@Pangburn thats each persons perogative. As Jesus said a person by "his words will be condemned, and by his words he will be justified". Matt with have no grounds for complaints then when he breaks hell wide open will he. No doubt though, he will not be so cocky when he does. Escaping Hell is a valid reason for being saved. God is just, and hell is a just ends for those who choose the violation and condemnation of sin over the grace of Gods provision of salvation through Christ. As a spiritual law, sin seperates from God. Its not just like God says 'play by my rules or go to hell' The law of sin means one is categorically unable to dwell with God. Hell is where one exists eternally without God. Without life, live nor light. Its spiritual law, not spiritual simon says.
Like so many clergymen and despots before him, Jordan Peterson has discovered how incredibly profitable outrage is. He cries, points his finger and issues an endless procession of complaints, sophistry, claims without evidence whatever it takes to keep is audience in thrall - and money flows and flows into his bank account. He's not the first. He's not the last. No one will read this comment but it felt good to write.
i have listened to what I would qualify as a 'fair bit" from Peterson. I guess in total it would amount to the better part of a days worth of him speaking about, or debating things. Early on I was astounded how his modus operendi to make many of his points 'sound reasonable" is to only speak on many things part of the way into them. Its like he starts speaking on an issue he wants to make a point about, and he only delves into it far enough to speak on his points why he thinks his opinion on the issue is correct, but leaves out things that would actually then show his thinking, or at least his explanations have serious holes in them when properly filled in with the relevant important facts, or even likelihoods, show his position is often seriously flawed. I literally find this totally astounding that a person with his education and public profile operates this way, AND that hes sucked in so many who I guess are quite happy to only hear one side or part of a story that they like, without addressing other directly relevant facts to the contrary. Im always left feeling like hes given what on the surface would sound like a great speech on how and why the Titanic cant be sunk, only to leave out all the possibilities where it could be. Ive found myself listening to his nonsense to be left asking, "but what about all this over here you dont mention anything about on this subject,", or that what he has said, provides absolutely no reasonable explanation in these other circumstances that also plainly can exist. As Matt essentially says above, Peterson regularly literally depends on some absolutely astoundingly poor ideology, such as "Atheists are not REALLY atheist, they must believe in god" just to make some of his ideas even workable. For a guy who is a high profile psychologist, his ability to use his intellect to comprehend how human minds actually work is almost laughably flawed. And its because hes so cemented into so many indefensible, and even extreme ideas, hes sort of invented a reality in his mind thats required to keep the whole ideology glued together. And that reality in his mind requires elements in it that if he actually had as great an insight into human psychology as he should, he would know that a lot of what he relies so heavily on is actually fundamentally wrong. It usually requires hes somehow read humans minds so well he knows their inner most thinking, yet I already know it matters little how deep I dig into my most deeply accessible feelings and thoughts, I cant find any trace of what Peterson often relies upon existing in people. For example; I must believe if somehow as an atheist I actually still in some way did believe in a god, that that thought would exist someplace somewhere in my mind, even if I could only find it by sitting down and carefully mentally inspecting my most buried thoughts on the matter, yet, I cant even find a singular concept or consideration that I could somehow unpack into the claim that as an atheist I still somehow believe that anything even slightly resembling any god of a religion of any kind exists. Let me simply say, without an extensive conversation about THAT, I can assure you, if you have any thoughts you actually act on, in some way or another with some careful intent and consideration, you will find the source of such thoughts, even if its something you would never discuss in public, its in you there someplace you obviously can get at, because you act on it. While Im not claiming everyone is so self aware and introspective they always can do the wok required to understand why they do the things they do or say the things they say, but plenty can, IF they try hard enough. And as fact, Peterson has made claims about humans that often just dont pan out. And Peterson seems to think many things about what people think and believe generally, and yet those things simply dont exist in reality as he seems to wish they did to make his theories always work for him. In some particular cases they may, after all, its a big world, and there may well be a number of people who think in any number of ways. In many other instances they simply do not. Despite Petersons over generalizations he has to make, in order to make his ideas workable. And thats where so many of his presumptions fall apart because he makes them under the guise of being a commonality largely among all, and he has to to make his general theories work. But his over arching conclusions typically only apply to some, or even very few, and as a result often arnt dealing with actual core foundational issues that he claims they do, and only peripheral outcomes that often differ for differing specific people and circumstances, but speak nothing to any kind of universal truth that has much deeper foundations that might apply to all people.
