NEW EVENT! THE ANTISCIENCE OF GOD? Lawrence Krauss & Stephen Hicks th-cam.com/video/extbcWCnhxU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=zbwVhOBBgwxLtB1e LAWRENCE KRAUSS & THE FRIENDLY PLANET IS NOW ON SALE! We hope you grab a copy 🙂 amzn.to/3YWhz8W
"I'll trade two brothers or eight cousins". The logistics of genetics. The older I get (61 now) the more I learn how incredibly little I know. Because each and every story- line, to call it that way- has ten or hundred or even more sub- plots and those have plots and sub- plots andsoforth. The more I take in, the more there seems to be that I need to check out. It's quite hopeless, in that aspect, but since I NEVER run out of interesting subjects it's great at the same time. 😅
Except that this is not true. All reasons for being good that are non-religious are bad, because they are incomplete reasons, so a person who is guided by them consciously does not achieve the fullness of "being good". Even if goodness is to a large extent something intuitive (which Christianity explains by saying that conscience is built into our hearts), this intuition demands to be built into a broader framework for understanding by reason. Reason, on the other hand, is unable to appreciate goodness if it does not perceive it as something, ultimately, objective, axiomatic, underlying and at the same time defining the most far-reaching goal. Philosophical reasoning devoid of references to transcendence is unable to develop a system that would intellectually explain the complexity of what is so simple for intuition. Then one can disassemble morality into its first parts and notice some individual aspects of it, losing sight of the broader picture and elevating some aspect of goodness to a pedestal - as the supposedly key and decisive one. But the issue of goodness clearly indicates that the whole is not just the sum of its parts. We rightly tend to picture morality as a hierarchical structure, in which some aspect dominates and governs the others. Unfortunately, none of them is suitable for the role of the Absolute. Goodness is not JUST about good intentions. It is not JUST about the consequences of actions. It is not JUST about the fact that being good brings a specific joy. It is not JUST about the fact that in the long run it makes you happy. No aspect is separate from the others, and even trying to encompass them all will not establish “good” as something that is simply always worth holding on to, to hold on to absolutely, even if that absoluteness means being guided by a compass rather than something like a fat code. Yes, choosing good brings happiness, but that is a poor justification for doing good because it might make me personally happy. It is a pleasant side effect, not a goal. Yes, perhaps if the theory of macroevolution is right, the altruistic behavior of our ancestors in the long run helped to increase their gene pool, but such assumptions do not lead us to moral categories, but to the category of “utility.” However, the specific use we derive from goodness is not comparable to technical use, because even if they may sometimes overlap, we must first appreciate goodness as such-in its intuitive simplicity. Nor can we say that we should be good because it helps to create a “harmonious society”; all such attempts are a vicious circle, because an individual may ask, “Why should I care about such a society?” “Why should I care about subsequent generations?” “Maybe altruism helped my ancestors, but when it comes to evolutionary utility alone, it is blind, and for me, as an individual, sometimes honesty pays off, and sometimes I can gain something from dishonesty.” A harmonious society is only something that pleases a person who already follows his conscience. What is the use of the homeless? That they arouse compassion and a desire to help, but we cannot call it “use” if we do not appreciate compassion itself. As C.S. Lewis wrote, the question “Why play football” cannot be answered with “To score goals,” because goals are part of the game itself. We are therefore forced to recognize that if something is right, then we should simply do what is right; moral rightness must be as axiomatic as logical coherence. We must recognize that moral intuition is more than just another instinct. However, in order to treat morality in this way, we need a transcendent point of reference - God, who created us in his own image, a personal God who is at the same time the embodiment of truth and love, a God interested in our moral growth as the foundation for every other development, a God who invites us into a relationship with him, so that in perceiving the good we balance well between the categories of “commandments” and the categories of deeper spirituality. If something is good and something is bad because God, who is the fullness of good, has determined this, then we cannot avoid the voice of conscience with any clever rationalizations, because conscience is a channel of communication with the Absolute, and the reason given to us by God notices that we are not able to figure out morality purely intellectually. At the core, we need a childlike TRUST that this subtle voice of conscience is worth following, because at the beginning and at the end of creation stands a POWERFUL, GOOD GOD, whose power is paradoxically connected with goodness. Who is more of a Father than a Dictator. If someone thinks that such a narrative is "bad reasons to be good", it is only because of a mind dominated by the dogma of naturalism, over-intellectualized, which still does not notice that the further into the forest, the more trees, and at the foundations we still need a certain simplicity. A straight trunk from which so many branches grow.
Jordan's biggest problem in debates is that he doesn't attempt to define terms. If what you want is to understand the other person's position, you ask clarifying questions. Language isn't a precision instrument of communication. If you take for granted someone's understanding of a term [Literally, for example] you are creating space for misunderstanding and you'll never get to the root of your opponent's position so you can deconstruct it. Jordan revels in ambiguity. Whenever the person he is debating uses a word and he doesn't know how to respond, he won't ask discovery question to understand what they 'Mean by literally'. Instead he gets performative and starts a tangent. This forces whomever he is talking with to corral him back to topic. Jordan will get flustered when he isn't allowed to do this. You can see it in this clip when he was chirping at Sam for using the word 'faith' in a way he disagrees with. He'd ask questions if he wanted to deconstruct and understand what faith means to an agnostic person but he isn't interested in that line of questioning so he's got to act like some authority figure on the definition of words. Language isn't a mathematical proof. You can point at a dictionary and say 'faith means Y', but that's not a counter argument. Curious minds don't shut people down by deferring to authority, they ask questions. In my opinion Jordan's strategy in debates is to meander away from his opponent's points instead of engaging with them. Then he listens intently for semantic hooks so that his opponent is stuck explaining why it's practical to save your child from a house fire or remove your hand from a hot stove. I wouldn't be able to do it, props to the people with the patience and rhetoric to pull it off.
@@kal22222usually only when it comes to religion. Any other topic he is precise and argues the point. But when faith is involved he jiggles around, redefines everything and becomes evasive. I dont understand why he does it. He understands the science, he knows history, he is smart, he must conclude it's all BS, but he doesnt. Maybe he just cant allow his faith to be shaken in any way or form. He has to find ways to justify his beliefs by any means, no matter how mindbending and reality warping it may be. Why? My guess is as good as yours. Maybe some trauma, maybe something about his daughter? Who knows.
I’m a Christian and I still think Sam is the straight shooter here. Peterson feels like he’s trying to be too clever and is intentionally masking his meaning. I’d trust Harris more since he has the respect to make himself clear.
i would not be shocked to find out peterson sends andrew tate $35.99 a month. i would also not be surprised to find out that he touches kids. seriously.
Proposal: Does 1+1=2 Sam Harris: Yes, and this has been demonstrated. Jordan Peterson: Ah, well, you see, the proposition that 1 + 1 = 2 may appear simple, even self-evident, but it carries profound implications about the very nature of how we structure reality. Numbers themselves are abstractions-conceptual tools-arising out of the necessity to order our perceptions. They’re not just arbitrary; they emerge from the patterned structure of existence itself. When we say "1," what we're referring to is an individual unit, a singular thing-let's say, an apple. Now, when we add another "1," another unit, it means that we are bringing together two discrete entities into a new, larger whole, while maintaining their individual identities. That aggregation forms the basis of "2," which is not merely another thing, but a higher-level concept, an emergent property of combining singularities. This equation-1 + 1 = 2-is a cornerstone of logical consistency, a foundation upon which we build mathematics, and by extension, science, engineering, and the very infrastructure of modern society. It reflects the axiomatic structure of the world-a world where patterns repeat and where humans, compelled by curiosity and survival, have sought to delineate order from chaos. But there's a deeper existential truth here as well. The recognition of 1 + 1 = 2 is emblematic of our ability to perceive, categorize, and unify disparate elements into coherent systems of thought. It’s the process by which we transcend the immediate and grasp the universal. And in that, we find not just a mathematical truth, but a metaphysical one-an echo of the logos, the generative principle that underlies all meaningful understanding. So, in sum, 1 + 1 = 2 isn’t merely arithmetic; it’s a reflection of the profound interplay between the individual and the collective, the singular and the universal, the chaos and the order. And that’s something worth thinking about. Exhausted listener: So yes, just say "yes," Jordan. Be like Sam; just answer the question directly.
Precisely. Mathematics was specifically designed to describe relationships, patterns, and quantities through a universal language, serving as a means of communication.
Anyone else notice that anytime Jordan goes on a “rant” because he’s drastically getting out classed he literally turns his whole body to face the crowd and not face Sam because he knows he’s not even conversing with Sam anymore, he’s trying to win the crowd instead of debate Sam because he knows he’s getting walked all over
Hmmm. And then everyone someday will find out the reality beyond the frame of what they understood to be all there is to reality. Hitchens and The World Beyond...
If Christopher Hitchens hadn't had a British accent, and talked like the average American, we likely wouldn't even know he existed. The accent makes him look smarter than he is.
A sure sign of truly understanding something is being able to explain it in unambigous, precise and concise language. Not dumbing it down, not making it harder than it is. Sam Harris usually has it, Jordan Peterson usually doesn't.
Of course. I agree 1000%. The better the understanding, the bigger the possibility to explain how and why, from different angles and even for different "publics". Explaining a difficult filosofical problem to ten year old children, and still make them take away the essence of it, is only for those who understand their own subject very, very well. And now I'M just blabbing away without saying anything. Shame I don't get payed for it, though.
Fair point, what the fk was Sam rambling about? This was one, long, incoherent message that was closer to intellectual posturing rather than a succinct or clear thought.
