "other" you're avoiding the responsibility of righteously and legititmately upholding your own beliefs. You'd know this is you listened to any of Peterson's lectures. I could say everything you say is "pointless babble" to avoid giving you attention or challenging myself, but I already know what you are, so I have no need to call names or lament you. You're just young and naive.
-an atheist
I was so looking forward to someone calling him out on his ridiculous religious beliefs.
The Jordan Peterson problem is, he is a genius but very eccentric. He forgets to explain himself fully when he is talking with reporters or people questioning him. Therefore, he leaves a lot of unanswered questions laying out there, in which people will start to make assumptions about and or answer his questions in public for him. It sets off a lot of people, who really don't understand what he is truly trying to communicate.
If you watch a lot of his videos where he is teaching, you will notice how much thought is going into the process to get it right. As it has been said many times, people sometimes don't want to know or hear the truth. They generally become defensive and shut down their listening process when presented with an idea they don't like. Peterson has that effect on a lot of people.
I have often said to myself and others, that Jordan Peterson needs a PR person that he will listen to, so they can show what he is ding wrong in public. Then he possibly might not be misinterpreted as often. Jordan Peterson though, is a bit thin skinned, so I don't know if he could change.
What he says about Atheists, I believe to be true. Not saying they are not Atheists , but they were brought up in a religion based environment, which taught them socially morals. I am an Atheist myself, but due to my upbringing, I catch myself once in awhile falling back to my religious thinking that there is something out there. I have know people brought up in non religious families , and you catch them frantic moment thanking God. Why, who knows. As religion is pushed away through the years, you will likely see less of these circumstances happen.
As I said, Jordan Peterson is a genius, but geniuses usually have a hard time expressing themselves properly, without upsetting some people around.
Watch his teaching videos and maybe you will gain some new light on him. I don't agree with everything that comes out of his mouth, but the man is truly trying to get to the base of issues presented to him.
"You say you don't believe in the entity that I can't prove exists, but you must because you show the traits that I attribute to him."
Schmuck.
Peterson isn't confused. He's dishonest.
For a a while I vacillated over whether Peterson was a barking lunatic or a cynical charlatan (not that this is an exclusive disjunction) but the more I've seen of him the more resolutely I've concluded that he's a calculating charlatan.
Everyone watch the conversation between Peterson and Dillahunty. It's truly excellent (and quite revealing)
Did not see it, but if Peterson even allowed it to happen, means that he is not such a good con as he probably imagines.
Normally l avoid the 'Atheist v. Believer' debates because it's the same shit over,and over, and over, and over. The apologists give the same old PRTT, but in thst clip it looked like Matt was actually holding back on ripping JP a second asshole.
I'ma have ta look that one up now. Thanks for the heads up.
Didn't sound much different to the dozens of other apologists debates I've heard. Just with dumber language like "We'd lose the metaphorical substrate of our ethos."
ToothyFrog
You have a link to it?
John Petersen - I do, here ya go. th-cam.com/video/FmH7JUeVQb8/w-d-xo.html
this is extremely disappointing to see Jordan Peterson come out and say the same “moral compass” rhetoric as Steve Harvey. I’ve been a fan of some of the talks I’ve seen from him over the past year but some of the things lately have been very much a let down
I saw how full of shit he was when that first video of him came out
Bigbeef Studios he’s right, it’s a very annoying and over-used insult, it along with that god-awful “autistic screeching” meme. also you’re not qualified to discern whether or not JBP has brain damage, that’s a ridiculous statement to make.
How did you not flag him as a cryptofascist on first sight? I did, so did everyone commenting above me (er, possible exception of the one directly above).
Actually, his "criticism" of so-called SJWs is also invalid. It's bullshit all the way down.
MaybDefinitely ~ except that "sjw" is a meaningless snarl word used by reactionaries hiding in pseudo-leftist skin to get rich on Patreon on the newest internet fad.
Edit: Bina beat me to it. "Very clever young man (woman?), very clever..."
Edit II: Apparently so did Mayrana, but this skeptic was never fooled, and is ashamed of these other "skeptics".
Deep down Jordan Peterson believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he denies it, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster believes in him, and looks forward to Peterson acknowledging the FSM as the creator of the universe, the Earth, hills, trees and a midget. Ramen.
EmmittBrownBTTF1 Lol 😂 😆 😝
EmmittBrownBTTF1 ramen
Ramen!
Ramen
Ramen
How could anyone take peterson seriously wtf
because Deepak Chopra is worse. at least Peterson provides utility during his psychobabbly Jungian mumbo jumbo
LOL. Jordan Peterson is a clown. Whenever he is grilled on his indefensible belief in god, he plays with semantics every single time. "What do you mean by god? What do you mean by belief? What do mean by divine?" He is intentionally dishonest and tap dances around his own beliefs. And to claim that Atheists deep down believe in god too is even more hilarious.
So true! In this video th-cam.com/video/RIB05YeMiW8/w-d-xo.html he is asked if he believes Jesus was literally resurrected from the dead. After doing his "I'm thinking seriously" face (aka "poop face") he asked the following clarifying questions:
* What do you mean by Jesus?
* In a physical body?
* On earth?
As if the interviewer was sneakily trying to get him to admitting to believing that Jesus was walking around on Venus.
When he couldn't get around the fact it was a simple, clear, direct question he said he was "agnostic" to the claim, and said this was different from not believing it. He is dishonest when it comes to his own religious beliefs. I would have no problem with this is he was a random celebrity, but he comes out in the media and tells people that he knows what's in their "heart" better than them. That they're not really atheists. This is offensive and arrogant. The guy's a douche.
Which is why it is inaccurate to call the man a Christian. He uses Christian semantics when it suits him, but he is clearer not a believer.
When it comes to gender he’s all about "objective facts", but when it comes to "god" he’s like "oh, well it’s all subjective, what does ‘god’ even mean? What do you mean by Jesus?" lmao, he’s a joke.
Will Jones What do you mean by, "Jordan Peterson?" That's what people will be asking ten to fifteen years from now, maybe even sooner.
c. aldrik JP: "What do you mean by "mean?" LOL
Peterson is well spoken in terms of some of his vocabulary, but his actual points aren't valid. It's like he tries to coast on sounding smart, but all he does is appeal to pseudo intellectuals who are like just him, and then he'll completely go over the heads of those who just want to believe the points he tries to sell, despite not having the ability to grasp his ideas. He's not a great mind, though. He's quite obviously a con. Some of the time, I struggle trying to understand his points because he likes to use the occasional big word in the wrong context. When someone tries to sound smart as a way to overcompensate, then they're going to end up sounding stupid.
It's amazing how everyone in the comments is smarter than a professor of UT who has had his work cited countless times. He's obviously and painfully wrong here - doesn't make him an idiot.
If Peterson has the high IQ he says he does, it proves IQ doesn't serve a good end when applied to the social sciences.
I find it highly implausible that Peterson achieved the ~155 score he claims. I'd bet serious money his IQ is in the low 130's. When you spend your childhood and adolescence in gifted programs whose IQ prerequisite is 130, you get a pretty good sense of just where that threshold lies and Peterson very much appears to be right on it.
I have an IQ higher than Peterson claims to have, and I simply don't share your perception of his intelligence. He's moderately bright, nothing more. And he's not insane, he's a calculating opportunistic charlatan.