TRYING HIS HARDEST NOT TO BE A CLERGMAN YOU STILL LABEL HIM AS SUCH. WE WRESTLE NOT AGAINST FLESH AND BLOOD BUT AGAINT PRINCIPALITIES AND POWERS OF THE AIR. YOU ARE LIKELY A MINION OF YOU KNOW WHO
Peterson thrives on fuzzy language. It is his refuge to never admit anything or get pinned down. As long as he can create a fuzzy definition and shift the question in a completely different direction, wave his hands around, use big words to impress his followers and avoid actually engaging.
Exactly! His endless, convoluted rhetoric is withering and he loses himself in his own "logic?" It's all truly blather. State your position, don't wander off into a miasma of high-falutin verbiage and stick to the point. I've come to find him intolerable. He's a parody of himself.
It's also a way for his followers to just read anything into anything he says, and when people counter Jordan, the Jordanites come running in to tell you that you don't understand what Jordan is saying and that you have to read all his books and watch all his speeches to really comment on the stuff he says... It's a cult of personality and everyone, and I mean EVERYONE who buys into that guy's nonsense is a complete and utter dunce. I'm no genius, that's for sure, but I spot charlatans like Jordan a mile away... Why can't everyone just spot his nonsense? And why is it that the people who worship him the most seem to be completely lost in this world? If all your followers are virgins who struggle with the basics of adulthood... maybe you're not so much a brilliant philosopher but more of a youth pastor type character... Know what I mean? Any adult who still believes Jordan's drivel should be seen as suspect. I would not let a Jordan Peterson worshiper date my daughter, and neither would most jordan peterson fans... They'd want better for their daughter than someone who seeks guidance from someone like Jordan.
And the Far Left does not? Do they define their terms? What is their single definition of "White Supremacy"? How about "Racism"? "Harm"? "Hate Speech"? Or are they committed to the fallacy (formerly) known as Shifting Meaning?
I think the explanation for Peterson's degeneration is quite mundane: brain damage. Benzos, by preventing deep sleep, cause brain damage. He is a shadow of his former self. Not that he was ideal to begin with. But the difference between pre-absence Peterson and post-absence Peterson strikes me as "qualitative". But hey, who wants to entertain a mundane interpretation when it is sooo much more gratifying to engage in demonization snidely implying one's own inherent moral superiority ... Lefty intellectual orgasm achieved!
Me too, but I don’t hold it against him. He became both revered and vilified across the western world almost overnight. That would screw with anyone’s head.
he was too over-invested in the validity of Jungian mysticism to ever contribute anything more to the field of psychology than post-hoc justifications for his emotional responses to things he didn't like
@@pianistaJBP He used to be known as an expert psychologist. Now he's just peddling unproven superstitious beliefs. Luckily religion is disappearing. People will all be atheists in 100 years time.
That latest video of Jordan ranting with Dawkins is so painful. His followers think he is being profound when he simply alludes to really, really old ideas (that any mildly educated person knows), when he tries to blur the lines between literary criticism and reality, when he floats Jung as if Jungian claims are a given. His laboring over the nonsense that the metaphorical dragon is really real...as a super metaphor...or whatever. The only thing a mildly skeptical person can come away with is that he REALLY REALLY likes Jung, archetypes, etc. But that's not an argument, that's not evidence, and ultimately that's not all that interesting or even remarkable. But he's riding that nonsense all the way to the bank. [Edit: TH-cam won't let me reply anymore. But anyone who reads this thread will see the only counterarguments I've gotten are laughter, the claim that Peterson doesn't really believe in the supernatural, the claim that Peterson could be right that the supernatural exists because "nobody knows", the claim that he doesn't want to say he doesn't believe the supernatural because he would lose fans/money, and the claim that I'm wrong that Jesus is a myth even though I never mentioned Jesus being a myth. It is bizarre how Peterson fans can't look themselves in the mirror, or when they do, they only see what they want to see.]
He wrote one good self help bs book and that's it. I think he knows absolutely nothing about eastern philosophy nor does he know anything about religion or god. He blabbers the most ridiculous bs with the biggest word possible and the whole western audience jerks off on him. He is not an intellectual or philosopher, he is just a good psychologist thats it.
Reality is reflected in stories both religious and secular. It's possible to find patterns and lessons and truths from those stories. The leap into something religious is what I can never grasp.
