DOUGLAS MURRAY & MATT DIALLAHUNTY DIAGNOSE JORDAN PETERSON
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 มี.ค. 2024
- #douglasmurray #mattdillahunty #jordanpeterson #jordanpetersondaily #jordanpetersondebate #atheism #atheist #atheistviews #god #christianity #islam #exmuslim #exmuslimlive #exmuslim #douglasmurray #immigration #politics #islam #immigration #freespeech #islamaphobia #atheist #exmuslimlive #exmuslimsameer #muslim #muslims #israel #israelpalestineconflict #quran #hamas #hamasvsisrael #refuge #muhammad #muhammadﷺ #quran #quranrecitation #christianity #jesus #bible #hamas #hamasvsisrael #jordanpeterson #samharris
Full discussion here: • CAN ISLAM SAFELY COEXI...
Welcome to the Pangburn Universe, governed by the laws of good faith & helpfulness.
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | ครอบครัวสะท้านทุ่ง "นางบี & อ้ายสติ๊ก"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A1rhYcxxNtA/mqdefault.jpg)
If you enjoyed this clip, please drop a like on the video and consider subscribing.
Full discussion here: th-cam.com/video/uCny7t5NrCg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=6vwX6Nz1q1DwRdvh
RIP Hitch 😊 I wish he were around to help make sense of this mess.
JP doesn't really believe in God or life after death but he thinks us plebs NEED to.
Yep, his pride and arrogance is actually astonishing
Which is downright arrogant of him.
You've misunderstood him, I think. He's arrived at the conclusion that while God may not exist, living AS IF God does might make life better in every way.
@xyaeiounn get that but why not say 'live life like a god exists, we would all be better off' which is probably correct rather than give creedence to embarrassing ideas.
@@flynnmartschinke5189 I like him but find that aspect insulting.
What do we do without religion? Voltaire already answered this centuries ago: "We cultivate our gardens." Do it, and you'll find great happiness.
But while you are tending to the garden, others come out and tell you that this is the wrong garden, or you are watering the wrong way.
@@HH-ru4bjHa! Soo true!
@@HH-ru4bj
My garden is healthy enough to understand that ivy on my trees isn't helpful for growth.
What about City people?
I like to keep my garden free of weeds and poison ivy.
Peterson claims that Atheists actually believe in God if they are “good” people. But, how does he explain Christians who ignore Christ’s teaching and use religion for profit and power over others? Are they “good” people when they oppress others while taking their money in the name of God? If not, are they the actual Atheists because they have no fear of celestial accountability.
Peterson can win any debate if you allow him to define all terms used in said debate
Christians believe all men believe in God, But some refuse to honor Him as God.
Peterson echos this, and seems guilty of this.
He can claim whatever he likes it doesn't make it true.
I'm sure he'll have a very vague definition of what good is, and it will be amorphous enough so he can change it on the fly to fit whatever claim he is currently making.
For this assertion of his to be accurate he would need a strict definition of good and non-good, then do a double blind survey of atheists.
On top of this, he has to have an accurate objective method of determining if some atheist has a belief in a deity or not, as by implication he's suggesting that you can think you don't have a belief in a deity but actually hold one.
By the way, the moment they find an atheist with a belief in a deity, that isn't an atheist by definition.
He is in effect saying all good people are theists, as only bad people can be atheists.
I'm pretty sure the moment he gets specific enough in the definition of good, he will find we don't agree with his definition of what good is.
In a universe where deities exist, the definition of good can be different to a universe where they don't exist. It depends on who you think some activity should be good for, as to how you evaluate what good is.
@@d4024 yes, calling a non-believer a believer in disguise is a non-sequitur because it destroys the utility of the word. Define the words however you want and it’s pretty easy to win an argument…believers live by this at the expense of (ironically) missing encounters with truth
Just getting Peterson to admit his belief in God is a waste of time. He claims he needs four hours to explain his "true" position on the subject. I mean c'mon... if that's not a means to obfuscate the truth and avoid clarity, I don't know what is.
Jordan's shitck once he gained a platform and sizable audience was to do what all good preachers do. Make a lot of money explaining religion to other people, like you know more than anyone around. That's a career move that'll keep you working for life. He doesn't want to kill the golden goose by declaring God is dead. Why do that when you can sell millions of books and lecture tickets spewing on and on about Bible verses and how they apply to our daily lives.? It's all just connecting the dots and word salad in the end.
Unlike Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, Peterson creates this verbal ecosystem to build up links using Bible stories and pretends to make sense of what is essentially nonsense. He could have done the same shit with Zeus and Thor, but no one takes those Gods seriously anymore, so he took up the banner of Christianity instead.
Personally, I hate him for that. Even his body language and facial expressions are all geared towards trying to add gravitas to whatever brain farts he's drumming up that day. I wish he would just have stuck to his lane.
End words of Matt, spot on!
Simple.
To the point.
Easy to understand.