The problem with Harris in the modern ivory tower is he doesn't know what survival was like in the Bronze age for a Community brutalized. These people needed religion to survive, to unite tribes that had to work together.God is reality and reality is survival. And in such an environment the intellectual is dead meat if he doesn't come to terms with reality. It not philosophical or even moral, but it is the Truth. I Your right it is not nice. For context we are on the edge of nuclear war. Context people
@@willhowell4638 Oh, but he is in with politicians…especially here in Alberta, CANADA. Jordan has repeatedly, openly and unapologetically connected the current leader of the Alberta extremists party, Daniel Smith (not the mainstream Progressive Conservative branch) and her right wing conservative government with various Trump officials to the province. They particularly like Trump’s conspiratorial HEALTH official…of which I have lost count as to the number of his invites. Disturbingly, Jordan has also brought our official conservative opposition leader, Pierre Poilievre, to multiple conspiratorial politicians within the Republican Party. Far too many members within the Federal/National Conservative Party have become increasingly deranged, dillusional, convulsive, and disresptful…to the point of actual promoting violence and intolerance…even against CHILDREN…of which Poilievre has done. Of course, the top 3 targets are Prime Minister JUSTIN TRUDEAU’s children, whom has managed to protect, until Poilievre went on his derailed rampage. Poilievre and his chain gang frequently and openly engage with NeoNazis and other extremists, as long as it achieves his objective…of which brings tremendous chaos, violence, attempted murder, confusion, and anything else in which he deems “necessary” to achieve his goals! It’s one thing to discuss, debate, and even become enraged, but it doesn’t address any of the very critical issues targeting average Canadians and those beyond our borders. Nevertheless, what truly concerns me is the violent rhetoric against INNOCENT children, women, and other individuals Jordan, Poilievre, Smith, and their minions have sadistically targeted. If you wish to delve more into this disturbing trend and topic, Joran discusses it on his personal channel. Cheers!🇨🇦
What I like about Sam and speakers like him is his language is relatively easy to understand for the common person and his arguments are backed with relevant analogies like the moral landscape, Jordan uses advance vocabulary often using niche words I’ve never heard in my life, and Jordan’s analogies often refer to these niche writers or stories that nobody has read or heard. In other words Sam meets the audience where they are at and Jordan just rambles with fancy words and niche analogies never grounding his arguments in objective science, and his audience just assumes he’s right because they can’t understand him
I know close to all those "fancy" words, even though I seldom use most of them outside of special circles, and believe me: in the manner in which they're used by Peterson it is, well maybe not word salad, but clearly a way of using them - especially in combination - to confuse (charm) his audience and intimidate his interlocutor. In this case it doesn't work because Harris knows them too and understands what he's doing. There's also a clear sign of when Peterson knows he's not capable of holding his ground: He begins interrupting by criticizing details in the argument presented instead of just letting the argument be presented and then respond to it. For example: at 4:35 This usually forces the interlocutor to first respond to the nonsense objection, which, depending on how well he's doing, may be interrupted by another nonsense objection... and so on till most of the audience seem to get the impression that they're just a kettle and a pot.
@ Jordan gets lost in the abstract and never grounds his logic in anything scientific it’s quite frustrating. In the interview with cosmic skeptic, Richard Dawkins and jp, he kept talking about dragons and the philosophical approach to understanding predation, imo it unnecessary and a large portion of his audience already struggle with deciphering fiction from reality hence most of them are religious. Like Dawkins say he is drunk on symbolism and his words sound smart and are delivered with eloquence but I cannot understand why anyone can take him seriously. He couldn’t even answer if he believe in Christ’s resurrection, a simple fact or non fact he avoiding the yes, no, idk responses and just spewed more words about abstraction. He’s quite frustrating to listen too, even if u understand everything he is saying.
@sebastianmccaughey9985 right, he likes to confuse people by claiming there are different kinds of truths. There is only one truth, and that is dependent on reality, but we have different interpretations of that truth. There is no "truth in a metaphysical manner" or "truth for me" or whatever he tries to say to confuse lay people into agree with him. "Truth for me" is just your interpretation. There is already a word for that. Use that one. "Metaphysical truth" is just his opinion, since is not based on anything testable, and is just an attempt of an explanation. Literal means literal (unless is used with hyperbolic intent, wich is obviously not the case here). Again, he is trying to make an equivocation fallacy and uses word-salad to avoid been caught, that is why he can't formulate a coherent and short statement about what he thinks that does not contradict other things he said before of after.
mostly he's just the wrong tool and all of his supporters keep insisting that he's this exotic Swiss army knife of knowledge and wisdom. Reality shows otherwise, he's a terrified little man that puts frozen wagyu beef in an air fryer until its well done. NOTHING ELSE EVER NEEDS TO BE SAID.
@@SpencerDonahueThat's because he uses three big words in a row, and they can't understand him, so they just think that means he's smart because he's smarter than them.
Your ignorance of the terms used, only proves your ignorance... I'm not a theist (believer of any religion) by any stretch, but this Sam harris guy kept changing the subject over and over in red herrings, moving goal posts, created strawman and resorted to all forms of logical fallacies.... If you truly learn the terms used and keep replaying his clip to understand why he used them for what Sam said and did... It will change your life.. Politicians and the media use these tricks all the time to fool you.. so by learning this stuff it helps to stop you being so easily manipulated
my dude, i agree with the imaginary tool thing, but if the imaginary tool forbids me from believing in 64 billion genders then it's a useful tool even though it's imaginary. w0keness is as crazy as religion.
@@gregorycarver1934that's not true at all. A tool can be be the result of accidentally discovering an alternate application for an existing object that served a different function.
A "bad tool" is better than "no tool", but a "better tool" is preferable and more useful than a "bad tool". But to say that the "bad tool" is the "only tool", and that the use of the "better tool" or any other tool is grounds for death in an extremely painful way in the "here and now", which then leads for eternal pain and suffering in the "hereafter" is just bad tool use.
I don’t see why he would be out of his depth. These are perfectly reasonable objections or statements that he makes. Harris on those other hand wouldn’t let JP talk for more that 30 seconds.
Jordan has been a practicing clinical psychologist for decades and was a highly regarded professor at the University of Toronto. He’s an expert in totalitarian regimes and what they do to control people. He is more than qualified to debate Harris on the philosophies of the metaphysical. I side with Harris on this because I’m an atheist - but I also understand what Jordan is saying about humans and the need for meaning and purpose that a religion can give you.
@@jesperknutsson812 Over and over, Peterson asks a question, and then won't allow more than a couple of sentences of an answer before he starts talking.
@@mogznwaz I have to disagree. A lot of what Peterson says is simply not to the point. And he's forever going off on tangents and side issues that sound more like they came from the famous "Online BS generator" website.
Summary of Peterson's position: It's perfectly fine to lie to people in order to get them to do the "right" thing. I wish they would have followed that axiom to its conclusion.
Every time I hear Peterson speak I am reminded of a line in a Jane Austen novel - Northanger Abbey "I cannot speak well enough to be unintelligible" It reminds me that what Peterson is doing is seeking to hide the weakness of his arguments behind his education in the terminology of philosophy. This is why he does so well in debates with people who's level of education is much lower than his, but fails so badly when he comes across those who can see the crux of his arguments through his verbiage.
Yup, like imagine you had to extinguish a small fire. A cup of water might be useful. However, if you're dealing with a grease fire, adding water is the worst thing you can do. Better to not have water at all than make it worse.
That has to be the worst line of all time. “A bad tool is better than no tool” Tell me you’ve never actually used your hands to fix anything or used tools at all for that matter. A bad tool can put you in a way worse position than what your started with
I think what Jordan was getting at was a bad tool (a method of morality that isn’t peraphs as efficient as it could be) is better than deciding not to build anything at all, meaning no moral progress. So he saying look religion maybe isn’t the most efficient tool of morality but it has allowed us to make progress and that is better than none
@@Bureauhometown1 I agree with that’s what he was trying to say I’m just pointing out that it’s a terrible analogy because any mechanic will tell you that there’s a ‘right tool for every job’ is the saying because a wrong tool will take you backwards not forwards
@@johnwalker6140 agreed bad tools are more than capable of causing more harm than good, Sam is proposing a better tool more suited for the job while Jordan is defending a bad tool and even admits it actually is a bad tool lol. Jordan definitely lost this segment.
Why is it that I understand Sam Harris 100% and very little to what Jordan Peterson says with all his word salads that he uses I guess to sound more knowledgeabl?
@@matheusndeutapo483that is the fallback every time and at a certain point it does not impress the intellectual conversation. Not saying theists will always lose in the debate, Stephen Meyers is a great creationist speaker and make more well rounded arguments. JP is at the point where he thinks his word have much more meaning than what they because of who he thinks he is, so when you separate his words from his character it’s literally word salad to confuse people. Parables are a wonderful tool to to interpret people’s perception but at a certain point simple questions don’t need “40 hours to explain” like JP has quoted saying is need to explain Jesus’s resurrection… who’s buying that?
Welcome to the club! You are not the only one to doubt your own intelligence when listening to Jordan Peterson. The good news is: you regain your confidence when listening to Sam Harris. I bet many listeners would agree with me on that one!
Richard Dawkins has Peterson pegged right, he can waffle on and make you think that you’re dumb in not understanding him therefore he must be brilliant, but it’s bullshit !
When Sam speaks, I follow his logic, his examples, and I get a good sense of when he is landing the plane to make a point whether I agree or not. When Jordan Peterson speaks, the necessary gymnastics, it takes to constantly need to be proven right, with things that are not provable, the word salad ensues. Never heard someone say so many words, yet never come to a conclusion, and then pat himself on the back
This is the real life equivalent to "if you'll look to your left you'll see two naked guys fighting over a can of paint." Peterson is saying nothing. He just says things like "axiomatic singularity" or some shit to fool morons into thinking he's smart. Sam is saying "we don't need religion for morality." And Eric is restating everything with a veneer of pseudo-intellect to sound like some deep thinker
Free Speech But Don’t Offend Me Peterson is known as a defender of free speech, especially for controversial ideas. But the moment someone challenges his views on gender or calls out an inconsistency, he sometimes bristles, even framing his critics as hostile ideologues. Free speech for all? Only if they agree with him, apparently.😂
Most of his "defender of free speech" reputation came from misinterpreting a basic expansion of human rights. He went hysterical with absurd and excessive ideologically formed ideas about Bill c-16, and way too many people took his self-appointed "free speech warrior" status at face value.