@@nineteenninetyfive There is an impulse in many of us to want stories to be real. When we are young, and become transfixed by certain stories that are at least somewhat believable/realistic, our first question to an adult is "Is this a true story?" I think religion and religious stories ride that line. We want to find that "real toad" in the "imaginary garden", but we don't want the real toad to be "the friends we made along the way" or "don't lie or you'll end up like the boy who cried wolf". We want to hear a TRUE story where the MAGIC is real, where the extraordinary is real. You blur that line just a little bit, and you can squeeze out a much more compelling story than if you simply admit the story isn't literally true. The Coen brothers did this with Fargo (floating the idea that it was true, when indeed it was not), Blair Witch did this, that "Communion" book by novelist Whitley Strieber did this (where he claimed to have been abducted by aliens), "reality" tv does this, etc. I think what religion does is confuse the metaphor/symbol for the "deeper" reality, when ultimately doing this means the metaphor simply becomes a metaphor for itself--analogous to a circular argument, but in literary terms. I think this is indeed fascinating, but not for COMPLEXITY as Jordan floats, but for simplicity. Admitting that an individual's personal idea of "god" always reflects their own views on just about everything gives the whole game away. When have you ever met a religious person who disagrees with god on anything? Or if they do, they simply deny that god ever did X, Y, or Z, or claim THAT part is only a story, lol
Jordan used to be quite eloquent with this ideas but he has now gone so far down the 'rabbit hole' defending some of his ideas that he has lost his way completely. I am not sure he believes half the stuff he is saying or defending anymore, he just doesnt want to 'lose face' and admit he is wrong on a number of subjects
Eloquent? When? I remember when he was the college professor going viral on youtube. He was full of jibberish. An hour lecture would lose track of itself a million times. He just didn't have emotional outbursts.
Clearly given the current state and history of mankind all do need that direction. From the horrors of the organized terror of constant wars and forced subservience to the universal propensity of human selfishness and narrow perspective we all need the guiding light of the creator.
The not-so-obvious question is: So, *HOW DO YOU* figure out how to be "decent human being"? Likely, your notion of what that entails is wildly at odds with what most humans have believed throughout history and a cultural artifact of the Judeo-Christian heritage of Western civilization.
I know Peterson is very polarizing. I never had any issue with him but he's never made sense to me when he's pressed on anything. It seems he just tries to word-salad his way out of an argument to make it so vague and hard to interpret it makes him come off as intelligent...
I think the polarization may come from.the fact he genuinely used to be a pretty good speaker and has genuine qualification on certain subjects.. but a combination of medical issues and partisan politics/modern terminally online discourse and healthy dose of bitterness made him into a dark chaotic parody of himself, the other side of the same coin. So his statements now are contrast to his previous self
If they put me in front of a firing squad and offered me a blindfold and a cigarette, I would pass on the cigarette, because if they missed I would have go through quitting again. I quit in 1972, over several months of using a number of strategies. One day my girlfriend and I were together, which meant we were either screwing of fighting. It was always one or the other. This time we were fighting and I lit a cigarette, thought no, and knew I would never smoke again. A few weeks of withdrawal and a few years of occasional nightmares about smoking again and it was past me. No face of God, just my angry girlfriend, who also managed to quit before we broke up.
This video didn't live up to its title, in my opinion. "What happened to Jordan Peterson" should mostly be about: - personal tragedy, - how flexible beliefs are when dealing with clinical depression, - the effects of pain reliever addiction - grifting, - fan clubs and social media addiction, - and pontificating outside your specialty. That is what happened to Jordan Peterson.
@@jackallen3524 Jordan Peterson was talented in his field. His counter to one British interviewer about her demands being offensive to him; he just doesn't go around complaining to everyone else about such "micro-aggressions" ... she was stunned and left speechless. Peterson was unafraid to bring scientific data to arguments about physiological and psychological differences in men and women, etc. I would put Professor Peterson in with Steven Pinker in this regard. They know the science that has discovered uncomfortable truths for those SJW's promoting a sex-blind policies (aka "genderless"). This made Peterson a natural magnet to incels and related conspiracist, discorianist, and paranoiac crowds. I guess Peterson just got lost in that cultishness. His depression, addiction, etc. just made him more open to the social transformation.
peterson is not a postmodernist because postmodernists say that all "stories" are equally valid while peterson says that some stories are absolutely better than others
@ stories mean whatever we want them to mean, THAT is what postmodernists say and so does Peterson. People disagree on which stories are better/worse but everyone knows it’s all make believe fantasy
@tom-ment-Capybara WE KNOOOOOOW. Jordan Peterson inflicts post modernism on others and is a post modernisnist when it comes to others, and an extreme essentialist when it comes to his beliefs. WE KNOW. This is literally the "everyone is an atheist to every other religion except theirs"
lol ... I've always thought the same! I accept that he isn't a post-modernist in talkings about universal truths, archetypes etc, but boy! .... does he talk like one! And the weird way he combines developmental/evo psychology with jungian psychology and Christian mysticism. This kind of 'creative mixing and blending', phuking with metaphors, associations, (meaning over truth), the word salady obscure verbiage; an almost pained refusal to demarcate fact from fiction in favour of blurring lines (esp fact from myth) ... it's just SOOOO po-mo.