It's rare and wonderful to hear profound thoughts coming from someone sitting across from Mr. Dillahunty. He too often shares the stage with clowns. As an atheist who sat through decades of Episcopal and Catholic services (as an employee), I miss the sense of communal purpose when it comes to major events involving grief or celebration - weddings, funerals, national traumas. I agree that we can and should replace these with secular communities, but so far we mostly have not, and that is a loss.
Jordan Peterson’s problem in a nutshell is Jung.
“The universe doesn’t care about us, we have to care about us.”
This to me is an example of something Peterson would critique. There are presuppositions built in that go unquestioned. Why should we care? Who is ‘us’? My family? All humans past, present, and future?
Jordan Peterson thinks that pressing people to define every single word and posturing thoughtfulness is the same thing as high-level debate. In reality, he's slowing down opponents to provide himself more time. He wants to appear intelligent while evading all substance and genuine depth. He wants his semantic avoidance of actual debate to come across like he's this transcendent master of debate. In reality, all he's doing is forming a gish gallop in reverse.
Unfortunately, stupid people mistake this con artist as an intellectual.
His long-winded and winding arguments also are meant to keep his opponents off-balance. They spend they energy attempting to unpack what he's talking about which leaves them little resources to formulate their most optimal response.
@@andykidd99 U-h-h! Well said!!
Depends what you mean by depth
@@creyag981 Well that all depends on what you mean by depends sir
Even if Murray is right about a gap, he neglects to acknowledge that Peterson is trying to fill it with bullshit. Not to mention that Peterson is as guilty as, or guiltier than, all the deconstructionists that Murray refers to, of robbing language and concepts and ideas of meaning (as Dillahuntly correctly and succintly observes). It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that in his coded way, Murray is here a (partial) apologist for Peterson, despite differences in their thinking, because Murray sees Peterson as a useful ally on certain issues of substance or approach in the so-called culture wars (in particular alleged cancel culture, other alleged threats to freedom speech, and certain issues relating to gender and gender identity).
I don't really know what this gap is or how that would be filled by religion. We can have fears, doubts, lack of meaning, religious and reasonable people alike😏, is that the "gap" you're talking about? 🤷🏻♂️ As I said in another comment, it seems that Peterson has the power of making the discourse more petersonesque just by talking about him😬
@@nefaristo well it was Murray who spoke of a "gap". You'd have to ask him what he meant by it. If his choice of word or concept was unclear, that doesn't undermine my point. EDIT: on rewatching I see that Murray uses the word "vacuum", and that it's Dillahunty in his response who uses the words "vacuum" and "gap" interchangeably to describe what Murray was talking about (without objection from Murray). So yes, ask Murray.
Matt Diallahunty's remark that "religion poisons you and then offers a cure", is spot on.
No. That's dumb. Everyone is poisoned already.
Did he twist it to something like: “religion convinces you you’re poisoned and offers you a homeopathic cure”
It’s brilliant
No, religion tells us how we are already poisoned and gives us a path to redemption
Jp like many modern shills says simple and obvious platitudes that suck ppl into thinking that he is intelligent, then he goes off the deep end with his real thoughts.
I don't understand why an atheist should feel concerned or threatened by other ideas. If you're an atheist and feel threatened, than maybe you did not asnswered all of your questiones that reinforce your belief. I'm atheist myself and have some disagrements with what JP says. But I do belief that that his opiniom should be heard. Especially if it creates further thinking within the induvidual.
Atheism is the lack of belief, it isn't a belief in itself.
Theism = belief in a god or gods.
Atheism = a lack of belief in a god or gods.
Gnosticism = knowledge of a god or gods.
Agnosticism = a lack of knowledge of a god or gods.
Bhuddists are atheists too, there are many religions without a god claim in them.
Rational skepticism is a closer to adequate label for what I guess you are attempting to describe.
I'm more than happy to listen to Peterson; it's just that I never understand what he's saying. He's a horrible communicator, in my opinion. He may be on to something, but good luck figuring out what that something is.
I agree that JP has a right to be heard. I also agree with Matt here that JP gets in the way of open and honest discussions with his compulsive obfuscation.
@@johnprentice1527 He intentionally does that to sound far more profound than he really is. He's obviously a smart guy and has some good points, but there's a reason that most of the clips and videos on TH-cam featuring his 'victories' are against students half his age.
They most likely wouldn't, and they shouldn't, if the religious types kept it to themselves and didn't seek to force others to abide by their doctrines.
Hearing opinions is a good thing. Confronting religious doctrine forced upon non-believers by way of legislation is a a good thing too. So is a frank examination of religious ideas and doctrine.
I can't with these thumbnails 😂
Well said, Douglas ! Human nature is unfathomable.
Matt says no one cares about you so you have to care for yourself is narcissism. Matters of heart and head must be met with both heart and head.
Amy discussion with JP:
1. I've studied psychology for many years (regardless of topic)
2. What exactly do you mean by.....
3. I've thought about this a lot and decided I am right.
4. I don't have a clear concise answer, so here is a 10 minute waffle about Dostoyevsky that has nothing to do with this discussion but sounds impressive.
The claim 'there is a vacuum' is simply a new placeholder for 'there is a god.'
Convincing you that there is a problem, and then handing you a faulty solution.