I am a Christian, but I think Sam is clearly the more in intellectually honest here. Jordan constantly uses logical fallacies. Like when Sam said he could have faith in 2+2=4, for example. Jordan attacked the example. Sam adroitly explained the example, but Euclidian math was never on the table. Ironically, many of the JP fanatics also like Terrence Howard who looks to replace Euclidean math with something infinitly less useful.
4:12 "How do you distinguish a religion system from an a-priory perceptual structure?" Neeeeh Jordan, leave it. You know he is obfuscating right? (To use an equally unnecessary difficult word.)
@@VinylCP peterson is arguing that the superhero idea only exists because we have an innate intuition of a higher order of morality and authority. peterson isn't smart enough or honest enough to understand that the superhero (chosen one) idea comes from the incel types who are trying to leapfrog the more "accomplished" men, by imagining a more powerful alter ego. the evidence of that is clear, all of the early superheros had a relatively lowly (incel) standing in their community.
Bruh... The concept of a perceptual structure is nonsense??? That statement undermines any epistemic authority you may have possessed. Your lack of comprehension does not inform your bs value claims, it just lets everybody know that you are most likely a sour, psychotic leftist @@Walker_8_8
Sam thinks he has it all figured out. Jordan is open to mystery. How does one describe mystery ? Not in simple enough terms for most of the commentors! 😅And neither is a theologian so they are treading thin ice. I have been disappointed in Peterson at times. The special irony is that Sam has relabeled Judeo-Christian morality as if he invented it. I call that “the vanity of the present.”
@@TheofficialQuackBarrel Mind chases a goal. Spiritually we have also created a goal. But there is nothing to achieve in that area. So yes, nobody is stopping Jordan from make titillating or exciting holly mythical goals and conclusions and then elaborating them, going into it, all this based on a foundation which is fictional and arbitrary.
Bad Jordy! If you keep making complicated nonsense statements, you will go blind and hair will grow on your knuckles! Now go to your room and don't come out until you can speak clearly and sensibly. Oh, and Jordy, leave your door cracked open so I can make sure you aren't just doing it to yourself!
Jordan is highly intelligent but he seemed to pop up on youtube years ago for his talks about pro masculinity. You can detect his biases which will always stymie his ability to think more freely on any subject where his ego feels the need to defend his biases. In that sense, Sam doesn't have so many hang ups. He simply wants to look at truth, evidence, etc.
Pro-masculinity is sometimes pro-human wellbeing. 90% of psychologists under 30 are women. I do not agree with Jordan on many things but he has been a voice for failing young men. Title 10 worked for equal chances for higher education for women. Parity was reached! Good news. However I have not heard ONE women point out that the disparity is now worse against men than before Title 10. Women have shown themselves as not interested in human aspirations but interest in their tribe. Woman are 100% for their tribe. Men have advocated for women, but what woman speaks up with new disturbing tendencies with young men. Once women or any minority get parity, then it becomes revenge. I won’t complain. That is just how tribal we are as human beings. It women’s turn to slam men to the ground, and it starts by your little comment against his advocacy for men, casting aspersions on Jordan for doing so. Doesn’t he know that only women need advocacy and only women can be victims and suffer discrimination?
I dont know why this video is titled like this, because it’s not clear at all that Sam wins in this argument. All I hear is that Sam is trying to say “we all know what is good, and what is bad” but he is not able to prove that. He thinks its just given, and Jordan tries to tell him that what he thinks is grounded in something deeper, that has developed over time. Sam even contradicts himself, because he says that there is consciousness and its content, meaning there is experience. But good and evil are both just concepts that we have conjured up. Therefore they are grounded in stories like the bible and many other things. Otherwise its just experience, and it just is, its not good or bad, it just is. Everything after that is human given meaning.
On the contrary. He needs to be exposed because too many people listen to his nonsense. If it helps those followers to "see the light" (sorry), it's a good thing.
Jordan Peterson's ego is so attached to his ideas that he can't actually debate an idea, too threatening to him. Hard to believe anyone takes him seriously.
As a firefighter, I can tell you we've had these very conversations on our watch. Most of us were there because we loved being surrounded by fire and smoke, the danger the rush , and it's beauty. Saving lives was just a part of it. Both important as each other but we didn't want fires with people to rescue, that is the last thing we wanted.. But a big a as fire to fight, yes please!
Reminds me of when I was doing my physics degree. In the faculty's bathroom, someone had written in felt tip above the toilet paper holder: *_"PHILOSOPHY DEGREES, PLEASE TAKE ONE."_*
@ALushPair nope just reality is real and we can know stuff about it, the rest is verified by testing. But you'd say different cuz you paid alot for nothing.
@larryscarr3897 >Reality is real Whoa bro, how much did you spend on that degree? Empiricism is not an empirical claim. There's a free philosophy lesson for you, brainlet.
Jordan has been a practicing clinical psychologist for decades and was a highly regarded professor at the University of Toronto. He’s an expert in totalitarian regimes and what they do to control people. He is more than qualified to debate Harris on the philosophies of the metaphysical. I naturally side with Harris on this because I’m an atheist - but I also understand what Jordan is saying about humans and the need for meaning and purpose that a religion can give you.
“It depends on what you mean by literally”🙄 jfc i can’t even with this guy. If you’re reading this and you think Peterson is “smart”… congrats, you’re the mark.
Jordan Peterson just basically argued that a religion centered around Batgirl would be essentially fine, and his reasoning is "the story conveys important things" is irrational. Millions of authors have done such simplistic things, are they all God under Peterson's thinking? Because those authors wrote those things, the stories don't write themselves, is he arguing that every poet and author is a Divinity? If so, how can he argue for any "truth" at all, other than the profound subjectivity of disparate authors and his own personal feeling of profundity at the moment of experience?
However, I don't think the literary achievement and cultural impact of the bible is subjective. It sounded to me more like he was arguing the archetypal similarities between heroes in different stories, as opposed to suggesting that all heroic protagonists are equal.
I really don’t understand how this whole comment section is so conclusive to Jordan being in the wrong or having some kind of arrogance. I think they where both very intellectual in their conversation but I also think Jordan knew exactly what he was talking about and actually dissected Sam’s points really well. And I assure you I am coming from a non-bias perspective as I was confident the video title would be accurate, but coming to watch it.. I’d say Jordan stuck to his guns and had a lot to show for it. The title and comment section just feel like a place where Jordan Peterson haters can band together and assure each others opinions lol.
Harris opens with very strong evidence in favor of "is" over "ought" assertions. We do not, in general, need to develop elaborate moral arguments for choosing one action over another because of some externally imposed "ought." Usually our instincts tell us which action to prefer. This is how our species has survived to this point. Many of our instincts are not only evolved in favor of our personal survival but also to promote our survival as a group, because we are a SOCIAL SPECIES. And yes, these various instincts come into conflict sometimes, which is why as an INTELLIGENT social species we try to anticipate such conflicts and formulate a compromise solution wherever that may be possible. But the very idea of an "ought" suggests an externally imposed code, not a product of introspection, but of a more absolute authoritarian order. There is no ground for "ought" otherwise.
Sam engages the audience with analogies. Jordan attaches labels to ideas. Analogies allows one to make a logical conclusion about a point in the debate based upon similarities to common situations. Agreeing with labels requires that one already shares the opinion that he labeler is conveying.
Sam is correct. You can program a child or the weak and ignorant minded adult to believe anything or to follow anyone by telling them what they want to hear. The Bible is correct. The "faithful Christians" are "sheep" needing a Shepard to tell them how to think and feel. If they need the "faith" crutch to get them through the day, then fine, but faith doesn't always equal fact.
This debate is like ancient confucius vs daoism, where confucius favor for rule and stuff, while daoism prefer naturalness of our being and common sense, an uncarved wood.
People’s religion is determined purely by the geographical area where they were born. And if travel never existed Christianity would have remained in the Middle East!
I’ve seen multiple times where Peterson gets incredibly petulant when someone is not blindly agreeing with him or contradicts him or disagrees with him. It’s incredibly childish behavior that further undercuts this little façade he plays about being a “rational intellectual“. I would have more respect for him if he actually lightened up and actually made a coherent argument instead of trying to play the role of “the smartest man in the room“ and coming off as a complete buffoon.
Can someone PLEASE buy Jordon a dictionary? Faith is literally defined by Webster as a confident belief in a truth , value , or trustworthiness of a person idea or thing. Secondly, belief not based on logical truth or evidence. It’s both
Depends on what you mean by dictionary.... (and then the games begin. I take your perfectly understandable point about JPs word games and refuse to engage with it directly while taking everyone on a ridiculous fun house ride through a carefully designed "look over there! It's another random detour into an act where I pretend to not understand your words clearly again".)
This is ridiculous, Throughout recorded history Religious institutions have stifled progress that resulted in a more civil society, It’s a matter of fact.
True on some accounts. However, Western Civilization and the human rights that it has advanced.....could not have happened under any other system than the Judeo-Christian philosophy, even if you dismiss its supernatural claims.
@ not the philosophy, The fact that cults are organized and helped people in power maintain it through submission. Americans providing their slaves with slave bibles is a great example. Which was historically yesterday They killed waaaaay more children and and wasted waaaay more time than necessary to get to this point And have been vehemently fighting the the progress we are talking about, Right up until the last election. You must have a comfy life, To Not be able to see how Messed up things still are, Because of them. Just the concept of theistic thinking alone is a threat to what little we’ve achieved. Regardless of the philosophy. But again throughout all recorded history, Progress occured in spite of intense opposition from theists, Christianity is a philosophy of ***ocide And slavery, A to B
@ also no, True on all counts, The church has tried to stand in the way of all progress, And only ever caved when there was no chance of regressing us.
@@jeremytee2919No one is claiming that The Judeo Christian system didn't have it's dark periods. Of course it did. But, the "Enlightenment Period" (ironically) could never have happened under any other system.