Some are born to mediocrity, and some have mediocrity thrust upon them.
People who make bad arguments for God are either insane or sinister? You guys are painting yourselves into a corner...
JOKE?
Well, you can write off more than half the world as insane and sinister if you want... but I don't think it's a good idea.
This is why you should try not to fall head over heels for someone just for one broad correct sentiment. He called out some idiot college students once, and everyone acts like he's a genius for it. That'd be like worshipping anyone who ever called Trump an idiot.
This is a good lesson for this apolitical/psuedo-political new generation in the West: you need to look into things in depth before forming an opinion, period.
Can I just point out the irony of so many atheists falling for the same tricks evangelicals like Ray Comfort used to employ? Remember all those videos where evangelicals would "debate" random college students and claim evolution to be wrong because these random students would say something stupid or wouldn't know how to debate, it's exactly what Peterson does!
Ironically, it is the purported Christians who-deep down-don’t believe in God and heaven. Don’t believe me? Ask a Christian what their reaction was the last time a friend told them they were dying. Did they congratulate him? Did they throw a going-away party? Of course not. They were sad. They mourned. They cursed their dying friend’s luck. Show me someone who smiles and congratulates a dying friend, and I’ll believe that Christians really believe in god.
What da fuq is Peterson talking about. This is just ridicules
Its what lunatics and crazy people do.
he is spewing all kinds of nonsense.
Well, I hear its making him money by riling up the crazies. Just like agent orange did.
I used to watch Matt on the Atheist experience for kicks back in the day... yeah... he is brilliant at destroying Religious Stupidity...spent many years honing his craft on this show... some of the call in's were downright hilarious!!
Have you noticed Jordan Peterson's head getting bigger and bigger so that now it is a huge swollen Zit/Boil of a head.
Yep...waiting for the ZIT to pop! haha
Who knows if he has any profound points or not. I lack the energy to understand what he is saying when everything is hidden behind redefined terms. Examples include but are not limited to truth, religon, god, marxism, & postmodernism. You need a code ring to make sense of the guy.
Peterson has a way of spouting word soup with decent points sprinkled in. He redefines words to help him strawman your position.
Yep and when you redefine Christianity, Jesus Christ, and God/Jehovah to be no more real/true/divine than The Avengers.... Holy fuck the level of dishonesty...
Mr. Dillahunty just unveiled the presuppositional apologetics underlying JP think.
Beaste Meauxde I saw that. Matt basically handed him his ass
Dillahunty is presumably a statist. That means he believes a bunch of ancient texts, old guys in wigs and their modern day descendants have 'special powers' and 'the divine right' to rule everyone by force.
So you see he is just as religious as any church goer.... except of course all religions in the west agreed to stop ruling people by force a long time ago.
As is so often the case Dillahunty is able to apply critical thinking to everyone else but not himself.
theawecabinet
"Presumably"? Meaning the rest of the bullshit you spout is actually what you are going to assume.
The reality is you have no idea if Dillahunty is.
Even if someone is, say, a "constitutionalist", or simply recognizes the importance of laws in any civil society, it is bullshit to conflate that with something like religion where people are expected to completely submit unquestionably to a supernatural higher power.
An important belief amongst secularist is to generally to worship nothing, question everything.
".."Presumably"? Meaning the rest of the bullshit you spout is actually what you are going to assume..."
Yes the chances of Dillahunty not being a statist are about 10000 to 1
"..The reality is you have no idea if Dillahunty is..."
Yes, but I can take an educated guess. Also if he was not a statist he would be known for this fact, yet I have never heard him referred to in that way. So it is safe to assume he is a statist.
"... Even if someone is, say, a "constitutionalist", or simply recognizes the importance of laws in any civil society, it is bullshit to conflate that with something like religion where people are expected to completely submit unquestionably to a supernatural higher power.."
Why? How are they different?
A church is a group of people in impressive buildings. A government is a group of people in impressive buildings. Why should one group have the right to rule over other humans and not the other? You need to present an argument.
"..An important belief amongst secularist is to generally to worship nothing, question everything..."
Right, and worshipping any group of people and placing them above ordinary human beings in terms of legal rights is religious behaviour. Statists fall into this category, and I am 99.99999999% sure Dillahunty is a statist.
theawecabinet it is fucking embarrassing to conflate or even try to implicitly compare people in a civil society mostly agreeing to abide by certain laws, to a *worshipping of a u questionable, Supernatural, higher power.
We can respect the Constitution while believing that it can also change over time and probably should. We also believe that no man should be worshipped and neither should any law.
That's funny, I totally think the opposite. I don't think religious people actually believe their own religious dogma. They'd just have to think. It's a social grouping defense mechanism, they are too afraid of reality and themselves.
Kyle Dickinson when I grew up I didn’t grow up knowing what god or religion was. But in seeing many of my friends from religious families I tend to feel the same. They don’t believe it and in order to truly believe they have to be fanatics or extremists and what good does that do when you are living thousands of years in the past?!
Lol what? There are thousands of gods I don't believe in. What's stopping their believers from saying that I believe in their god deep down? How does he determine that it's his god that people believe in deep down and not somebody elses.
Sometimes I wonder why the skeptic community embraced Jordan Peterson so vehemently, but then I remember that it's the skeptic community.
indy, labelling oneself a skeptic doesn't make one a skeptic.
It is another label for those "Anti-SJW" youtubers, who also make some videos about stupid religious apologist. Those are the annoying atheists that probably never in the slightest dove deep into the epistomology or some other more sophisticated background for the atheist position.
That is why someone like Peterson talking about axioms is convincing to them. Because they don't know what axioms are and how they are also an integral part of the epistomological groundwork of atheism.
If you want some of those arguments I recommend the youtube-channel of AntiCitizenX, he has some videos on the basics of pragmatism, truth and others. If you have any understanding of the philosophical arguments for the atheist position, and not just that those speaking for religion talk a bunch of BS, you will not fall for an apologist who tries to hide behind a little more sophisticated BS.
The "skeptic" community, from the beginning, focused more on rhetorical pwnage than on teaching people critical thinking. It was always just internet bloodsports dressed up in a tuxedo. So, fans of the genre never learned to practice to actual skepticism or use logic for anything other than confirming their preconceived ideas: a trap called motivated reasoning, which intelligent people are especially vulnerable to, because they're able to craft a reasonable sounding argument to support whatever biases they started with.
The problem is that half of that community stopped being skeptical about their own biases and fully embraced reactionary alt-right anti-sjw politics as their new religion. The other half, people like Matt Dillahunty and AronRa never went in that direction in the first place, they stayed true to skepticism and critical thinking.
Antisjws, anti-feminists, Pro Religious, climate change skeptics and trolls does not equate skepticism.
It’s a case where these clearly, disruptive elements are somehow seen as the face of skepticism.
Labelling oneself a particular viewpoint and showing a pattern of doing something that is contradictory or often sidelining that original view point is deceptive and is a means to undermine a community.
Peterson is an enigma wrapped in a tuna melt.
"But you act like you do"
Hard words to understand for some people.
I agree.
I’m waiting for the Peterson cult fans to swarm this video😂
I'm a fan of his and this argument for God is indefensible. This what you wanted?