The 'problem' is that people can't accept that there is no problem, accept that there is no problem and there's no problem!
... so how does one explain Consciousness, much less Free Will, within Physics as Physics is presently understood?
Larkin's poem Church Going explains well the idea of a kind of need, other than religion per se. It's worth reading.
Jordan who suffers from wordicus saladosis is incapable of answering a simple question with a simple answer.
I never cease to be amazed by his meaningless verbosity.
Fillabustry oh fillabustry, Mr Jordan fillabustry.
He does when people ask simple questions. But people don't tend to ask him simple questions when they sit down and record a conversation with him.
@@raberto118 do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead is a straight forward yes or no question.
He can't answer the question " Do you believe in God", with a simple yes or no.
God bless your little hearts, boys.
Simple truth is, death, the end of existence, is something most people can't really deal with in a healthy way. Religion helps them cope. Without religion, we need to come up with traditions that will comfort people about their own deaths, and that bring people together. That is hard to do because at an atheist, it is all voluntary. For religious people, you HAVE to go to church, it's an obligation, and failure is an eternity in hell; so these people are very motivated to join a group.
Death and the end of existence is something weak people can’t deal with. Maybe they need to grow up.
@@MikaelLewisify It doesn't matter if they are weak or not, it is the reality of our society. Also, even the strongest people in the world do not want to die and cry from pain when someone they love dies.
@vodkarage8227 True that. Terror Management Theory shows how we are ill equipped to deal with death. We recognize we will die and have a drive to survive which brews in us a host of unconscious and coping behaviors we think we do willingly, according to TMT of course. Check out Ernest Becker or Sheldon Solomon. Ernest Becker originated TMT and Solomon fleshed out the details in his book, I have “worm at the core” and “Denial of death.”
@MikaelLewisify We are here to have a good time my dude. Stoic and Atheist or not I think we can all recognize death is a serious bummer and major source of unhappiness. Our own deaths, loved ones, and others are all particularly troubling times for a lot of people. If you don’t believe me check out Terror Management Theory. I’ve posted some books and people to check out in my response to the original post of this thread. But in the meantime, we all waiting for death to come knocking and we don’t got time but for good times.
@@vodkarage8227 I don’t want to die, but I don’t fear death. I just accept is as a natural part of life. I can’t change that I will die, so why fear what I cannot change? I just make the best of the time I have.
A great conversation
Peterson Mental Unclarity is so powerful that two usually clear persons seem slightly less sharp than usual here just because they are talking _about_ him🤯😅.
I find it ironic the man that lectures people so superciliously about getting their lives together is so emotionally labile he regularly melts down into crying jags over seemingly nothing. In public. When grown men do that regularly, you have to question their emotional stability.
Crying should be fine out of compassion. Just not out of incompetent hopelessness to figure a way out of difficulty.
You can cry about a death from starvation. you just shouldn't cry Instead of plowing the fields. Emotions should be fine as long as they don't hinder solving the situation
I've barely seen a clip of his where he doesn't break down crying. It's getting old.
@@spongybone4071 That's because you're exclusively watching clips from during his benzo-recovery arc, circa 2019.
From 2023 onwards Peterson is in his pscyh-revival arc, and never cries. Psych-revival, along with his pre-fame arc (ending 2016) are his best arcs.
Not to mention his raging benzo addiction and the way he hypocritically plays victim about his health.
It's the hypocrisy that gets me.
Jp's problem could very well be that he won't quite commit. Maybe a Committed atheist is more appealing than an uncommitted believer.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
As far as I can tell theists generally want to have their belief and reason too. If they get to the point that they don't care whether their position can reasonably be held, they are fanatics.
So anyone who puts up a quasi-intelliectual position which purports to support the idea of an actual deity and/or that belief itself is worthwhile is helping believers believe regardless of reason.
It's a step away from reality which is the only accountability imagination can be bound with.
I lost a little respect for Dill pickle, people think that their doing something pointing their finger at problems or past systems and saying what is wrong with them. We have enough of that. Jordan is actually inspiring people to strengthen themselves and their families and the community and so on.
He puts forth the proposition that if you don't lie that is an adventure in itself.
He does more than shake his fist at everything he doesn't agree with, he shows a way to live your life, one that I agree with.
He finds meaning in the biblical texts and shares that with the world, whats wrong with that?
Every sane person has something they believe in, whether its a higher power or doing good in the here and now and leaving a legacy to the next generation
I ask you this where does "good" come from? It derives from the word god meaning to do good is to aim at whats holy.
Also where does our opinions of right and wrong come from? From religion so for the people saying all that should be thrown away you don't even know what ur saying.
Who does more good for the world Jordan or Dill pickle? The man who sits and tells his opinions on whats wrong with things or the man that tries teaching whats right. The man that inspires nobody or the man that inspires many. The man that doesn't care or that man who does
Jordan Peterson's classroom lectures on TH-cam are very interesting, and so are his discussions about psychological issues in society, but his views on the bible are a pure invention of his own ideas about archetypes, and he tends to ignore the plain reading of any biblical text, and tends to redefine specific words / verses into metaphors of his own making that are simply not supported by the biblical texts themselves.