100%. He's a smart man, smarter than any of us. But a very dumb person in good faith can see he is obviously grifting towards the right, which is largely an extension of christianity. That's why he never wants to give a straight answer, because he doesn't want to upset his core fanbase.
Peterson tries so hard to argue/debate, but he strains so much to even be on the same stage. He is far less intelligent than he wants to admit and has zero business on the stage.
You’re just envious that you’re not anywhere near the intelligence of any of these men on stage how can you understand what they’re saying when you couldn’t even begin.
@@pascualmunoz55 are you going to adjust the criticism or is this whole “you’re just jealous!“ basically the crux of your argument? Because I hate to break this to you… You haven’t really disproven that Peterson is clearly out of his depth.
Jordan acts like a parent actually could rescue their child from a fire. The unbelievable heat make it impossible. As much as we'd like to pretend we could walk through fire we can't.
Jordan doesn't believe in the Christian story in the way that Christians do, but he values its fundamental tennants to the point of feigning belief to the public. I can only assume it's because he thinks the general public is too stupid to come to the Christian conclusion on ethics from a secular viewpoint, so if it takes them believeing in a fairy tale to come to the correct answer so be it. Super condescending.
Sam is trying to replace Judeo-Christian ethics and say life is perfectly liveable without them. And that’s the issue. His framework and entire existence is based on the task of using and replacing the very thing he’s trying to dismantle. And atheism will always have that ultimate problem - it only exists as a reaction - it needs the original ethos to then cancel it out with its atheistic equivalent. ‘You do Christmas - we do x’.
No. We don't do X because you do Christmas, we do X because we want to do X. This boogie perspective of yours comes from an assumption that we all seek the sky daddy you do. We don't. Also Atheism is a reaction to what? It's merely a rejection of a weak claim. We believe in different dogmas apart from that. One might be a pacifist or one can be all for revenge.
@ - perfectly fine for you to claim that - but atheism as a movement / ideology / structure only exists as a counter to Christianity. Voltaire and the other ‘founding fathers’ let’s say were clear about the idea that they could do better - better than what? Christianity is the foundation of atheism.
@francoannan no tf it doesn't. Christianity is not even the first religion and Voltaire is not the founding father of Atheism. Atheism started when the first man rejected the first claim made about existence of a God and that happened way before Christianity was even remotely close to humanity, unless you're a Bible thumping christian who believes the world was formed 6000 years ago, you should have already known this.
JP is the most pretentiously annoying person to listen to. The people the accept the stuff that he says, don't understand what he says. They just want a smart sounding voice that believes what they do as some kind of vindication for that belief
Sam seems so much more sincere than Jordan. It always feels like Jordan is asking questions as playing devils advocate for the sake of playing devils advocate.
This was an interesting discussion, but the only edge I see for Sam Harris in this clip is, he did most of the talking. I think it can be accurately said, all stable and long lasting civilizations known to have existed, had a religious substrate as an organizing principle.
I would also argue that all civilizations have a religious substrate regardless of if they are consciously aware of it. That underlying religion is not necessarily a defined and knowable religion either, but it does exist at the heart of the people. I like Sam and he is a great orator, but I understand Peterson’s perspective more than most in the comments appear to. It’s always difficult to take matters of spirit and faith into debate. Which is a space heavily biased towards logic and things checkable in the material world.
exactly. Sam insists good and bad are obvious which would always get the vote of anyone so sure of themselves, but even Sam can’t avoid pulling reasons from somewhere, to which Jordan repeatedly demands the identification of his sources… To which Sam insists none are necessary other than facts but fails to remain in the realm of facts. The instinct of a killer would be to kill, so instincts are not enough. Not to mention god being instinctive to many also.
Two problems with values coming from religious faith: 1. The expectation that staying on the good side of God will keep bad from happening to us will be challenged by reality at any time. People tend to drop many of the good they do at such times 2. After a while the faith or deity becomes really much more important than the virtues themselves to such an extent that bad actions that can be justified as being for the faith become good - like sacrificing one's child to appease the deity.
NEW EVENT! THE ANTISCIENCE OF GOD? Lawrence Krauss & Stephen Hicks th-cam.com/video/extbcWCnhxU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=zbwVhOBBgwxLtB1e
LAWRENCE KRAUSS & THE FRIENDLY PLANET IS NOW ON SALE! We hope you grab a copy 🙂 amzn.to/3YWhz8W
"I'll trade two brothers or eight cousins". The logistics of genetics. The older I get (61 now) the more I learn how incredibly little I know. Because each and every story- line, to call it that way- has ten or hundred or even more sub- plots and those have plots and sub- plots andsoforth. The more I take in, the more there seems to be that I need to check out. It's quite hopeless, in that aspect, but since I NEVER run out of interesting subjects it's great at the same time. 😅
Stephen Hicks. What a nut job he is.
3:38 "religion gives bad reasons to be good, when good reasons are available"
-Sam Harris
Religion can give bad reasons to do good things
@JBAikensMusic that is exactly what i said.
But we have better reasons, so we can ignore the ones religion gives us.
ha ha so true Gaston!
Except that this is not true. All reasons for being good that are non-religious are bad, because they are incomplete reasons, so a person who is guided by them consciously does not achieve the fullness of "being good". Even if goodness is to a large extent something intuitive (which Christianity explains by saying that conscience is built into our hearts), this intuition demands to be built into a broader framework for understanding by reason. Reason, on the other hand, is unable to appreciate goodness if it does not perceive it as something, ultimately, objective, axiomatic, underlying and at the same time defining the most far-reaching goal.
Philosophical reasoning devoid of references to transcendence is unable to develop a system that would intellectually explain the complexity of what is so simple for intuition. Then one can disassemble morality into its first parts and notice some individual aspects of it, losing sight of the broader picture and elevating some aspect of goodness to a pedestal - as the supposedly key and decisive one. But the issue of goodness clearly indicates that the whole is not just the sum of its parts. We rightly tend to picture morality as a hierarchical structure, in which some aspect dominates and governs the others. Unfortunately, none of them is suitable for the role of the Absolute. Goodness is not JUST about good intentions. It is not JUST about the consequences of actions. It is not JUST about the fact that being good brings a specific joy. It is not JUST about the fact that in the long run it makes you happy. No aspect is separate from the others, and even trying to encompass them all will not establish “good” as something that is simply always worth holding on to, to hold on to absolutely, even if that absoluteness means being guided by a compass rather than something like a fat code.
Yes, choosing good brings happiness, but that is a poor justification for doing good because it might make me personally happy. It is a pleasant side effect, not a goal. Yes, perhaps if the theory of macroevolution is right, the altruistic behavior of our ancestors in the long run helped to increase their gene pool, but such assumptions do not lead us to moral categories, but to the category of “utility.” However, the specific use we derive from goodness is not comparable to technical use, because even if they may sometimes overlap, we must first appreciate goodness as such-in its intuitive simplicity. Nor can we say that we should be good because it helps to create a “harmonious society”; all such attempts are a vicious circle, because an individual may ask, “Why should I care about such a society?” “Why should I care about subsequent generations?” “Maybe altruism helped my ancestors, but when it comes to evolutionary utility alone, it is blind, and for me, as an individual, sometimes honesty pays off, and sometimes I can gain something from dishonesty.”
A harmonious society is only something that pleases a person who already follows his conscience. What is the use of the homeless? That they arouse compassion and a desire to help, but we cannot call it “use” if we do not appreciate compassion itself. As C.S. Lewis wrote, the question “Why play football” cannot be answered with “To score goals,” because goals are part of the game itself. We are therefore forced to recognize that if something is right, then we should simply do what is right; moral rightness must be as axiomatic as logical coherence. We must recognize that moral intuition is more than just another instinct. However, in order to treat morality in this way, we need a transcendent point of reference - God, who created us in his own image, a personal God who is at the same time the embodiment of truth and love, a God interested in our moral growth as the foundation for every other development, a God who invites us into a relationship with him, so that in perceiving the good we balance well between the categories of “commandments” and the categories of deeper spirituality.
If something is good and something is bad because God, who is the fullness of good, has determined this, then we cannot avoid the voice of conscience with any clever rationalizations, because conscience is a channel of communication with the Absolute, and the reason given to us by God notices that we are not able to figure out morality purely intellectually. At the core, we need a childlike TRUST that this subtle voice of conscience is worth following, because at the beginning and at the end of creation stands a POWERFUL, GOOD GOD, whose power is paradoxically connected with goodness. Who is more of a Father than a Dictator. If someone thinks that such a narrative is "bad reasons to be good", it is only because of a mind dominated by the dogma of naturalism, over-intellectualized, which still does not notice that the further into the forest, the more trees, and at the foundations we still need a certain simplicity. A straight trunk from which so many branches grow.
@TaaJew that is a lot of words just to say "my morality depends on my interpretation of the subjective opinion of a fictional character"
"Depends on what you mean by literally"
It means literally Jordan. This is why no one serious thinks you're serious
Another example of how disingenuous he is.
Yeah, literally.
Depends on what you mean by serious.
Jordan's biggest problem in debates is that he doesn't attempt to define terms. If what you want is to understand the other person's position, you ask clarifying questions. Language isn't a precision instrument of communication. If you take for granted someone's understanding of a term [Literally, for example] you are creating space for misunderstanding and you'll never get to the root of your opponent's position so you can deconstruct it.
Jordan revels in ambiguity. Whenever the person he is debating uses a word and he doesn't know how to respond, he won't ask discovery question to understand what they 'Mean by literally'. Instead he gets performative and starts a tangent. This forces whomever he is talking with to corral him back to topic. Jordan will get flustered when he isn't allowed to do this. You can see it in this clip when he was chirping at Sam for using the word 'faith' in a way he disagrees with. He'd ask questions if he wanted to deconstruct and understand what faith means to an agnostic person but he isn't interested in that line of questioning so he's got to act like some authority figure on the definition of words. Language isn't a mathematical proof. You can point at a dictionary and say 'faith means Y', but that's not a counter argument. Curious minds don't shut people down by deferring to authority, they ask questions.