Yeah we are here and David Parkman was amazingly ignorant in his response. Matt Dillahunte didn’t even comprehend what JP was getting at because he put on his Ray Comfort glasses. The keyword is ”ACT”. ”You act as if you believe in god”. That is a very different thing from saying deep down you believe in a litteral god. David made a fool of himself in this one.
Hi there Aristotle
"You act like you believe in god" is just an empty assertion. You can literally say that about anything. "You believe in X because you act like you do, therefore I'm correct." Utter bullshit!
Brago, they have. See "Canal do Void" above! He's vehemently defending his guru Peterson.
I said this before, he is the West's Deepak Chopra. Different package, same bullshit.
Jungian psychology is such bullshit, man.
Flash back to Sye Ten Bruggencate.
Box Top damn that shit was annoying
I miss Sye. I like that if you say his name really fast it sounds like "Satan Bruggencate".
In the ''Theory of Moral Sentiments'', Adam Smith makes the argument that our morals and values are driven mostly by empathy, the natural capacity of human beings to put themselves in the place of other people, which makes them feel good when people around them are doing well and feel bad when other people suffer. One doesn't need to believe in a religious system of morals and values to feel empathy.
But again, like David said, the argument about deeply believing in a god even when you explicitly don't cannot be falsified. in the academic world, unfalsifiable hypotheses are not receivable. It is mind boggling that despite making such an unverifiable claim, Peterson is still considered a scholar...
I think it’s much more plausible that people deep down don’t believe in God. The evidence is in the common evil actions of the God- fearing people which wouldn’t happen if they actually believed.
When talking to hypersensitive college kids, he crushes it. When talking to intellectuals about religion, he crumbles.
I think Peterson is confused. That Peterson doesn’t believe a secular system of ethics is justifiable on a meta ethical level doesn’t imply that an atheist doesn’t believe or follow their secular system of ethics on a personal level. He’s taking an assumption he’s already made about secular ethics on a logical level and is applying it, as if the issue has already been decided, in order to criticize personal belief in those ethics. In other words, not only is this a red herring tactic since the issue of “what one believes” (psychology) is separate from the issue of “is that belief logically defensible” (philosophy), but he’s also begging the question here.
For the religious people who may read this comment, let me put it another way. By Peterson’s logic, an atheist can suggest that no Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. really believes in God since such a deity does not exist. Now you see what happened there? With just one fallacious assertion, the topic is no longer about what the theist believes, but the actual truth of those beliefs, and it’s all due to the assumption that the theist is wrong.
I like Peterson on many fronts, except when it comes to God. He is the king of word salad.
You're way off with C16. It's amazing how many American commentators are dismissing the concern about C16 based on a legal interpretation that assuages the obvious concerns. It shouldn't shock anyone that there are other valid opinions that disagree. C16 was quoted went Lindsay Sheppard was interrogated by two professors and an administrator at Laurier University for presenting a Peterson video without describing him as being wrong. She needed to tell the students what to think.....and if she didn't she might be breaking the law. To me it's clear that the kind of language in C16 is open to misuse and that's why it is a bad piece of legislation. Peterson turned out to be right about that. His position on Atheism is, as you say unfalsifiable stupidity....but he does make sense on other subjects....hence his popularity.
I agree. Frankly, I think it's bizarre that David is attacking Peterson on his position on bill C-16 of all things. Furthermore, it's strange that he brought it up over a topic unrelated to bill C-16. It's clear to me that he has an axe to grind for Peterson. It's not clear why and I would really like to know.
Peterson is on the other team. This is just your usual partisan politics, and it's gross.
The Lindsay Sheppard situation was the most damning vindication of Peterson imaginable, and thus it was completely ignored by mainstream coverage of the man. Check out the Channel 4 interview with Cathy Newman; not brought up once. BBC bits on him, not a mention.
The media are desperate to keep a lid on the fact that tranny politics are being used as an edge issue to slip the knife against our throats quietly.
People say you are misinterpreting a law and your answer is that two professors and an administrator at Laurier University interpreted it like you are misinterpreting it. What makes those two professors and an administrator the authority on that law? I've seen senators and congressmen (who are responsible of making laws) misinterpret laws(be it, usually, not the ones they made themselves ) and then get shut down by the justice system.
Legislators make laws and judges interpret them. NOT professors (especially not psychology professors) and certainly not administrators.
The bill purely adds gender identity to a big list of bases of protections like race, disability, sexual orientation etc...
That would mean if she was breaking the law by showing a video of Peterson talking about transgender people then she would have broken the old law by showing Peterson talking about gay marriage since sexual orientation was already protected. But I haven't heard of anyone going to jail or being fined by showing a video of an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage person and that law has been on the books for some time now.
You don't seem to grasp what's happening. First of all showing a video on any subject at of all places a University should not require teliing students what to think about it. That goes against the core value of higher learning....its about learning how to think not what to think. Having this small incident exposed with Profs and Admin both lined up against this core value quoting C16.....its not a coincidence, this is happening at these institutions everywhere. Do a little digging and you'll see. Its why there is such high support for identity politics and other questionable ideas among grads.....its producing young people who are not thinking critically for themselves out of the humanities.
Deep down the "faithful" are full of doubt.
Full disclosure: I love Peterson.
1. He isn't really hiding his Christian leanings at all, though he's stating he's *nominally* Christian more and more lately, which is fair.
2. All his religion and mythos stuff is super rooted in Jungian psych, stems from the ideas of archetypes (Peterson talks about them as meta-memes occasionally, which I like). Peterson does not believe in God. Peterson believes in the concept of God and he believes the Judeo-Christian mythos and ethos prop up our civilization. His biblical lecture series is evidence of this.
3. Jordan Peterson is stubborn with his word choice. The idea seems like he's trying to come up with more refined conceptions of very semantically loaded religious terms. I feel like this is due to his affinity for Nietsche and the idea that rampant (and importantly, non-pragmatic) rationalism is corrosive to moral truths that aren't self evident but have been selected for and articulated in successful religious traditions.
4. He isn't a huckster or snake oil salesman. He's sincere in his beliefs. His clinical psych work is well cited and he's highly influential in his field.
5. His material rooted in Maps of Meaning is less accepted and much more controversial. Annoyingly, you *do* kind of have to know about the book for his takes to make sense. Same way you have to read all of a Kant book before the ideas fit together into a cohesive whole. These ideas can have merit or be flawed, fair, but scoffing at the idea that an academic might have complex ideas that aren't easily digestible is silly. No one reads one chapter from The Critique of Pure Reason and goes "lolwat this guy is stupid."
6. Failure to make distinctions between the different types of work Peterson has done makes it easy to dismiss any criticism of him. Pretending he hasn't been smeared is disingenuous.
When he said that having a spiritual experience on mushrooms is evidence for god, he proved that his logic isn't much better than William Lane Craig's. Matt was awesome, he killed it while Peterson babbled about metaphysical substrates. That Peterson guy just gets on my last nerve.
Yep, the losing of the substrate nonsense was the silliest and saddest attempt at persuasion I’ve heard in some time.
Craig won his debates against the new atheists. You do understand that or have the mushrooms not wore off yet?
Yep, Craig “won”. God shown through random wordsmith rambling, yet again.
Logic you mean.