If you want to understand why that's a problem, then the TH-cam channels of Dan McClellan (a biblical scholar, who is fluent in biblical Hebrew and New Testament Greek) will be insightful.
Jordan Dunning Kruger Peterson
He tries.
I really like what Douglas Murray said here. Interesting stuff. I definitely keen to hear more of what he has to say.
@eatdrinkwineguy I’ve never heard of Douglas Murray but he basically parroted Friedrich Nietzsche. That religion filled a cultural significance and without it, many people would face nihilism if an alternative was not substituted. If you haven’t read Friedrich, you might like Friedrich! He does though believe that there should be no place in society for religion specifically Christianity. He even goes so far as to call himself the antichrist and wrote a book called the antichrist.
@@danielmcdermott3558We know about Nietzsche. But what Murray is saying in support of Peterson is that he is trying to help people fill the nihilistic cultural gap due to the death of God. I like Murray's comments. The problem is that Peterson reintroduces the purely mythical basis of religion to help people find meaning. But Peterson will not acknowledge that myth is different from traditional religious beliefs based on presumed facts, such as miracles, God becoming a man and so forth. This is the frustration that Sam Harris has with Peterson, I think.
Murray merely posing as a weak apologist for poisoned word salad sophistry.
Love Douglas Murray💖✨💫
Wow, he sounded exactly like Peterson 🙃
This is one of the areas that I disagree with Douglas Murray. I don't think there's a void leftover when religion is taken away. I think religion inserted itself into reality and squished everything to the side or claimed/usurped things were there before religion (like morality). Religion isn't forming a void as it leaves, it's just reality realigning itself to its default state.
What morality existed before religion: slavery, murder, rape, pillaging - in a word, "force"?
@@nateypecks All of those you mentioned are also in the bible and, I daresay, you're even forced to do by God.
Within family units, these things were most likely frowned upon. Pillaging other tribes or taking other tribe's women or fighting over territory were probably common. We evolved to expect reciprocity in small tribal units and from nearby kin.
But most of our morality and ethics comes from civil and ethical philosophy.
@@chocopuddingcup83 small tribes, huh? So, no cities, no universities, no public schools, no States. Cool! You first.
@@nateypecks Huh? Do you honestly think we spawned out of nowhere two hundred thousand years ago and instantly had giant cities, universities, and billions of people? Are you really that dense?
No. We evolved to have small family units. We've outgrown that, now, so our ethics and morality had to change. Thus we now have moral and ethical philosophy.
@@nateypecksAll of it, religion only hijacked morality and pretended they invented it
It seems like Peterson is not as active as a debater anymore. Has anyone else noticed that?
He literally had a debate on his TH-cam channel a week ago…most of his debates in the early days were journalists trying to do hit pieces on him. That’s obviously stopped
Even though there is no provable God, to make this word into anything one wants it to be is dishonest and insulting.
Why would a Hindu say that? Oh that’s right, due to their history of being unable to colonize other areas after they let/forced their secular empires to collapse.
Douglas Murray was channeling his inner Petetson with that obfuscation of a monolog.
You can just feel emotions without looking for answers.
(1) Could. I agree. But (2) after a while . . . will that be enough ??????
I just wanna feeeeeeelll real love
Is that your answer?
I just wanna feeeeeeelll real love!
@@WhoThisMonkey just become a believer. And when you see her face . . . you'll know it's not a fairy tale meant for someone else but not for you.
If you don't like Jordan B. Peterson, but do find these themes about meaning important, I highly recommend John Vervaeke's "Awakening from the Meaning Crisis" series.
Let go of your beliefs. Let go of your ego. Your desire for things is the cause of your suffering, just be here now. Easily said but takes a lifetime to achieve…
Everyone watch Matt destroy Jordan in their talk. Ended Jordan's credibility.
Peterson isn't very bright. It's word salad that impresses those without a good education.
Can you define "credibility"? It could mean a mammoth of different things.......
Not quite, He has millions of suscribers, has sold millions of books and is again going on world speaking tour that will sell out everywhere. Only to atheists like yourself has his credibility been hurt. Not everyone is an online atheist
@@N7_Jediwell I mean it all depends on what you mean by define.
@@brynawaldman5790😂 You don't believe that or you're genuine stupid 🤷
The question is from an atheist who is disturbed that others have different views. That's an unhealthy, solipsistic perspective. Speculative thinking is central to scepticism. Matt may claim to be a sceptic, but he too risks adopting the position of a conformist by overusing the "categorisation" of an idea as invalid rather than "indeterminate". Agree more with Douglas on this one.
It isn't just a matter of differing viewpoints.
One side has views that are well grounded, thought out and substantiated with objective verifiable evidence.
While the other is, 'this seems so, so let's assume it is.'
If one side of a debate is able to present proof, and one side is not, which side would you go with?
Good job the legal system is 100% non-religious, isn't it?
This isn't about bigotry, this is about quality and merits of the argument.