In my opinion Jordan's strategy in debates is to meander away from his opponent's points instead of engaging with them. Then he listens intently for semantic hooks so that his opponent is stuck explaining why it's practical to save your child from a house fire or remove your hand from a hot stove. I wouldn't be able to do it, props to the people with the patience and rhetoric to pull it off.
@@kal22222usually only when it comes to religion. Any other topic he is precise and argues the point. But when faith is involved he jiggles around, redefines everything and becomes evasive.
I dont understand why he does it. He understands the science, he knows history, he is smart, he must conclude it's all BS, but he doesnt. Maybe he just cant allow his faith to be shaken in any way or form. He has to find ways to justify his beliefs by any means, no matter how mindbending and reality warping it may be. Why? My guess is as good as yours. Maybe some trauma, maybe something about his daughter? Who knows.
I’m a Christian and I still think Sam is the straight shooter here. Peterson feels like he’s trying to be too clever and is intentionally masking his meaning. I’d trust Harris more since he has the respect to make himself clear.
i would not be shocked to find out peterson sends andrew tate $35.99 a month. i would also not be surprised to find out that he touches kids. seriously.
We need more people like you. I'm still an atheist, but it's people like you that brought me back to the church.
Christian here as well and I agree. 👏
Respect.
Jordon is a grifter. Sam is/was a neurosurgeon. Real skill, and importance to society. With Jordon it’s all made up.
I genuinely don’t think I’ve ever heard Peterson speak for more than 2 mins without saying apriori or archetypal. Just drivel.
He’s *literally* not smart at all. Who tf says it depends on what you mean by literally 😂
“In some sense…”
“It depends on what you mean by ____…”
And he gets his fingers dancing, as if it makes his drivel somehow less non-sensical.
I was thinking the same thing. It's so stupid.
'at a Macro-level' comes up a fair bit too, for no real reason.
Proposal: Does 1+1=2
Sam Harris:
Yes, and this has been demonstrated.
Jordan Peterson:
Ah, well, you see, the proposition that 1 + 1 = 2 may appear simple, even self-evident, but it carries profound implications about the very nature of how we structure reality. Numbers themselves are abstractions-conceptual tools-arising out of the necessity to order our perceptions. They’re not just arbitrary; they emerge from the patterned structure of existence itself.
When we say "1," what we're referring to is an individual unit, a singular thing-let's say, an apple. Now, when we add another "1," another unit, it means that we are bringing together two discrete entities into a new, larger whole, while maintaining their individual identities. That aggregation forms the basis of "2," which is not merely another thing, but a higher-level concept, an emergent property of combining singularities.
This equation-1 + 1 = 2-is a cornerstone of logical consistency, a foundation upon which we build mathematics, and by extension, science, engineering, and the very infrastructure of modern society. It reflects the axiomatic structure of the world-a world where patterns repeat and where humans, compelled by curiosity and survival, have sought to delineate order from chaos.
But there's a deeper existential truth here as well. The recognition of 1 + 1 = 2 is emblematic of our ability to perceive, categorize, and unify disparate elements into coherent systems of thought. It’s the process by which we transcend the immediate and grasp the universal. And in that, we find not just a mathematical truth, but a metaphysical one-an echo of the logos, the generative principle that underlies all meaningful understanding.
So, in sum, 1 + 1 = 2 isn’t merely arithmetic; it’s a reflection of the profound interplay between the individual and the collective, the singular and the universal, the chaos and the order. And that’s something worth thinking about.
Exhausted listener: So yes, just say "yes," Jordan. Be like Sam; just answer the question directly.
Brilliant. A lot more brilliant than Peterson!
😂👏👏👏👏👏👏👏🤘🫶
Precisely!! And people like Piers Morgan lap this shit up!! 🙄🙄
Precisely. Mathematics was specifically designed to describe relationships, patterns, and quantities through a universal language, serving as a means of communication.
lol. Amazing comment.
Anyone else notice that anytime Jordan goes on a “rant” because he’s drastically getting out classed he literally turns his whole body to face the crowd and not face Sam because he knows he’s not even conversing with Sam anymore, he’s trying to win the crowd instead of debate Sam because he knows he’s getting walked all over
It’s emotional grandstanding with no substance
Yep. It's the tactic of a Baptist preacher. 🤔😆
depends what you mean by "anyone" or "else" or "notice", and their substrates. the man is very intelligent but makes an absolute joke out of himself
And the crowd loves it😢
No, I don’t notice that. Sure I notice that he can go on rants but most of the times they actually make a lot of sense.
Great take down by Sam but he is too nice. Christopher Hitchens would have wiped the floor of Jordon from the word go. He is missed dearly
That would’ve been a Hitch SLAP!
Hmmm. And then everyone someday will find out the reality beyond the frame of what they understood to be all there is to reality. Hitchens and The World Beyond...
Hitchens would make little Jordy cry
I don't miss Hitchens in the least.
If Christopher Hitchens hadn't had a British accent, and talked like the average American, we likely wouldn't even know he existed. The accent makes him look smarter than he is.
A sure sign of truly understanding something is being able to explain it in unambigous, precise and concise language. Not dumbing it down, not making it harder than it is. Sam Harris usually has it, Jordan Peterson usually doesn't.
Of course. I agree 1000%. The better the understanding, the bigger the possibility to explain how and why, from different angles and even for different "publics".
Explaining a difficult filosofical problem to ten year old children, and still make them take away the essence of it, is only for those who understand their own subject very, very well.
And now I'M just blabbing away without saying anything. Shame I don't get payed for it, though.
@@smoly37 Have you considered studying filosofy?
As Einstein was known to say, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough".
Fair point, what the fk was Sam rambling about? This was one, long, incoherent message that was closer to intellectual posturing rather than a succinct or clear thought.
The problem with Harris in the modern ivory tower is he doesn't know what survival was like in the Bronze age for a Community brutalized. These people needed religion to survive, to unite tribes that had to work together.God is reality and reality is survival. And in such an environment the intellectual is dead meat if he doesn't come to terms with reality. It not philosophical or even moral, but it is the Truth. I
Your right it is not nice.
For context we are on the edge of nuclear war. Context people
Jordan Peterson: Never has anyone spoken so much and said so little
sounds like he should be into politics then lol.
@@willhowell4638 Oh, but he is in with politicians…especially here in Alberta, CANADA. Jordan has repeatedly, openly and unapologetically connected the current leader of the Alberta extremists party, Daniel Smith (not the mainstream Progressive Conservative branch) and her right wing conservative government with various Trump officials to the province. They particularly like Trump’s conspiratorial HEALTH official…of which I have lost count as to the number of his invites.
Disturbingly, Jordan has also brought our official conservative opposition leader, Pierre Poilievre, to multiple conspiratorial politicians within the Republican Party. Far too many members within the Federal/National Conservative Party have become increasingly deranged, dillusional, convulsive, and disresptful…to the point of actual promoting violence and intolerance…even against CHILDREN…of which Poilievre has done. Of course, the top 3 targets are Prime Minister JUSTIN TRUDEAU’s children, whom has managed to protect, until Poilievre went on his derailed rampage. Poilievre and his chain gang frequently and openly engage with NeoNazis and other extremists, as long as it achieves his objective…of which brings tremendous chaos, violence, attempted murder, confusion, and anything else in which he deems “necessary” to achieve his goals!
It’s one thing to discuss, debate, and even become enraged, but it doesn’t address any of the very critical issues targeting average Canadians and those beyond our borders. Nevertheless, what truly concerns me is the violent rhetoric against INNOCENT children, women, and other individuals Jordan, Poilievre, Smith, and their minions have sadistically targeted.
If you wish to delve more into this disturbing trend and topic, Joran discusses it on his personal channel.
Cheers!🇨🇦
1st rule: If you are not vegan, you have no ground to speak about morals. Dominion (2018)
The Weinstein bros are almost as bad when it comes to bloviating.
@@VeganSemihCyprus33 ha ha
Whenever i listen to JP i just think - Word salad.
Sounds like listening to a stoner who isn’t stoned.
Truly.... and then he just starts with that Socratic nonsense of his
Literally. Just verbose word salad with sophisticated sounding vocabulary to make himself sound smart to impressionable folks.
@ I don’t like ‘word salad’ salad usually = healthy. JP is t healthy so I use word diarrhea when referring to his words
Word salad plus verbal diarrhea equals... religion
What I like about Sam and speakers like him is his language is relatively easy to understand for the common person and his arguments are backed with relevant analogies like the moral landscape, Jordan uses advance vocabulary often using niche words I’ve never heard in my life, and Jordan’s analogies often refer to these niche writers or stories that nobody has read or heard. In other words Sam meets the audience where they are at and Jordan just rambles with fancy words and niche analogies never grounding his arguments in objective science, and his audience just assumes he’s right because they can’t understand him
He does it on purpose to hide the fact he has no idea what he is saying. He's hiding that he isn't intelligent, he's a con artist.
I know close to all those "fancy" words, even though I seldom use most of them outside of special circles, and believe me: in the manner in which they're used by Peterson it is, well maybe not word salad, but clearly a way of using them - especially in combination - to confuse (charm) his audience and intimidate his interlocutor. In this case it doesn't work because Harris knows them too and understands what he's doing. There's also a clear sign of when Peterson knows he's not capable of holding his ground: He begins interrupting by criticizing details in the argument presented instead of just letting the argument be presented and then respond to it. For example: at 4:35 This usually forces the interlocutor to first respond to the nonsense objection, which, depending on how well he's doing, may be interrupted by another nonsense objection... and so on till most of the audience seem to get the impression that they're just a kettle and a pot.