Chris Rees, I've watched Craig debate and have yet to see him posit anything even remotely persuasive. It's always the same old, tired arguments dusted off, taken off the shelf and presented as if they're something new.
I think as a psychologist most of Jordan's work is great but the connections to religion are where he and I disagree. In this debate Jordan looks so out of character but I've noticed his behavior polarizing towards fundamentalism and that's where you start losing common sense.
George Cortes he is looking for fame. Past colleagues and friends have said as much. He’s putting on a show and sucking up every dime because he knows he’s the “guru” of a certain type of people and it won’t last. He’s riding on the alt-dragon.
One of the best ways to refute this absurd argument is to ask these people if they would be mass-murderers if it turned out that God wasn't real. If they answer yes, then they are truly amoral people. If they answer no, it disproves that morality comes from God.
Nonsense, what people say about themselves is not nessesarily true. Besides, your argument sounds alot like, "lets settle this by flipping a coin, when its head i'm righ, when it's tail you're wrong". And you accuse JP of making an absurd argument?
Not really. If we say that they are right in their assessment that morals come from god, then their moral philosophy becomes entirely useless to most, as it essentially reveals that they are an amoral person. Just as a racist can say "I hate brown people because intrinsically, brown people make me uncomfortable" and still be philosophically correct on that position, that doesn't automatically mean that this moral philosophy becomes useful to most, as this moral philosophy reveals that they are amoral people by most individual's standards.
When you argue Philosophy, there is no right or wrong: there is only sound and unsound, valid and invalid, and then the degrees to which people are willing to follow that Philosophy. Because most people are uncomfortable with the thought of being amoral, even if that Philosophy is sound and valid, there will be less people willing to follow that Philosophy when you point out the amorality of it, as has been the case with Racism being viewed predominantly as amoral over the past century.
+The Rustiest Venture
If you had expressed the decent consistency of stating in your first post "If they answer yes, then they are truly amoral people in the absence of god" You may have had a point.
Though it still doesn't account for the possibility of people lieng or being ignorant about how they will act.
Scientifically spoken of course the only correct answer to your hypothetical question is "I don't know", just like with my coin flip analogy the coin could land on its side.
"If we say that they are right in their assessment that morals come from god, then .... "
"When you argue Philosophy, there is no right or wrong"
So you were not talking Philosophy? You are contradicting yourself? Or only if I use the word "right" it invalidates me from participating, but it's okay for you to use the word "right"?
See , I can play your silly game too.. I just dislike doing so, unless it can help understanding each other of course, like I hope it may be doing now.
I did say that? I didn't add "in the absence of god" to the end because it would've been redundant, as we already clarified that god is absent in this hypothetical.
If they answer "I don't know," then there's no point in continuing the discussion. It'd be like asking someone "are you racist," and their response being "I don't know," or asking "are you a determinist," and them responding "I don't know." It doesn't add any value to the conversation in the slightest, and makes it entirely pointless to continue on.
There's a difference between being factually right, as in true or correct, and morally right, as in morally good, justified or acceptable. I probably should've used the term "correct" instead of right when I said "If we say that they are right in their assessment that morals come from god" for the sake of clarity, but it doesn't make the statement any less valid. The term "right" has more than one meaning.
To clarify further, when I say there is no morally right or wrong answers, i'm talking from the perspective of differing philosophies. Someone who is racist might not see any moral wrong in discriminating against someone who is of a different race, while someone who is not racist would probably view that discrimination as a moral wrong. What i'm essentially saying is that morally right and wrong are relative terms in this context.
It's the usual projection: Deep down believers don't know, and they accuse non-believers of believing and not knowing when it's the opposite.
Hi, David. I just discovered your channel a few days ago and am enjoying it a lot. I myself cross some traditional lines because I am both religious, a teacher of religious studies, as well as strongly left-wing. I have several problems with Peterson, some of which you are outlining. But I want to bring to your attention, if needed, that Peterson is very questionably "religious." It's more like he uses religious ideas and models, but he refuses to be pinned down regarding any explicit commitment to religious faith as normally understood. Peterson has put a lot of effort into redefining concepts such as "truth" and "belief" to fit with his own system, such that "believing in God" is more or less equivalent to "acting in a moral and life-promoting manner." He doesn't really focus on whether or not there is an existing, all-powerful, compassionate, etc. Supreme Being. His thing is that he argues that it's important to individuals and societies to act "as if" there were such a Being. His concept of truth is metaphorical, symbolic, or archetypical. The actual existence of God, for Peterson, is pretty much besides the point. So in this sense, as many religious people are realizing, Peterson's "alliance" with religion is along the same path as what is known in Plato as "the noble lie." This doctrine holds that certain beliefs are good for the masses, even though the intellectual elite "know" that they are not real. Look up videos where people try to pin JP down about his religious convictions and this may become clearer.
So good to hear someone else calling JP out as a sophist.
I kid you not, but in the same video, he argues that since there are multiple people from all over the world who claim to have mystical experiences under the influence of LSD and since they are all independent of each other, that must mean that mysticism does really exist.
I swear, this guy makes Donald Trump seem smart with his arguments, and has a very Trumpian way of making money without doing shit.
I don't see the problem with this one. Mysticism is a thing people do, specifically a thing their brains do. It really does exist, as evidenced by the multitude of independent accounts of it, with or without psychedelic drugs. In fact, count me as one of those accounts: I've had mystical experiences under the influence of psychedelics, which led me straight to the conclusion that all such experiences are nothing but quirks of brain chemistry, not evidence of any supernatural forces. Which brings me to my point, and what I think is the real problem with the kind of argument you're describing: The existence of "spiritual" experience is utterly useless for demonstrating the existence of "spiritual" beings or powers.
Finally people are starting to see this guy for who he really is. I honestly felt alone.
As a Canadian, I am embarrassed. Sorry, world! -for Peterson and Molyneux.
molyneux is canadian as well? build the wall and make canada pay for it right fucking now.
yan-Deriction Lol! But really it's mostly Americans who legitimize our crazies. We need a fricking wall in the internet! We should call the FCC.
I read something someone else wrote about this discussion that I thought was bang on so I feel it's worth repeating.
"Matt Dillahunty can take complex concepts and make them comprehensible, Jordan Peterson takes a simple concept and makes it incomprehensible".
TFW Jordan Peterson and Reza Aslan wind up echoing each other.
i think you should do an interview with jordan peterson about your criticisms of him
i think it would be quite interesting since i consider you both to be civilised and smart people
I know Peterson isn't the most sophisticated thinker ever but, did he actually use the oldest trick in the book? This is the cheapest and oldest argument ever made against atheists, and it has been refuted countless times. He could have watched any debate from any of the four horsemen to know there are standard responses to this bullshit. Very poor preparation by Peterson. As Hitchens would say: "You give me the awful impression, I hate to have to say it, of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position ever".
no just someone
not convinced by any arguments against there position as they are all inadequate
Are you sure about that? I have a hard time believing you've read all the arguments ever made against "there" position. That would involve a lot of reading and something tells me you're not quite a hardcore reader. Something about the way you express yourself. But I don't want to be mean so I won't say it. Stay in school.
Actually the four horsemen lost all their debates against William Lane Craig.