Cold hard facts Vs squiffy stories and dodgy historical accuracy
@@M8d9R You enjoy tolerance and freedom of faith. As should others who support that freedom
I think you should listen again to what Matt said. He seems perfectly willing to speculate, but there has to be some sort of coherence to the idea to facilitate that speculation. Peterson's ideas are incoherent and need clarification that he runs away from time and time again.
Your first lie is pretending to know what other people are thinking and then commenting on those “thoughts” which is, in reality, just your opinion. Your utilization of strawman fallacies, thats unhealthy and deceitful.
I like Jordan but sometimes he appears as much lost as those he fills this gap they're looking to bridge.
He asked if they felt peterson was a threat to the sceptic movement. Well thats a very telling stayement of how they feel what scepticism should be, and how one should behave as a movement. Its inherently adversarial where theres no cause for it to be.
I think the threat would be to legitimacy. Wordy word salad isn't convincing anybody that you have insight. If you understood something completely. You should be able to explain it so others can too. Not noisebomb them into silently thinking " never mind"
@@DennisNeijmeijer but why should scepticism be a movement in the first place? It has its moments between 2008-10, but some where after it was treated as a cool kids club, and the attitude persists with some. If Dr. Wordy salad is a threat to that in some way, maybe that's a good thing.
I'm an artist, I have know many Artist of many stripes over the years, and I guarentee that the Artists that created this amazing Western culture that Peterson fawns over, absolutely, definitely didn't tidy their f*cking rooms!
All o this was almost as vague as as Peterson!
It brings me such joy seeing how washed up pangburn truly is. Gained success on the backs of greater minds, then after his fall is desperately trying to reclaim any crumb of that success by click baiting those very same names.
Both, particularly Murray, were very soft on the religious mess of Jordan Peterson because of his contributions on other fronts. Sam Harris has a better grasp (or he’s more blunt) on the nonsensical and avoidance aspects of Jordan’s concept of god.
What? Trying? What did you see or watch that led you to do that understanding? What did he say or do
@@jasonnikiforuk8592 I don’t understand your question about “trying”. What do you mean? Who is the subject “he” in your last question, Murray, Harris or Peterson? Sorry.
This is Murray attempting to cover up his bigotry and intolerance by pretending he is a profound thinker on the topic of religion, to which he means only Christianity. However his religion has taught him the joys of bigotry and intolerance. Quite ironic.
Very interesting . . . and " good." Good is interesting . . . if you can (1) Define it. And if you can (2) Find it.
That's a simple but very thoughtful comment.
@@heikki2057 thank you.
Trying to define god is like trying to define every individual worldview. Hence the word salade.
Language, according to the philosopher David Hume and others can only explain things humans have had experience of. This is why as Xenophon’s explained in 570 b.c.e. a horse would give their god horselike features. So we do anthropomorphize god nowadays.
Many contemporaneous humans recognize the artificiality and naiveté of the religious "magical thinking" we have inherited from our ancient forefathers. The benign aspects of those teachings are readily apparent and universal. But there are many, many aspects of those teachings that to not resonate in the contemporary world. We have evolved past those hypocritical mindsets. We have matured. Our belief systems have not.
Your argument is based on an assumption that our morals are based on rationality. To me, any goal we are trying to achieve is chosen arbitrarily. For example, in Christianity the goal in simple terms is something like "treat everyone with respect and in a way as if they have intrinsic value in them regardless of how they fare in this world. Do not try to coerce or manipulate them to your will". This goal is not based on rationality but rather in a belief that behaving this way leads to good, whatever "good" is supposed to mean. Our western societies have evolved from this principle and if we don't value it as a sacred fundamental principle, we lose everything that has evolved from it.
I fear we are living in a tree whose roots are dying.
The best Jordan Peterson can do for the longing for deeper meaning is merely alluding to it without providing any real answers nor depth of thought. He delays the conversation by repeatedly casting doubt on simple definitions to make himself appear inquisitive without actual substance, while filling time with regressive monologuing.
It seems that a disturbing number of people are satisfied with unsubstantial speculation and pointing to dogma, simply spending time on the subject, which is a nebulous consolation for the fear of the unknown, that gap in human longing for the source of existence, and that's what this snake oil salesman takes advantage of, he's a charlatan selling nostrums.
Or JBP is more open-minded than you are and you can't see that because your eyes are shut.
@@nateypecks or you can formulate your own thoughts and ideas instead of adopting Master Peterson.
@@chamicels sure, or I can listen with an open mind to the collective wisdom of millenia as culminated in the somewhat rambling manner of JBP and learn from the mistakes of others, rather than being doomed to repeat them.
@@nateypecks pick up a book
@@nateypecks Jorpy consistently fails to bring anything new to the table, quite the opposite, he employs bad faith tactics to stall conversations with logical fallacies and circular arguments leading back to dogma.
He jumps on tangents with cursory knowledge anyone can learn with a few minutes on google, and even then he makes mistakes, confidently, a common habit among narcissists. When he backs himself into a corner, he just says a given subject is too complicated to fathom, a tactic to denigrate any answer he hasn't come up with, and when someone far more intelligent, like Matt Dillahunty or Sam Harris, answers the question concisely, he complains about their brevity.