@ Jordan gets lost in the abstract and never grounds his logic in anything scientific it’s quite frustrating. In the interview with cosmic skeptic, Richard Dawkins and jp, he kept talking about dragons and the philosophical approach to understanding predation, imo it unnecessary and a large portion of his audience already struggle with deciphering fiction from reality hence most of them are religious. Like Dawkins say he is drunk on symbolism and his words sound smart and are delivered with eloquence but I cannot understand why anyone can take him seriously. He couldn’t even answer if he believe in Christ’s resurrection, a simple fact or non fact he avoiding the yes, no, idk responses and just spewed more words about abstraction. He’s quite frustrating to listen too, even if u understand everything he is saying.
He's sesquipedalian... I've been waiting a while to use that word. 😂
really makes me see why the church fathers had to dumb down religion for the peasants
3:20 don't miss that "depends on what you mean by literally" 😂.
Jordan is at it again, is a walking meme.
I heard that too and was like, "Just shut up Jordan."
@@vodkarage8227He hasn't learned that we unwashed peasants are on to him.
Hes a walking idiot
He meant that there a different kinds of truth and was wondering what truth he is talking about
@sebastianmccaughey9985 right, he likes to confuse people by claiming there are different kinds of truths.
There is only one truth, and that is dependent on reality, but we have different interpretations of that truth.
There is no "truth in a metaphysical manner" or "truth for me" or whatever he tries to say to confuse lay people into agree with him.
"Truth for me" is just your interpretation. There is already a word for that. Use that one.
"Metaphysical truth" is just his opinion, since is not based on anything testable, and is just an attempt of an explanation.
Literal means literal (unless is used with hyperbolic intent, wich is obviously not the case here).
Again, he is trying to make an equivocation fallacy and uses word-salad to avoid been caught, that is why he can't formulate a coherent and short statement about what he thinks that does not contradict other things he said before of after.
Jordan is definitely a bad tool
mostly he's just the wrong tool and all of his supporters keep insisting that he's this exotic Swiss army knife of knowledge and wisdom. Reality shows otherwise, he's a terrified little man that puts frozen wagyu beef in an air fryer until its well done. NOTHING ELSE EVER NEEDS TO BE SAID.
@SpencerDonahue Now that is blasphemy against the metaphysical substrate of the narrative grounding of the pre and post Neolithic unconscious.
🤣🤣🤣
@@SpencerDonahueThat's because he uses three big words in a row, and they can't understand him, so they just think that means he's smart because he's smarter than them.
= pseudo-intellectual
I can’t listen to Jordan Petersen. He is a pseudo intellectual using a word salad of fancy words to sound clever…
His leftist opponents are much worse. Easily bloodied. Harris is of a different caliber. They seem to respect each other.
totally, just no match for sam harris and he knows it but tries to doggie paddle forward anyway
Professor of psychology who taught at Harvard isnt a pseudo intellectual. You are just reciting what you heard.
Your ignorance of the terms used, only proves your ignorance...
I'm not a theist (believer of any religion) by any stretch, but this Sam harris guy kept changing the subject over and over in red herrings, moving goal posts, created strawman and resorted to all forms of logical fallacies....
If you truly learn the terms used and keep replaying his clip to understand why he used them for what Sam said and did... It will change your life..
Politicians and the media use these tricks all the time to fool you.. so by learning this stuff it helps to stop you being so easily manipulated
Sam Harris is light years ahead of Jordan Peterson
Because Sam is more honest
@infomercialguy Agree on on the honesty, in addition to being light years ahead intellectually....😁
"A bad tool is better than no tool"
And an imaginary tool is no use at all.
my dude, i agree with the imaginary tool thing, but if the imaginary tool forbids me from believing in 64 billion genders then it's a useful tool even though it's imaginary. w0keness is as crazy as religion.
Every tool was imagined before it was used.
@@gregorycarver1934that's not true at all. A tool can be be the result of accidentally discovering an alternate application for an existing object that served a different function.
@@gregorycarver1934 Until it is physically created, it isn't a tool it's an idea.
A "bad tool" is better than "no tool", but a "better tool" is preferable and more useful than a "bad tool". But to say that the "bad tool" is the "only tool", and that the use of the "better tool" or any other tool is grounds for death in an extremely painful way in the "here and now", which then leads for eternal pain and suffering in the "hereafter" is just bad tool use.
This world needs more Harris' and less Petersons
They are both Petersons. They were just on opposite sides of a debate
"Be precise in your speech" - Jordan Peterson 😂
Peterson is so out of his depth. I don't know why these folks have these discussions with him.
I don’t see why he would be out of his depth. These are perfectly reasonable objections or statements that he makes. Harris on those other hand wouldn’t let JP talk for more that 30 seconds.
Jordan has been a practicing clinical psychologist for decades and was a highly regarded professor at the University of Toronto. He’s an expert in totalitarian regimes and what they do to control people. He is more than qualified to debate Harris on the philosophies of the metaphysical. I side with Harris on this because I’m an atheist - but I also understand what Jordan is saying about humans and the need for meaning and purpose that a religion can give you.
@@jesperknutsson812 Over and over, Peterson asks a question, and then won't allow more than a couple of sentences of an answer before he starts talking.
@@mogznwaz I have to disagree. A lot of what Peterson says is simply not to the point. And he's forever going off on tangents and side issues that sound more like they came from the famous "Online BS generator" website.
Agree! Who gave him any intellectual authority?
Summary of Peterson's position: It's perfectly fine to lie to people in order to get them to do the "right" thing. I wish they would have followed that axiom to its conclusion.
Every time I hear Peterson speak I am reminded of a line in a Jane Austen novel - Northanger Abbey
"I cannot speak well enough to be unintelligible"
It reminds me that what Peterson is doing is seeking to hide the weakness of his arguments behind his education in the terminology of philosophy. This is why he does so well in debates with people who's level of education is much lower than his, but fails so badly when he comes across those who can see the crux of his arguments through his verbiage.
Really insightful point you've made here! Well said. 🧠🫵🏻
No, that's literally what Foucault, Derrida and Butler do. All the people Peterson criticizes. You don't seem to understand him.
@@TheJimLahey But scholars, equal to such verbiage, don't respect or credit Peterson while they do engage with those names.
JP still loving the sound of his own voice
I will never understand the people who need to be forced by a god to care about others. I do so automatically.
A bad tool can seriously fvck things up even if you know how to use it. So it would be better to wait for the correct tool.
exactly. "only a sith deals in absolutes."
And an imaginary tool is useless in the real world.
HITLER…prime example!
Yup, like imagine you had to extinguish a small fire. A cup of water might be useful. However, if you're dealing with a grease fire, adding water is the worst thing you can do. Better to not have water at all than make it worse.
I'm convinced JP literally cannot understand what Sam is saying 😂
That has to be the worst line of all time. “A bad tool is better than no tool” Tell me you’ve never actually used your hands to fix anything or used tools at all for that matter. A bad tool can put you in a way worse position than what your started with
I think what Jordan was getting at was a bad tool (a method of morality that isn’t peraphs as efficient as it could be) is better than deciding not to build anything at all, meaning no moral progress. So he saying look religion maybe isn’t the most efficient tool of morality but it has allowed us to make progress and that is better than none
But I understand your point and agree to some degree I think Jordan often likes to defend religion for some reason idk why he is so loyal to the idea
@@Bureauhometown1 I agree with that’s what he was trying to say I’m just pointing out that it’s a terrible analogy because any mechanic will tell you that there’s a ‘right tool for every job’ is the saying because a wrong tool will take you backwards not forwards
@@johnwalker6140 agreed bad tools are more than capable of causing more harm than good, Sam is proposing a better tool more suited for the job while Jordan is defending a bad tool and even admits it actually is a bad tool lol. Jordan definitely lost this segment.
@@Bureauhometown1 👆exactly
Religion also gives good people good reason to do bad things.
Yep. Cushion to facilitate bad things.
I’m at my limit at how many times I can listen to Jordan “depends on what you mean by” Peterson.
👍👍👍 Yes!
The accent alone is a deal breaker for taking him seriously
Why is it that I understand Sam Harris 100% and very little to what Jordan Peterson says with all his word salads that he uses I guess to sound more knowledgeabl?
Jp speaks in parables and that is life. The more you Don not understand its parables, you won't make it that far.
@@matheusndeutapo483that is the fallback every time and at a certain point it does not impress the intellectual conversation. Not saying theists will always lose in the debate, Stephen Meyers is a great creationist speaker and make more well rounded arguments. JP is at the point where he thinks his word have much more meaning than what they because of who he thinks he is, so when you separate his words from his character it’s literally word salad to confuse people.
Parables are a wonderful tool to to interpret people’s perception but at a certain point simple questions don’t need “40 hours to explain” like JP has quoted saying is need to explain Jesus’s resurrection… who’s buying that?
Welcome to the club! You are not the only one to doubt your own intelligence when listening to Jordan Peterson. The good news is: you regain your confidence when listening to Sam Harris. I bet many listeners would agree with me on that one!
Richard Dawkins has Peterson pegged right, he can waffle on and make you think that you’re dumb in not understanding him therefore he must be brilliant, but it’s bullshit !
It really is
When Sam speaks, I follow his logic, his examples, and I get a good sense of when he is landing the plane to make a point whether I agree or not. When Jordan Peterson speaks, the necessary gymnastics, it takes to constantly need to be proven right, with things that are not provable, the word salad ensues. Never heard someone say so many words, yet never come to a conclusion, and then pat himself on the back
I disagree that it is better to believe a lie than in nothing, everything should be based on evidence and reason
This is the real life equivalent to "if you'll look to your left you'll see two naked guys fighting over a can of paint."
Peterson is saying nothing. He just says things like "axiomatic singularity" or some shit to fool morons into thinking he's smart. Sam is saying "we don't need religion for morality." And Eric is restating everything with a veneer of pseudo-intellect to sound like some deep thinker
In another words: Sam is mildly autistic and naive about humans, Peterson is too smart for the masses.
Free Speech But Don’t Offend Me
Peterson is known as a defender of free speech, especially for controversial ideas. But the moment someone challenges his views on gender or calls out an inconsistency, he sometimes bristles, even framing his critics as hostile ideologues. Free speech for all? Only if they agree with him, apparently.😂
take a look at what it means to engage in free speech again, and what it would mean to oppose it
Absolutly right. He can't even let harris speak without interrupting him. He always seem to interrupt people.