Chris Rees LMAO good one
i was responding to your quote regarding the subject of the video as that is perhaps what they believe. i will admit to not being necessarily learned enough in the subject of apologetic or other related subjects to offer more then an armchair philosopher 2 cents, but then again in a youtube comment thread what were you expecting , groundbreaking Socratic dialogue worthy of a treatise? both of the sides in the age old debate of theism/Christianity vs atheism/secularist have used the same tired arguments for going on hundreds of years because neither positon is provable or disapproval, either you understand faith or you don't. i've had debates with atheists and debates with hardcore fundamentalist types theat wont even admit to the evidence for evolution or that the bible cant be inerrant and have had very little headway in either camp . people are going to believe what they believe . if someones entire worldview shaped over ta good portion of their lives was changed by a 20 minute lecture by a publsihed intellectual with a fancy title like the four horsemen or with a self help book like 12 rules, then we would alll join a different cult every week. i believe in god literally and in the divinity of my lord and savior Jesus Christ , if you dont then thats fine but dont pretend liek it is a preposterous or unfounded/unreasonble claim, it only makes you look unlearned when you are probably reasonably intelligent .
That’s just your opinion. you should play his explanation of religion and God or even invite him to your show instead of playing short clips of his debates and being so jealous of the success that you don’t have.
Im a social psychologist and I agree with the trust of this video. Peterson is dead against empirical research. He is guided by firm beliefs without evidence. He attracts the alt right, and he knows this.
How is this guy Peterson considered edgy? This canard that the atheist secretly are believers is and old piece of christian apologetics. Even street evangelical preachers use it! I have heard it all my life and is one of the things tha are eyeroll inducing to me.
I don't believe in religion. I think people just made up stories to explain things. Like how people thought thunder was angry gods making noises. But I don't really care if other people are religious or not. Iust keep it to yourself.
The "Just keep it for yourself" part simply doesn't work out. It has never worked out. People indoctrinate their children into the same irrational beliefs, hindering or destroying the developement of these children to think critically and rationally.
You should care about the perverse mechanism of childhood indoctrination.
Religion has been used to explain naturally phenomena and had gotten pretty much all of it wrong -- with the exception of thunder. Thunder is, as a matter of fact, the result of Thor being pissed off.
Saw this dude on the Joe Rogan podcast a lot, one of the major reasons I stopped watching it. Such mindless crap.
Joe Rogan is the type of person the expression "so open-minded their brain fell out" was invented for.
I loved those podcasts. Guess everyone is a lot dumber than you for enjoying that content.
"People that like Rogan and Peterson are generally very dumb." I assume you have some kind of proof to back this up? Sounds like yet another ad hominem from David's audience of true intellectual giants.
The skeptics from 10 years ago are now backing this guy who is literally making unfalsifiable arguments fundamentalists used to make. Peterson would have been massacred in the skeptic debate in the past, but now he gets a pass. THAT is regressive.
Jordan Peterson is an intellectual in the same way Chris Brown is a feminist.
i dont like bananas.......no deep down you like them thats why you always wearing a yellow Tshirt.
Peterson was asked in the Joe rogan podcast what god is and to no one's surprise he didn't know how to answer. It amazes me how a guy who devotes so much of his life time to something can't properly define that something.
Imagine the absurd concept of a chemistry phd, a physicist, a lawyer ect you name it, not being able to give a simple definition on what the object of their study is. Peterson can't, and what is even worse about that is that god is not only Peterson's object of study but object of his adoration and guidence to public policy and societal norms and I REPEAT he can't give a simple definition on what God is.
But that doesn't stop him of throwing around that term within meaningless sentences that sound witty to his audience and they buy it. AMAZING.
R. m I found the same thing when I watched the Rogan interview. No straight answers. Just alternate social consciousness. Don’t know why people buy this crap.
Matt Dillahunty is one of my heroes. He's a damn genius. He was outright excellent in the discussion. He made Jordan look like a fool.
Dillahunty got many things wrong in that debate, and his post debate analysis video.
He pointed out things he could've done better, but he got what he wanted. To any person of sane mind, it stands clear that Peterson looked the fool.
Thank you FSM for art, poetry, drama, narrative, and story.
Everyone is athiest to at least one religion.
You can learn more from Norm Peterson than Jordan Peterson.
Jeff Karas cheers!
I keep hearing from various internet people that Peterson is brilliant but I haven't seen any actual evidence so far.
The same thing about Ben Shapiro.
He sounds smart to uneducated people.
@Random L3vel Yeah yeah.
@Random L3vel you sound like a rick and morty fan
Random L3vel thats what he wants you to think..
Damn he really loves to pander to the right. Its statements like the one addressed in this video that confirms hes just another pretend intellectual looking to cash in on the right wings need to not be seen as fools. Jordan makes a long winded speech about something ridiculous then all his fan boys cheer because he made it sound thoughtful with big words and claims with no evidence.
careful you might trigger the alt right by criticising there idols it seems to work.
If you have ever watched any of his teaching videos, you would notice he does not pander in any direction. He just doesn't know how to present himself properly in public. That has been his biggest problem. When he was teaching, he tried so hard to get to the truth of matters. Some people just don't understand him.
That is not Jordan Peterson's problem. He seems to be doing rather well for the people who do.
@@cosmicgamer613 the alt right doesn't like him...
i felt like i've argued with guys like peterson at bars about how the government kept electricity from us for years
David, you clearly don’t understand the point Peterson is getting at here. You start off by mischaracterizing it as a Christian argument, it’s not. It’s a Nietzsche argument. All Peterson is doing here is parroting Nietzsche’s point about how people say they don’t believe in God, yet act as if the 10 commandments still apply. Go read The Genealogy of Morals and then reevaluate this. All this video shows is that Peterson is better read than you are.
Jordan Peterson is a sexist. Saw him "interviewed" many times on The Agenda by his buddy and equally sexist Steve Paikin. Paikin gave Peterson a platform on many occasions to spew his contempt for females.
Golightly and that my friend is why the incels love him.
I saw Matt Dillahunty’s video on this on his TH-cam channel. Matt is a beast, hands down my favorite atheist advocate.
Why don’t I steal or kill people? Empathy and self interest. Why do I value those things? I don’t, they’re just a part of me and most people for good evolutionary reasons. Why do we punish deviant behavior? Self-interest extrapolated to the group
Ok Jordan. Find God in that
faissialoo I realize that but there is a disturbing amount of people who think that there are no self-interested reasons to behave morally.
There is an atheist rebuttal to Christian morality that goes something like “yes if there was no god I’d kill as many people as I want, that being zero” to which Christians have actually responded “well then you just lack ambition”
Objective morality.
Yep, you were right, you did misunderstand him completely.
What we saw here was a very short clip of a very short conversation, you've also left out another part where he was asked whether or not he believed in god and he never gave an answer, yet you painted him as "one of those true believers" anyway, what he did was the same thing he has always done, ask what they meant by god.
The reason as to why this is important goes back to his work, I can tell you have not done any research, at all, on anything he does, say or represent, otherwise you would have known from any of the 17 2hours+ long videos from his playlist called "The Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories" that he can also, and does refer to god as life itself, fate, or even meaning, something that's not a theistic belief in any way shape or form, not refering to it as a creator, entity or "being", but as the state of being itself, a short example would be: If you sacrifice something of worth to god, you will get something of worth in return, that doesn't mean you have pleased the invisible man in the sky, it means if you take things seriously and spend some time and effort doing the things you have to do, you will naturally get results back, your effort, your efficiency is the worth of your sacrifice, meaning your time, your labor, your reward is the fruit of your labor, it is "given" to you by "god", but in reality it means you reap what you sow.