Over the years, I've watched Peterson prove time and time again that his thinking is muddled and superficial. He seems smart bc he spends time convoluting the definitions of words, usually skewing them to suit his bias, and listeners who don't take a moment to assess his messaging think he's making sense but they're just re-learning words they already know, repackaged to nudge towards right wing conservatism. That's his goal as a grifter.
JP is incoherent when talking about religion. He speaks so much gibberish that any one can form their own meaning of his religious gibberish. Hence all kinds of Christians think he is their hero, but when you pin him on something that is central to Christian believe like, does he believe Jesus rose from the dead he claims it'd take him like "100 years" to answer that, which you'd expect a simple yes from an actual Christian, not a metaphorical one.
Hey Matt, how about putting your foot down so that your pointy shoe isn't in Douglas's face. It looks bad. And arrogant.
There are perhaps two things that religion provides that people find attractive. 1) Ritual. Confucius wrote at length about social harmony and the need for ritual and routine for getting along with others. A funeral is just such a ritual. Holidays are another ritual. Saying "god bless you" when someone sneezes is a ritual. These rituals can morph over time, and in fact most Christian holidays were appropriated from Pagan holidays. 2) Community. Religion can develop a sense of community and belonging, but again, these communities can morph and adapt so that they don't depend on conforming to obsolete dogma. Psychologists remind us that we are social beings and our relationships with others are perhaps the greatest influence on our happiness. There are some essential elements of human happiness that have been woven into Christianity, but I do not think that these are immutable, and that they will be replaced organically as people reject religious dogma, which is harmful.
I always find this calm and collected douglas murray very shocking. Everywhere else he's exactly the opposite. Thats why i think he's very much a chameleon who changes with his audience.
JP - a pant load of the first order.
Jordan is great and then religion comes up, the likability bias pops up, and his great brain shuts down.
I also thought that until I really listened to the 4th debate he had with Douglas Murray and Sam Harris. His great brain is working fine he just didn't articulate himself well enough for a time.
Peterson should just stay out of philosophy. As a chemist and philosophy major I don’t claim to be an authority on biology or sociology. Socrates said Justice was only speaking on issues one is an expert on. Yet Jordan Peterson talks out his butt about everything he isn’t specialized in, but more disappointing is his inability to refer to experts in their fields when talking outside of his expertise.
Peterson is actually atheist, he just redefines words and speaks in a confusing way to give the impression that everyone is christian in an effort to keep it culturally relevant. He's terrified of what might happen if it disappears completely.
How do we know Truth? This is in part from an article about the evolution of that idea from within liberal religions starting in the early 1800s. There are, in my view, 4 legs to a table that if balanced, go a long way to Truth, including moral truths.
One is Science and reason.
One is History (the U. S. founding fathers were predominantly men who studied history in a new way; to learn what works and what does not - the historic evidence of how monarchies (don't) work for esample.
One is our personal experiences. The way being excluded from participation in a society and the harm felt by the aggrieved is an example.
And the last one is what I call Sacred Dialogue. We are on a never ending journey of ever improving our relations and understanding of these principles and how to use them.
I like to use an example of self driving cars. A possible future reality; We will set up rules for how they are programed in emergency situations. About to strike a pedestrian; does the car ensure the life of the pedestrian even if it might take the life of the passenger? That kind of thing. So, we set rules and that will always be followed by whatever real world consequences come from those rules and we will re-adjust them to improve them only by open, reasoned dialogue AT THE TIME THAT WE HAVE LEARNED FROM OUR FIRST RULE SETTING.
There are historic examples of single elements becoming dominant (Transcendentalism and the primacy of personal experience, I believe went to far for example).
To me, Science is or should be our new religion and contrary to what Murray says, there is no unfortunate vacuum left by the absence of Religion. The physical universe itself is a book to read; a bible to study. Only science can give us our true creation story. Only science can tell us how to save ourselves from climate change; and with the other 3 legs, things like horrible, increasing wealth inequality and WAR and the like. NOT Religion.
There are things that can't be answered with science. For example, when does a growing blob of cells become a human? The boundary is decided arbitrarily. You can say it starts from insemination, from a heartbeat, after 25 weeks etc. You can base it on biology, maturity, appearance or whatever you like - it is still completely arbitrary. Science can not answer when humanity starts or why humans even have value. We don't value animals as much as humans - why? Are human rights based on science and rationality?
The way we decide these matters is based on belief. If our beliefs coincide enough with each other, we can make compromises and we can for example set up laws that we can all agree on. It is an essential function of culture that our beliefs are approximately in uniform, and the most fundamental beliefs have nothing to do with rationality.
Min 9:13 “I have a perfectly acceptable moral foundation." Could it be that the foundation comes from religion? And although you are an atheist, your foundation is imprinted on you through your family and society. Why is it that communist regimes around the world attack religion?
From what little I know, Jordan is an intelligent man whose wife nearly died from cancer (she found solace in faith), He had a mental breakdown, drug addiction (medication), and hence found solace in faith.