Most of his "defender of free speech" reputation came from misinterpreting a basic expansion of human rights.
He went hysterical with absurd and excessive ideologically formed ideas about Bill c-16, and way too many people took his self-appointed "free speech warrior" status at face value.
This is why Jordan is good friends with his buddies, such as Elon Musk, Trump, etc.
@ the „human right“ to control everyone's speech is absurd, you need stoicism
The insanity of this is that it’s Brett and Jordan against Sam. And both clowns were easily destroyed by Sam
Sam hasn't destroyed anyone. The guy can't even discern the difference between faith and fact.
@ Really? To me both Jordan and Brett sound like fools.
its impossible to listen jordan petterson, what is he talking about? word salad nonsense
Word salad is his shtik.
JP is a fool's idea of a smart man
Too argumentative
He says so much to say absolutely nothing.
I want everyone to see this. It’s so obvious to me and I can’t understand how anyone pays attention to him, let alone follow him
Sam is so patient
I am a Christian, but I think Sam is clearly the more in intellectually honest here. Jordan constantly uses logical fallacies.
Like when Sam said he could have faith in 2+2=4, for example. Jordan attacked the example. Sam adroitly explained the example, but Euclidian math was never on the table.
Ironically, many of the JP fanatics also like Terrence Howard who looks to replace Euclidean math with something infinitly less useful.
4:12 "How do you distinguish a religion system from an a-priory perceptual structure?" Neeeeh Jordan, leave it. You know he is obfuscating right? (To use an equally unnecessary difficult word.)
How would one ask the question with 'simple' words?
@@VinylCP you can't because "How do you distinguish a religion system from an a-priory perceptual structure?"
IS NONSENSE, it doesn't tie together.
@@VinylCP even saying "perceptual structure" is utter nonsense.
@@VinylCP
peterson is arguing that the superhero idea only exists because we have an innate intuition of a higher order of morality and authority.
peterson isn't smart enough or honest enough to understand that the superhero (chosen one) idea comes from the incel types who are trying to leapfrog the more "accomplished" men, by imagining a more powerful alter ego.
the evidence of that is clear, all of the early superheros had a relatively lowly (incel) standing in their community.
Bruh... The concept of a perceptual structure is nonsense??? That statement undermines any epistemic authority you may have possessed. Your lack of comprehension does not inform your bs value claims, it just lets everybody know that you are most likely a sour, psychotic leftist @@Walker_8_8
The challenge for JP should be to put his ideas in simple plain English as Sam does.
Sam thinks he has it all figured out. Jordan is open to mystery. How does one describe mystery ? Not in simple enough terms for most of the commentors! 😅And neither is a theologian so they are treading thin ice. I have been disappointed in Peterson at times. The special irony is that Sam has relabeled Judeo-Christian morality as if he invented it. I call that “the vanity of the present.”
@@TheofficialQuackBarrel Mind chases a goal. Spiritually we have also created a goal. But there is nothing to achieve in that area. So yes, nobody is stopping Jordan from make titillating or exciting holly mythical goals and conclusions and then elaborating them, going into it, all this based on a foundation which is fictional and arbitrary.
Bad Jordy! If you keep making complicated nonsense statements, you will go blind and hair will grow on your knuckles! Now go to your room and don't come out until you can speak clearly and sensibly.
Oh, and Jordy, leave your door cracked open so I can make sure you aren't just doing it to yourself!
When I listen to Peterson I always think about the fairy "The Emperor's Clothes"
Jordan is highly intelligent but he seemed to pop up on youtube years ago for his talks about pro masculinity. You can detect his biases which will always stymie his ability to think more freely on any subject where his ego feels the need to defend his biases. In that sense, Sam doesn't have so many hang ups. He simply wants to look at truth, evidence, etc.
Pro-masculinity is sometimes pro-human wellbeing. 90% of psychologists under 30 are women. I do not agree with Jordan on many things but he has been a voice for failing young men. Title 10 worked for equal chances for higher education for women. Parity was reached! Good news. However I have not heard ONE women point out that the disparity is now worse against men than before Title 10. Women have shown themselves as not interested in human aspirations but interest in their tribe. Woman are 100% for their tribe. Men have advocated for women, but what woman speaks up with new disturbing tendencies with young men. Once women or any minority get parity, then it becomes revenge. I won’t complain. That is just how tribal we are as human beings. It women’s turn to slam men to the ground, and it starts by your little comment against his advocacy for men, casting aspersions on Jordan for doing so. Doesn’t he know that only women need advocacy and only women can be victims and suffer discrimination?
Harris is very persuasive. I'm surprised at the poor understanding of his two interlocutors.
I dont know why this video is titled like this, because it’s not clear at all that Sam wins in this argument. All I hear is that Sam is trying to say “we all know what is good, and what is bad” but he is not able to prove that. He thinks its just given, and Jordan tries to tell him that what he thinks is grounded in something deeper, that has developed over time. Sam even contradicts himself, because he says that there is consciousness and its content, meaning there is experience. But good and evil are both just concepts that we have conjured up. Therefore they are grounded in stories like the bible and many other things. Otherwise its just experience, and it just is, its not good or bad, it just is. Everything after that is human given meaning.
I shouldn't be surprised but Sam Harris is just manhandling him. 🤣 I think I could whip Jordan Peterson's ass in a religious debate at this point.
Why is Peterson afraid to hear what Harris has to say?
"Ohhh, i say big multisyllable words" - Jordan Peterson
The thing is: jordan peterson has ZERO direct experience of what he is trying to convince others to believe.
Peterson is a fool and does in no way deserve to be up there.
Got him😂
On the contrary. He needs to be exposed because too many people listen to his nonsense. If it helps those followers to "see the light" (sorry), it's a good thing.
Seems like the more exposed he gets, the larger his following gets. What a strange phenomenon.
3:39 - "Religion gives people bad reasons to be good when good reasons are available" - well said!
Jordan Peterson's ego is so attached to his ideas that he can't actually debate an idea, too threatening to him. Hard to believe anyone takes him seriously.
The more I look at these clips over the years, the more I realize how little Bret actually provides to the conversation.
Same. And this was before he went completely off the rails after covid
Yes and that is why I prefer him over D. Murray who for some reason seems to think he’s god’s gift to intellectual conversation
@@gking407 they're all bad...members of the intellectual dark web for good reason. Even Sam has issues but he's overwhelmingly the best of the bunch
He is a mediator on this debate, he's supposed to be quiet and only talk when things get derailed.
I think he's the only one that makes a compelling even damning case about the flaw in Sam's thinking. Being arbitrary leading to inconsistent values 😨
I am not a Jordan Peterson hater, but he is completely out of his depth here and Sam walked all over him.
As a firefighter, I can tell you we've had these very conversations on our watch. Most of us were there because we loved being surrounded by fire and smoke, the danger the rush , and it's beauty. Saving lives was just a part of it. Both important as each other but we didn't want fires with people to rescue, that is the last thing we wanted.. But a big a as fire to fight, yes please!
Reminds me of when I was doing my physics degree. In the faculty's bathroom, someone had written in felt tip above the toilet paper holder:
*_"PHILOSOPHY DEGREES, PLEASE TAKE ONE."_*
Now that’s a cheap shot. Philosophy is the back bone to thought, including science
@@divatalk9011nope, maybe 100 years ago, now we just check, and toss what doesn't work, no philosophy required.
@@larryscarr3897you're an absolute brainlet. The entire framework of empiricism is a PHILOSOPHICAL presupposition
@ALushPair nope just reality is real and we can know stuff about it, the rest is verified by testing.
But you'd say different cuz you paid alot for nothing.
@larryscarr3897
>Reality is real
Whoa bro, how much did you spend on that degree?
Empiricism is not an empirical claim. There's a free philosophy lesson for you, brainlet.
Jordan has been a practicing clinical psychologist for decades and was a highly regarded professor at the University of Toronto. He’s an expert in totalitarian regimes and what they do to control people. He is more than qualified to debate Harris on the philosophies of the metaphysical. I naturally side with Harris on this because I’m an atheist - but I also understand what Jordan is saying about humans and the need for meaning and purpose that a religion can give you.
“It depends on what you mean by literally”🙄 jfc i can’t even with this guy. If you’re reading this and you think Peterson is “smart”… congrats, you’re the mark.
I look forward to the day that intelligent thoughtful people no longer give Jordan Peterson a platform.
Jordan Peterson just basically argued that a religion centered around Batgirl would be essentially fine, and his reasoning is "the story conveys important things" is irrational. Millions of authors have done such simplistic things, are they all God under Peterson's thinking? Because those authors wrote those things, the stories don't write themselves, is he arguing that every poet and author is a Divinity? If so, how can he argue for any "truth" at all, other than the profound subjectivity of disparate authors and his own personal feeling of profundity at the moment of experience?
It would become all the more abhorrent if that religion gave rise to terrorists who mirrored villains in those comic books.
However, I don't think the literary achievement and cultural impact of the bible is subjective. It sounded to me more like he was arguing the archetypal similarities between heroes in different stories, as opposed to suggesting that all heroic protagonists are equal.
Talk about missing the point.
You do not understand mythology which is why you are sounding like an ignoramus. Go listen to Bill Moyers interviews with Joseph Campbell.
Pettersons only objective is to muddy the waters. He has no point.
Epicurus answered all of these questions 300 years before Jesus was invented.
I really don’t understand how this whole comment section is so conclusive to Jordan being in the wrong or having some kind of arrogance.
I think they where both very intellectual in their conversation but I also think Jordan knew exactly what he was talking about and actually dissected Sam’s points really well. And I assure you I am coming from a non-bias perspective as I was confident the video title would be accurate, but coming to watch it.. I’d say Jordan stuck to his guns and had a lot to show for it.
The title and comment section just feel like a place where Jordan Peterson haters can band together and assure each others opinions lol.