Having that knowledge it becomes evident what he meant by "you act like you do", he never even did say "you are a theist", that was just a strawman, he's meant exactly what he said, "you act like you do", even if you don't believe something, you can still act like you do.
How is that possible? Again,you can go back to his work, Christianity is not just a mythology, it's not just a belief in the supernatural, it is also a pillar in which our civilization have built itself around, like it or not, it was ingrained in our thinkers, in our philosophy, even the things we teach our kids, sure most of it have no supernatural element, we just take it all for granted because we've assimilated all the good parts of christianity in our culture, in a way it could be said that we won't need the rest anymore, sure, but that doesn't mean you can pretend our civilization, our ancestors were floating in the void, with no cultural influences, building codes of ethics randomly, without any references, so "but you act like you do" most certainly mean "you don't know the source of the things you think, but you're acting in accordance with the core principles of Christianity, assimilated by the culture you have grown into even if they make no reference to the supernatural".
For the record, there is no so such thing as a so called free-speech warrior, free speech is a binary, either it's free, or it isn't, if you're not advocating for free speech, you're just a scumbag, and they are just pro free-speech. Jordan Peterson didn't misunderstand anything about Bill C16 and as for the last question: "When markets fail" I can spoil the end for you: They do when government gets involved, otherwise they don't.
There are plenty of videos of him spewing the same nonsense.
We have definitions of what words mean you can't change the meaning to suit your purpose which is what Peterson does all the time.
The most populated countries in the world have no connection to the abrahamic religions and they are far ahead morally.
I can say if you aren't stoning adulterers or homosexuals you aren't acting like a christian and deep down inside you are actually an atheist but thats what foolish people like peterson would say.
Damn I'm glad you wrote this so I didn't have to. It's true, unfortunately for perterson the amount of effort required to understand his whole philosophy is ridiculous and requires tons of reading. It's not conducive to an hour long discussion. I think many atheists look at religion and say wait you're telling me there's an invisible Man who if I pray to will grant me wishes. However if I don't follow one of these 10 ridiculous rules written thousands of years ago I'll spend an eternity in a magical pit of fire. Yea that's bullshit guess I'm an atheist. These people seem to have interpreted religion at a surface level, and are no deeper thinkers than the fundamentalist who believe that stuff is true. Dig down into the mythology of all the religions and you'll find there are truthes, about how to live a virtuous life. That's mainly where Peterson stands. His claim that you actually do believe in a god is semantical and I don't know why he does it. In his view a deity is that which you aim to be. The most ideal version of yourself. If he'd just say it it would clear up so much. But u can see where if u take it that way then you would have to believe in a God. Because who doesn't have ideals.
You're reading too much into what is, at its heart, one of the silliest arguments in the creationist handbook.
+Jarod Smith
You're argument is falling apart at the seams, and here's why:
You acknowledge that atheists don't believe in any god:
"I think many atheists look at religion and say wait you're telling me there's an invisible Man who if I pray to will grant me wishes. However if I don't follow one of these 10 ridiculous rules written thousands of years ago I'll spend an eternity in a magical pit of fire. Yea that's bullshit guess I'm an atheist."
Then you turn around and say they must believe in a god, just because they have a moral system that works.
"Dig down into the mythology of all the religions and you'll find there are truthes, about how to live a virtuous life."
You've already admitted what Dillahunty said. You can have a code of morality that makes sense without believing in a god. There is nothing the abrahamic religion provides practically, that cannot be removed from the system and applied practically without belief in supernatural or other nonsense.
Canal do Void Jordan peterson calls what is not a god a god and then proceeds to make the claim that we are all Christians because of it; when it's the exact opposite. Christianity did not descend from the heavens in the form of a book but it was written from humans just like you and me, humans who were building the concept of Christianity itself while they were writing the bible, they simply injected their morals (THAT THEY ALREADY HAD) within a piece of paper so no, Christianity is not in every single one of us, rather atheism, common sense and a morals have been in each and everyone one of us from the start, before any religion was made up, exactly like they were present in whoever wrote the bible. He has to learn how to use definitions properly because I feel like he is just confusing a lot of people by giving words new definitions and then applying the "rules" of the first definition to the second, even when there is barely any correlation between the two.
I am surprised how many people on TH-cam watch 1 hours debates or 10 minute clips from them and then deduct that someone is an idiot, narrow minded or a huckster. I watched this whole debate and read some commentary afterward. These two seemed to get a long just fine. They had a good discussion with some agreements like on fundamentalism, and shared some laughs. They challenged each other. In the end neither was swayed by the other but I don't think either of them would call the other an idiot. I don't agree with Matt Dillahunty conclusions but I appreciate many of his arguments as does Peterson.
I think Matt is an exceptionally bright person. He has his conclusions and I and others have ours. I like having my views challenged which is why I listen to all different perspectives. I was an agnostic for quite a while, it was through listening to guys like Matt that I became a Christian again. I was most influenced however, by the late Christopher Hitchens, a man I admired deeply. So much so that i tried for years to get to meet him, it never happened, and regretfully we lost him to soon. For me I don't see how materialism gets you consciousness, love, beauty, truth etc... But I can certainly understand that others cannot equally see how God exists, I have several close friends who are atheist.
Reading the comments I noticed someone else already pointed out that Peterson did not say Matt really believes in God down deep. He said you "act" like God exists. Can't David or many commenting here not recognize the point? If God exists there is no way to live your life as if he didn't. That seems fairly obvious. Of course that does not mean God does exist. Peterson's point, is that what he calls the meta-physical substrate, is at the bottom of human psyche. So we act on it without recognizing it. He doesn't say that you will become a mass murderer. It should be obvious to a 3 year old that just believing in God does not make you a good person nor does lack of belief make you a bad person. The substrate Peterson is describing is not removed by lack of belief. C.S Lewis, an atheist had a similar observation and became a Christian. Many others listen to the arguments or have life experiences that lead them in a different direction, as did Matt. I am not saying any of this to try and convince anyone of anything other than reasonable people have different conclusions and sometimes even they change.
I can't escape feeling that if Peterson were arguing for atheism the tone of many of the comments here would be different even from Mr. Pakman. Did it escape him that he has an audience and supporters and is trying to make a living via social media also? How is Peterson somehow questionable for the same motives? He starts off calling Peterson an pseudo-intellectual and anti-intellectual? Whatever you think of him, he is an educated man, spent a few years at Harvard and was already gaining admiration and notoriety after posting some of his lectures on TH-cam which is how I first heard of him, (I am a psychology student myself), long before the C-16 Bill debate, which brought him into political discussion.
I nor anyone else can prove God exists neither can it proved that God doesn't exist, at the end all we have are arguments some good some bad. People gain and lose faith for many reasons, they are seldom intellectual ones.
As Rodney King said: "Can't we all just get along" :)
Peterson believes that we are moral because we put faith in a presupposed set of moral axioms which exists beyond rationality and logic and is thus a metaphysical value. To state simply, these metaphysical axioms are what Peterson refers to as the supernatural or God.