When I heard him speak, to me he sounded confused and angry.
Let him believe what he wants. It seems various groups of people just want to use him for their own purposes.
He wants to use himself for his own purpose which is to make lots of money speaking in circles and upholding an intolerant right wing worldview.
Simply one must ask "What can I do about..." wars, human suffering, hurting of children, torture, lies , deceit, as monks meditate, you can contribute to good by demanding mercy and compassion this is your void, your inadequacy, if your are not filled with hubris, Matt, you will step back and encourage those who steer into the mist , Douglas.and Jordan.
Steer out of the mist, and into the swirling, chaotic and beautiful cosmos we find ourselves in.
Float out into space and place feet on new soil.
Write our existence into the stars so we won't be forgotten, even beyond the heat death of this universe.
You’ve got very different definitions of mercy and compassion than I do if you associate Murray or Peterson with either of them
Yes, Peterson is often incoherent.
Weird question. Not sure why he had to include Peterson in that. Influential thought leaders of faith are hardly new.
Cult leaders? Ikr
Because Peterson is the biggest *current* farcical "intellectual" occupying shelf space and garnering devotion from the faithful.
JP became a preacher. And he is not a great one.
It isn't bothering when someone is religious or atheist, what's annoying is that whne they make it their entire personality and want others to affirm that.
I’ve listened to Peterson in numerous debates now attempting to defend mainstream Christianity citing the values of allegory, metaphor, and inspiration. I still have no clue what he actually believes about its main tenants. I think Peterson wants to conflate these values with the veracity of the theological claims themselves, thereby rendering his “arguments” (or what I would call his “word salads”), disingenuous and lame. The man should stick to psychology, he does a piss poor job at theology.
I take things from all three men.
I’ll bet Matt gets high… Jordan Peterson doesn’t that’s for dam sure.
Douglas is so profoundly succinct and incisive. As to the Peterson question, I do listen to him. He has an awesome fatherly insight, except when it comes to God where he usually derails.
I cant agree with Murray at all. Peterson isnt trying to create a revison of anything. I especially disagree with his assessment of atheism. Peterson is doing nothing new and atheism is still moving forward.
I do not think that a vacuum can exist in the absence of a god. That has always been the case. No vacuum and no god. Just natural reality. That is of course only in the realm of philosophy. Here you are talking only of societal vacuums in the absence of religious practices, and not about vacuums in the absence of gods.
Well, even there, if there was ever a vacuum, I'm sure by now Jordan has already filled it up with his psychological bollocks.
So, no vacuum, and no god. Just bollocks.
What's wrong with Humanism?
Matt Dillahunty of the word salad fame doesn't know when something is unclear??!!!! Look in the mirror, mate.
What Murray thinks is a "void" is the natural world. We're alienated from it and out of sync with our place in it. A healthier spirituality would be less about Christian atonement myth and people feeling guilty for existing here (as if they had a choice) and more about honoring our place within nature and the cycle of life. As creatures who understand time and mortality, that would make us cultivators of life in all its forms. So long as people maintain capitalism as the true god of this age (Christian and non-Christian alike), that presupposition inhibits knowing something so much better.
My opinion is this, and it builds off what Douglas Murray has mentioned about the vacuum that religion has left.
It’s not just the vacuum from religion that has so many especially young men searching for meaning and orientation in this modern world.
It’s the fact that we in the western world are so individualised and atomised in our family systems that we lack a crucial masculine support structure which would have traditionally have been fulfilled by one’s wider family “tribe” of uncles and grandfathers, and second uncles and second grandfathers etc.
And furthermore, our own fathers have been neutered thanks to second and third wave feminism. They no longer wear pants, they can’t teach their sons how to be men.
So young men are cast out into this world, unprepared, to a world which hates them and essentially blames them for all the world’s troubles, and disillusions them from the get go.
So young men are struggling, with NOONE, to help them, they are lost and desperate, in need of guidance and structure, and they found that in Jordan Peterson.
He IS the father figure of all the sons no one cared to bring up in a good fatherly way. For those whose fathers were too indoctrinated in feminist ideology to understand their sons needed to be raised to BECOME men, and that you aren’t a man automatically because you reach the age of 18.
For anyone who doesn’t know what I’m talking about, go and read a book called “king, warrior, magician, lover”.
It will help you understand the plight that men in this age face to become healthy masculine men.
Dillihunty is superman.
The fact that you guys team up to dog out jp tells me he's the big dog on the porch.
I only listened to Douglas's answer.
Matt's was objectively better.
@andykidd99 I disagree, his analysis was completely biased. As if he possesses all truth. He doesn't.
@LumpyBlueSweater what a ### comment of yours!
Matt annointed himself the Godfather of skepticism.
Skepticism's been around for a long time
@@jonunderscore But Matt is the self annointed expert on skepticism, only he knows how to use it. Skepticisim is just questioning things, thats all it is. Not just accepting them. Its not really complicated at all, and everyone has skepticism about different things, but somehow Matt is the supreme expert.
They essentially think JP is a huckster to dummies who eat it up… but they are being nice
Ya can't have both religion,and reality.