If you have a splinter in your finger and only an axe (better a bad tool than no tool) you're better to leave the splinter well alone!!!!
Why does Peterson have a laptop open? His usual talking points? His usual quotes and multi syllabic wording?
Harris opens with very strong evidence in favor of "is" over "ought" assertions.
We do not, in general, need to develop elaborate moral arguments for choosing one action over another because of some externally imposed "ought." Usually our instincts tell us which action to prefer. This is how our species has survived to this point.
Many of our instincts are not only evolved in favor of our personal survival but also to promote our survival as a group, because we are a SOCIAL SPECIES. And yes, these various instincts come into conflict sometimes, which is why as an INTELLIGENT social species we try to anticipate such conflicts and formulate a compromise solution wherever that may be possible.
But the very idea of an "ought" suggests an externally imposed code, not a product of introspection, but of a more absolute authoritarian order. There is no ground for "ought" otherwise.
Jordan does a very bad job of trying to help Sam understand this.
I’m a huge Sam Harris fan but it’s insane how biased this channel is against Peterson
Didn’t the guy in the center make up a lie about black students at a college forcing him to strike with them???
Never thought that i would consider Sam Harris the least insane in the room
@@5atoru Why?
Sam engages the audience with analogies. Jordan attaches labels to ideas. Analogies allows one to make a logical conclusion about a point in the debate based upon similarities to common situations. Agreeing with labels requires that one already shares the opinion that he labeler is conveying.
Sam is correct. You can program a child or the weak and ignorant minded adult to believe anything or to follow anyone by telling them what they want to hear. The Bible is correct. The "faithful Christians" are "sheep" needing a Shepard to tell them how to think and feel. If they need the "faith" crutch to get them through the day, then fine, but faith doesn't always equal fact.
Civilization need sheep. Our education system rolls them out. Office workers .I am one.
Without them civilization dies
At one point Jordan even says “It depends what you mean by literally.” 😂
This debate is like ancient confucius vs daoism, where confucius favor for rule and stuff, while daoism prefer naturalness of our being and common sense, an uncarved wood.
Religion gives bad reasons to be good where good reasons exist us a fantastic point
Jordan is so dishonest.
People’s religion is determined purely by the geographical area where they were born. And if travel never existed Christianity would have remained in the Middle East!
Jordan gets all wound up when his ridiculous arguments are so easily undercut by a simple analogy.
I’ve seen multiple times where Peterson gets incredibly petulant when someone is not blindly agreeing with him or contradicts him or disagrees with him. It’s incredibly childish behavior that further undercuts this little façade he plays about being a “rational intellectual“. I would have more respect for him if he actually lightened up and actually made a coherent argument instead of trying to play the role of “the smartest man in the room“ and coming off as a complete buffoon.
Can someone PLEASE buy Jordon a dictionary? Faith is literally defined by Webster as a confident belief in a truth , value , or trustworthiness of a person idea or thing. Secondly, belief not based on logical truth or evidence. It’s both
Depends on what you mean by dictionary.... (and then the games begin. I take your perfectly understandable point about JPs word games and refuse to engage with it directly while taking everyone on a ridiculous fun house ride through a carefully designed "look over there! It's another random detour into an act where I pretend to not understand your words clearly again".)
This is ridiculous,
Throughout recorded history
Religious institutions have stifled progress that resulted in a more civil society,
It’s a matter of fact.
True on some accounts. However, Western Civilization and the human rights that it has advanced.....could not have happened under any other system than the Judeo-Christian philosophy, even if you dismiss its supernatural claims.
@ not the philosophy,
The fact that cults are organized and helped people in power maintain it through submission.
Americans providing their slaves with slave bibles is a great example.
Which was historically yesterday
They killed waaaaay more children and and wasted waaaay more time than necessary to get to this point
And have been vehemently fighting the the progress we are talking about,
Right up until the last election.
You must have a comfy life,
To
Not be able to see how
Messed up things still are,
Because of them.
Just the concept of theistic thinking alone is a threat to what little we’ve achieved.
Regardless of the philosophy.
But again throughout all recorded history,
Progress occured in spite of intense opposition from theists,
Christianity is a philosophy of ***ocide
And slavery,
A to B
@ also no,
True on all counts,
The church has tried to stand in the way of all progress,
And only ever caved when there was no chance of regressing us.
Those witches were real problem back then. Good for us they handled them properly.
@@jeremytee2919No one is claiming that The Judeo Christian system didn't have it's dark periods. Of course it did. But, the "Enlightenment Period" (ironically) could never have happened under any other system.
There was no “burn”
Peterson courageously resisted Bill C-16. Eternal gratitude. But this religious nonsense of his is laughable. You agree, right?
I like him. But his religious nonsense is tiresome.
Definitely agree
no, i dont. have you really tried listening to his Genesis series? its free here on yt.
100%. He's a smart man, smarter than any of us. But a very dumb person in good faith can see he is obviously grifting towards the right, which is largely an extension of christianity. That's why he never wants to give a straight answer, because he doesn't want to upset his core fanbase.
He lied about the bill to grift the gullible, the religious bs he spouts is more of the same
It's good to see that the newest comments are better balanced than the ones that rose to the top
Peterson tries so hard to argue/debate, but he strains so much to even be on the same stage. He is far less intelligent than he wants to admit and has zero business on the stage.
You’re just envious that you’re not anywhere near the intelligence of any of these men on stage how can you understand what they’re saying when you couldn’t even begin.
@@pascualmunoz55okay Jordan if you say so.......
@ ROFLMAO. Peterson is a jerk and not smart. Sam Harris is flat out brilliant
He uses his immense vocabulary to confuse and to avoid actually answering a question. If you really listen to what he is saying it is in fact nonsense
@@pascualmunoz55 are you going to adjust the criticism or is this whole “you’re just jealous!“ basically the crux of your argument? Because I hate to break this to you… You haven’t really disproven that Peterson is clearly out of his depth.
3:39 "Religion gives people bad reasons to be good, where good reasons are available."
Jordan acts like a parent actually could rescue their child from a fire. The unbelievable heat make it impossible. As much as we'd like to pretend we could walk through fire we can't.
Jordan doesn't believe in the Christian story in the way that Christians do, but he values its fundamental tennants to the point of feigning belief to the public. I can only assume it's because he thinks the general public is too stupid to come to the Christian conclusion on ethics from a secular viewpoint, so if it takes them believeing in a fairy tale to come to the correct answer so be it. Super condescending.
Peterson says a whole lot of nothing! He’s insufferable!
Sam burns JP on absolutely everything lol
Sam is trying to replace Judeo-Christian ethics and say life is perfectly liveable without them. And that’s the issue. His framework and entire existence is based on the task of using and replacing the very thing he’s trying to dismantle. And atheism will always have that ultimate problem - it only exists as a reaction - it needs the original ethos to then cancel it out with its atheistic equivalent. ‘You do Christmas - we do x’.
No. We don't do X because you do Christmas, we do X because we want to do X. This boogie perspective of yours comes from an assumption that we all seek the sky daddy you do. We don't. Also Atheism is a reaction to what? It's merely a rejection of a weak claim. We believe in different dogmas apart from that. One might be a pacifist or one can be all for revenge.
@ - perfectly fine for you to claim that - but atheism as a movement / ideology / structure only exists as a counter to Christianity. Voltaire and the other ‘founding fathers’ let’s say were clear about the idea that they could do better - better than what? Christianity is the foundation of atheism.
@francoannan no tf it doesn't. Christianity is not even the first religion and Voltaire is not the founding father of Atheism. Atheism started when the first man rejected the first claim made about existence of a God and that happened way before Christianity was even remotely close to humanity, unless you're a Bible thumping christian who believes the world was formed 6000 years ago, you should have already known this.
Sam wants to ascribe his moral beliefs to everyone. Sam is naive. He doesnt understand all the problems with his views.
These debates is one of the best trilogy ever.
Stop wasting everyone's time letting Jordan Peterson run his mouth!!
JP is the most pretentiously annoying person to listen to.
The people the accept the stuff that he says, don't understand what he says. They just want a smart sounding voice that believes what they do as some kind of vindication for that belief
Peterson's lounge lizard posture is so affected he gives me the creeps. Something very wrong with him.
Pangburn loves Jordan Peterson, period.
Sam seems so much more sincere than Jordan. It always feels like Jordan is asking questions as playing devils advocate for the sake of playing devils advocate.
Sam has great clarity of the concepts discussed here, while Jordan prefers fairy tales over reality and logical analysis
How is a conversation on morality honestly being conducted without talk of Plato. This is an incredibly dishonest debate.
It's looking like Peterson is slowly going of the rails..
I'm an athiest but listening to Harris makes me think about converting every single time.
This was an interesting discussion, but the only edge I see for Sam Harris in this clip is, he did most of the talking. I think it can be accurately said, all stable and long lasting civilizations known to have existed, had a religious substrate as an organizing principle.
I would also argue that all civilizations have a religious substrate regardless of if they are consciously aware of it.
That underlying religion is not necessarily a defined and knowable religion either, but it does exist at the heart of the people.
I like Sam and he is a great orator, but I understand Peterson’s perspective more than most in the comments appear to.
It’s always difficult to take matters of spirit and faith into debate. Which is a space heavily biased towards logic and things checkable in the material world.
exactly. Sam insists good and bad are obvious which would always get the vote of anyone so sure of themselves, but even Sam can’t avoid pulling reasons from somewhere, to which Jordan repeatedly demands the identification of his sources… To which Sam insists none are necessary other than facts but fails to remain in the realm of facts. The instinct of a killer would be to kill, so instincts are not enough. Not to mention god being instinctive to many also.
Two problems with values coming from religious faith:
1. The expectation that staying on the good side of God will keep bad from happening to us will be challenged by reality at any time. People tend to drop many of the good they do at such times
2. After a while the faith or deity becomes really much more important than the virtues themselves to such an extent that bad actions that can be justified as being for the faith become good - like sacrificing one's child to appease the deity.