He uses the example of Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment in the debate to show what happens when a person breaks away from said metaphysical axioms (often provided by religion). They succumb to rationality for their sense of right and wrong and in times of trouble it goes as far to justify heinous acts with catastrophic results. Raskolnikov according to Peterson is a true atheist because he acts out a belief system that isn't aligned with a metaphysical moral axioms - or God. This is what it means to be an atheist instead of professing that you are not.
Matt professes he is an atheist and yet still believes in a rationally unjustifiable set of moral axioms given that he can't explain why he believes in what he presupposes other than it being "common sense". Matt, in a way, still believes in God.
You are almost never what you say you are. Peterson wants to argue that "actions speak louder than words".
Here we go again. The whole C-16 thing was not a matter of Peterson misinterpreting the damned thing. It was a matter of him "heading off at the pass" the subsequent outcomes of the bill. Because he said he would NOT use personal pronouns now or in the future without a sound basis for using them, i.e., we all come to a consensus on their usage, he was vilified by the administration of the university he was working at. In fact, he's on record admitting his awareness that he has broken no laws given the bill's implementation and interpretation was still being finalized. He was told as much by the bill's authors. It didn't stop them, whoever "them" might be, from admonishing him, censoring him, maligning him and so forth.
Eventually, because he was out of favor with SJW types running the administration of the university, he was labeled a neo-nazi, racist, homophobe and other things not at all true. This also led to a weird situation with Lindsay Shepherd (a teacher's assistant) being censored by the "SJW Thought Police" while doing her job at another university merely for playing a video that had Jordan Peterson in it. Later she was given an open letter apology by one of the professors who had basically harassed her. She was basically told she was not to discuss, in a university setting, issues surrounding personal pronouns. If you can't discuss real topics taking place in the real world in an academic setting then where? Who is being a snowflake here?
In our own country SJW's went overboard verbally attacking a professor at Evergreen College. Bret Weinstein. Heard of it? Black students attacked a white professor for reasons I still can't figure out. Hell, I'm black and can't figure this shit out.
Let's not forget the interview he had to endure with Cathy Newman. Have you seen this interview?
With all that said, I am not a Jordan Peterson clone of some sort. I am not a Christian. I didn't vote for Trump. I am not right wing. I am not even going to sit here and justify Peterson's claim that deep down I do believe in a God, I just don't know it. OK? But what everyone is doing is taking him out of context unfairly. Which is something neither Pakman, Rubin, Seder, Maher, Harris or any of the rest of us left leaning skeptics would enjoy if we were on the receiving end.
Here's the real issue at hand. I am not a homophobe or a xenophobe. In fact, I am a black male that has put up with more than the fair share of racism, prejudice and so forth. I'm so used to it I basically tell people they have nothing to worry about before they go too far with it (try walking into a Wal-Mart nowadays. Or do my job in a hospital setting--every other day I get asked if I am stealing the equipment I brought to the goddamned hospital. Being black sucks!) So I get it. I even get what SJW's are all bent out of shape about. The conservative Christian right, evangelicals, NRA, Trumpists are truly off their rockers. That still doesn't give me the right to discard any individual, of any particular socio-political subset, without first giving them the same benefit of doubt I should expect from them. Sometimes I don't even get the chance and get prejudged before I even open my mouth. Those who do those things no matter what side they are on are wrong. Are we any different from those extreme right wingers if we start acting just like them?
We are all different and should not oppose others beliefs until the Nazis start knocking at your door.
TLDR: A ok enough guy with occasional good points but is wrong on multiple other points because he digs too deep. Followed by me ranting with evidence.
If morality exists with the gods or god & the gods turn out not to be pure good then morality has never existed. We make of life what we want.
Jordan has made some good points but sometimes i think he digs too deep or something. For example, he argued the disney movie Frozen was too focused on ideology.
Now regarding this topic about him, Jordan you can't tell someone they feel something else it be the same as telling a Christian that deep down their really a Buddist or that they think something deep down they're not aware of, your digging too deep my friend. There are atheists then there are agnostic atheists for a reason.
Now as for the Christian bible it certainly has questionable morales. It supports incest, slavery, rape, harems, killing your wife, killing your kids, war, & pillaging. Don't believe me? I'll give you the exact verses & before you say that's old testament, i assume you believe in the stories of Adam & Eve, The Flood & Satan's betrayal which is all old testament, your cherry picking. PS: Let's not forget scriptures were taken on purpose out of the bible watch a documentary called Banned From The Bible. The bible has been edited, mistranslated to a extent, & certain scriptures of the bible is forever lost leaving it incomplete.
Bible verses that make you say wtf:
Deuteronomy 21:18 - 21
Leviticus 26:27 - 30
Deuteronomy 25:11 - 12
Genesis 16:7 - 9
1 Peter 2:18
Deuteronomy 22:20 - 21
Deuteronomy 23:1
Leviticus 12:5
Judges 19:25-18
Exodus 21:10
Numbers 31:17-18
Numbers 31:25-40
& Genesis 19:33-34
Now to wrap this up with bible logic fails:
-Why not vaporize Satan? You have nothing to prove to the incarnation of everything evil.
-How did Satan become evil or rather sin come to exist if all there was, was God, heaven, & angels? Whom are all perfect.
-After the flood wouldn't every human & creature have to commit incest to survive? As we know long term incest causes defects so wouldn't every creature have severe defects?
-Why flood the planet killing millions of men, women, & children including pregnant woman but not kill the root cause of the evil, Satan? Same goes for that city he blew up with a meteor.
-Why whisper your teachings to humans instead of making a indestructible magic book that cannot be destroyed or age written in every language that defies science?
-Why even have the tree in the garden, or even let satan in the garden?
-Why was God offended by the Tower of Babel when humanity later goes to space anyway plus if they succeeded God wasn't up there anyway plus they would've died from the zero oxygen in space too.
-Magic.
-Adam & Eve lived for hundreds of years.
-Uh why allow everything evil, is it really worth it. Flesh eating disease, poverty, murder, war, etc. Really? Go on try to justify allowing JUST rape to be a thing if u could end it asap easily.
-Why isn't God vaporizing hell? Whole place sounds like a abhorrent abomination.
-Where does mental illness fit in?
-Uhh what's the point of disease, death, mental illness, & defects.
& lastly, So... does God believe in generational punishment just like North Korea? Yes because he blames future generations for Adam & Eve both getting TRICKED by the incarnation of all things evil that God ALLOWS to exist named Satan.
Ty & that concludes my rant. Sorry lol
Most of these stories are allegorical, a blueprint of the human condition, or symbolic of nature and the cosmos. Atheists who take them literally are essentially the same as fanatical, literal interpreters of the Bible.
4:26 "His audience just eats everything up because they like the anti-sjw stuff"
Lol David no, that's just not true. He definitely has some fanboys that agree with him 100% of the time and of course that's completely irrational, but if you look through the comments or listen to other people's critiques of him, there's a lot of nuance in exactly what people do and don't like about him. He has a lot of atheist fans who find this type of stuff ridiculous. Even Sam Harris has said he thinks a lot of what Peterson says is valuable.
If you're going to completely dismiss him because you've heard him say one or two things you disagree with, then you're just as irrational as his fanboys who agree with him all the time because they heard him say a couple things they agree with.
left wing strawmen?