Yes you can, it is a reality that we suffer religion.
I never understood Jordan Peterson as a some kind of religious evangelist. I think he's right about how marvelous the text of the bible are but the same could be said about many other books and he does often talk about other books.
It’s not only that he says the Bible is marvelous. He said the Bible is a prerequisite of truth itself, and that any other good books in the west are basically good because they’re inspired by the Bible. It goes far beyond saying “hey, the Bible is a cool book!”
Dillahunty, "I have a perfectly acceptable moral framework" 1. don't be so sure about that, 2. that just means that you adhere to the social religion of the day - as Murray alluded to with his statements about the vacuum - the void has been filled.
Someone also needs to teach Matt what a woman is 😂
Jordan said tidy your bedroom. Get your own house in order before you try to put the world right. Excellent advice. I’m a bit surprised by Murray here.
But I have ADHD and a limited life span.
He brings a structure and an narratives that actually helps.
The first thing you have to believe to get up in the morning is to believe that whatever you do in the day will matter. The starting point is a conviction.
Scepticisme doesnt bring any certainty, except the convictions that nothing has to be trusted and anyone is gullible. Skepticism doesnt positively prescribe, nor describe, but try to correct the descriptions as much as possible and tend to reject arbitrary social norms.
My skepticism grounds in the reality that some things can be trusted especially after testing and repeatable evidence. Skepticism also enlightens me that some people are not gullible, such as experts in their fields (more gullible when outside their fields). False religions always seek unfair advantages against atheism, such as tax or filing breaks that they don’t extend to atheist organizations for equality.
What does an athiest believe?
Again ill say it only carl jung will i respect as a psycologist
Matt is religious too. He believes in gender ideology
A religion by definition is something to which humans ascribe great or Supreme value and in which there is some sort of supernatural element such as spirits souls gods devils djinn witches etc.
@@S.D.323 just like gender ideology.
The ‘soul’ is the gendered soul that apparently has nothing to do with biology and is something each person ‘identifies’ with. The witches, infidels and heretics are the TERFs who understand biology but are cancelled and social outcasts.
And the beliefs of gender ideology are completely unjustified scientifically.
Skeptics here seem to imply that Jordan is wrong because he hasn’t complied to their list of invented conditions. If logic means anything then an openess to debate seems absent in Jordan’s detractors.
Except that they (the skeptics) debate him (Jordan P.) ! It's Jordan who said he would never debate Matt again after his most recent disaster debating him. Not the other way around.
"If a word can mean anything to anybody, then it means nothing " Matt Dillahunty
Enters: "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman".
😐
yea, matt seems to intelligent not to see that hypocrisy, im curious if he'll ever publicly admit he wasnt quite right there.
So you don't see the difference? That's really sad.
The concept of "god" has no definitive meaning, it's completely arbitrary depending upon a person's background.
The concept of "woman" actually refers to either a biological concept, or a social one. The concept actually has definitive meanings based on Context.
If you cannot understand the nuances, then maybe you shouldn't pretend to have a point.
@@13shadowwolf "either concept"
Thank you for so eloquentely proving the point that we (on this side of the argument) are not the ones conflating sex and gender.
@@Renato404 you need to re-phrase your response until it actually makes sense.
I was talking about making references in language when talking about different topics. "Male/female" usually refers to the Biological Structures of a human, whereas "Man/woman" usually refers to their Behaviors in social interactions.
Are you having a hard time understanding the differences between someone's Biology and their Social Behaviors? In your mind, does the concept of "Male/Female" (Biology) have a direct link to their Social Construct ("Man/Woman") of how they choose to behave?
When a person is born, and then labeled by their Exterior Physical Characteristics, do you think that there are particular Behaviors that are linked to those physical characteristics? That's on par with thinking that someone's skin tone also has a direct link to their social behaviors.
Are you arguing that people should Behave in a certain way, because their Biological Structures determine their Behaviors?
@@13shadowwolf you already rephrased the whole argument by making a clear distinction between male/female (the biological concept) and man/woman ( the sociological concept).
Further proving the point that - when unchecked, trans ideologues conflate the two concepts all the time.
Peterson is a product of his upbringing in small town Alberta, the most right wing, conservative part of the most right wing, conservative province of Canada.
And yet he was a member of the NDP at the time.
@@paulbabson8421 He was briefly. He has obviously returned to his conservative christian roots now (once a right wing kook, always a right wing kook).
Yes, the bridge. They begin history courses now with “the myth of the great man” without first introducing what was meant by great men and how they changed the course of history. (A little thing called leadership.)
What?
Junkie Jordan Pill Poppin Peterson is a youtubevangelist...nothing more.
Psychology is a joke and Peterson is religious not spiritual.
I think Peterson is an atheist. He only believes, like Matt explains, in metaphorical truths of the Bible. When asked if he believes in the Christian or Judaism god he gets very weird. Incomprehensibly weird. In a a video I’ve seen he admits God is a fictional character.
What's the punchline?
Wasn't familiar with Jordan Peterson😂😂.... who are you again? I havent heard of you....