David Pakman doesn't do nuance. I'm confused as to why people like him. He's arrogant, patronizing and wrong most of the time. I suspect his love of the word "sophistry" comes from having heard it so often.
People and their imaginary friends are absolutely absurd.
How has he misrepresented Bill C16? Pakman never backs that up.
I am glad someone else thought the same thing I did, when DP said this. Every interview I have heard from Peterson, he clearly states what he disliked about this Canadian Bill of Rights change. He has stated exactly how it would change things in Canada. I think once people decide they don't like someone's thoughts, they tend to stop listening and put everything into the same basket, wether it is true or false. It reminds me of people following a religion.
I do remind people that this is just my opinion. I am not saying anything too die for. Lol
I despise JBP as much as the next atheist but if you really think he's doing this maliciously, and that his fame is *only* build on his SJW stance and misinterpretation of some legislation, you're selling him short on purpose or are just as deluded as he is.
Beppe, your calm, non-partisan opinion has no place here.
Reason he became *known* ≠ reason he became as *popular* as he is.
The reason he grew this fast, is his self help shtick.
I like Peterson and disagree with him on this. Can you think of someone you admire you agree with 100%? These tactics of attacking him and his followers saying how much he makes and his followers are just idiot doesn’t put you in a good light
Comments are full of ad homs and assumptions of ill-will on Peterson's part. I disagree with Peterson here, but I find this community to be gross.
Yes he is really good at setting up straw men- people should burn them instead of attacking his character which does nothing.
Let me try and explain Peterson's position to people who may not quite understand it.
Jordan Peterson is an existentialist. Existentialist believe that belief is demonstrated through action. If you want to know where someones values are you don't ask them but rather look at there actions to see if they act as if they value what they claim.
Peterson believes that much of modern morality is based around the idea that the Individual has a spark of divinity in them(being created in the image of God) and despite any obvious shortcoming or problems any person or group may posses there is a level of respect and humane decency that is owed to everyone. Historically Peterson is correct. There is no credible argument that the concept of natural and humane rights didn't evolve from this belief about the individual.
Peterson then believes that if God falls out of the equation and man is just an animal tossed and turned by the winds of natural selection with no meaning or purpose then these moral advancements no longer have any justification. All that could be said is "we have inherited these morals and find them usefulness in satisfying whatever ends were currently pursuing". If ends or environment ever changed these precious and unique advancement could be discarded with barley a argument. Genocide could not be considered a horrible crime against mankind. Rather it could only bee seen as a means towards maximizing happiness that is appropriate right now. Peterson has been unconvinced by the arguments put forward by atheist to create a new moral foundation( I dont necessarily agree with him as I believe Albert Camus in "Myth of Sisyphus" provide a strong argument for meaning without reference to God). So when he sees an atheist act out a morality that he doesn't believe can be justified by the philosophy he says "There not really atheist because there not acting like atheists". There is logic to this. Atheism completely changes the foundations of moral thought in the western world. One would think there would be significant differences theist and atheist morality. Strangely enough modern atheist and theist probably agree on 95% of moral issues. Peterson view is that atheist are afraid to follow there ideas to there logical end and instead make big simplifying assumptions in order to be able to justify most of modern morality.
You are an extremely unskilled writer. You lack even the mildest talent for expository prose and said exactly nothing of substance.
And don't admonish me to address your content, because there wasn't any.
Maybe. Or your just to stupid to understand what I'm talking about. Packman's audience isn't that bright. I'm sure you got lost the moment the word existentialist was brought up.
If I fancied that "understood" what you were talking about, this would speak much more forcefully against my intelligence than in favor of it.
Keep telling yourself that. Ignorance is bliss.
Surely it's the other way around. It's 'modern' theists that agree with atheists on 95% of issues regarding morality. If theists actually did what their God told them, the divergence would be much greater.
Jordan Peterson, William Lane Craig, and Sye Ten Bruggencate walk into a bar.
The bartender asks: how are you gentlemen doing this evening?
JP says: that depends on what you mean by "how" and "doing".
WLC says: every question must be considered through the presupposition that god exists. I'll have to pray on it and get back to you.
STB says: how do you know we are really here? How do you know it is actually evening?
Bartender says: ok. Get the fuck out of my bar.
Thats the same crap I get from my family, “you really do believe you just wont admit it”.
It's one thing to disagree with Peterson, but to suggest that he's a fraud (like many of the comments here) makes you lose all credibility. I'm an atheist myself and after listening to many of his lectures, I've realized that this man knows what he's taking about. He just has a deeper understanding of the concept of religion than the usual religious person. Now you can insult me for being a Peterson fanboy or you can take the time to actually look into some of his stuff. The latter might open you up to whole new perspectives you didn't think about before, the former will secure your place in this echo chamber. Your move.
Just scrolled through and most of the comments against Peterson here contain no arguments, just feelings and assertions...... and a LOT of projection.
VichuViVek
jp is a windbag, he uses a lot of technical terms to sound smart, he could shorten his lectures to five minutes using regular words
Even his colleges at the university he started at said he was a windbag, projectionist out for fame. People that actually LIVED with him and were his friends say the same thing. He’s just rehashing old material pee WWII and putting a spin on it. He’s making a living off Social Darwinism.
I can’t believe he accused JP of claiming atheists were mass murderers and then showed the clip that proved he didn’t say that.
regardless of whether he's an honest or dishonest whack, he isn't saying anything profound to anyone who has a fundamental understanding and ability to apply evolutionary and social psychology. his entire concept can be summarized with there's a utility in this belief, therefore this belief is true--which screams circular reasoning. he's pretty much the type of smart-ass that would tell you that there's a reason behind racial stereotype as if there's any or much truth in the reasoning. guess what, people eat tide pod too. doesn't make their stupidity any more justified as a means for whatever. even the lunatic who unpredictably kick a dog has a reason behind his action. even the way a given snowflake is shaped that way has a reason. randomness is still a reason in and of itself
there is wisdom of utility behind cleaning your room. but there is also "wisdom" of utility in beating up your child (for the sake of straightening them out) to the point of physically abusing them. the means don't always justify the ends. however to add to the ridiculousness to this fallacy, there's also "wisdom" in utility in NOT beating up your child because beating him up might set him up to be a bitter person. when the method you employ to navigate truth is able to produce for you evidence and arguments just as well as counter-evidence and counter-arguments, then it's probably not the tool to use.
Oh great the old "If you don't believe in god you're naturally evil" argument. That always says a lot about the moral compass of the person saying it.
I won't be surprised if Jordan Peterson runs for political office as a Conservative (a conbot). Of course he is a believer, he believes in himself, he's male and god is male and that is that.
Matt Dillahunty scores again...
Read his first book and/or watch his three newest online lecture series. As much as you’d like to dismiss him as a fundamentalist Christian apologist, he’s actually providing everyone a naturalistic/psychological/evolutionary explanation of religion and mythology. People who watch sound bites of Peterson can understandably be confused by his ideas because they are fairly radical (to both the religious and the atheistic), but I encourage you to do your homework before opining on an incredibly complicated line of thinking. Also, you need to reconcile the fact that there are staunchly atheistic people, such as myself, who understand what he’s saying and aren’t actually being converted to Christianity.