Still better than someone like Dillahuntly who says he wants to believe as many true things as possible without any sufficient definition of truth. If you have no metaphysical groundings, you cannot believe to be objectively right on metaphysical issues. Or you really want to tell me that you can show me some data claiming that (for example) tolerance is objectively true?
I remember being a little kid , maybe 6 or 7 , when I was put in Sunday school or something like that. I distinctly remember not believing a word of the religious teachings. In fact my mother still remembers me saying to her that what they were saying was stupid and I didn’t believe it. I’m now 65 and nothing has changed. The way I see it, and this might be a very simplistic outlook, but way back then when they were coming up with this stuff, those people were out of their damn minds. So violent, burning people alive who they looked at as heretics. All those ridiculous things they did to anyone who didn’t agree with them. These priests molesting children. I’m going to follow along with these lunatics and believe their crap? Forget that! I’m an Atheist and proud of it.
I'm kind of the same as you on the other side. I always remember believing in the existence of God and and I'm 50 now and this hasn't changed a bit. I also know of atheists who have done terrible things...... I also always thought that atheists were dumb... and this hasn't changed. So, we are kind of opposite.
I can relate to your comment. My parents were none practicing Catholics and therefore never talked about religion at home. Because of that I had my first experience of religious practice at five when I started school at the local Catholic denomination school. And same as you, I simply couldn't take anything the teachers told us in religious studies seriously. Oh, I played along - what else could I do as a kid? - went through the motions, learned the catechism, learned the prayers, learned the sign of the cross and the important stories in the Bible. But when I left school, that was it, fuk yu all I thought, I'm now free. I didn't know what an atheist was back then, but I had never-the-less become one and have never looked back. And I made sure that my kids didn't get indoctrinated, although I don't think any teacher would have managed that with those two.
Similar to me. Just moved away as I could not buy it and saw hypocrisy. My approach now is if it works for you goodo but don't force it on me or my kids thanks.
@@MSA-uj7cp I have a bridge to sell you. Honest, it's very very holy and was given to me by God. He told me the one who buys it off me will get his money back ten fold. Interested? Keep on praying...
I agree what you say, but I would also add that those religious figures who sin are not the entire reflection of the core essence of religious dictrine that gave moral compass to so many and become redemption for those who went on the wrong path. We take what resonates with us and we leave the rest.
Please correct me if I'm wrong: Jordan Peterson adopts the Biblical narrative and the idea of God to better work with concepts that are not properly explainable in a scientifical or rational sense (meaning, value, art etc.) but that clearly have a significant impact on people. He conceptualized God in many ways that refer to the unexplainable nature of humankind, perception and the universe. This view greatly differs from the traditional and common doctrines and beliefs of Christianity. Sam and Matt conceptualize God in the traditional way, referring to the many negative effects it has had on people. They are not having the same conversation. They are talking and arguing about two different things with the same name. It makes absolutely no sense to have a debate this way.
Your last paragraph is my exact thoughts on conversations gone wrong. As is with Jordan Peterson and also I have witnessed it in life around people. Our reality differ by what we experienced and what our life thought us. Just because we use the same words, it doesn't guarantee we mean the same thing. We add self-deception, and we can't even communicate our simplest ideas.
Peterson's convoluted statements on religion are aimed at obfuscating the truth. He is a non believer posing as a believer to rake up the big bucks on the conservative speaking circuit.
I belive JP is smart enough to understand what's the debate is about. He just don't want to admit it because he knows he will lose followers and people pay him on patron.
The problem is that Jordan's followers do not see the psychological "god"; instead, they see the god that fundamentalists and backward-oriented people perceive.
Asking someone to prove something they know can't be proved does not prove who's right or wrong. It is always more productive to ask someone about things they know.
"You can't quit smoking without a mystical experience" In the late 70s/early 80s my dad's parents both quit smoking COLD TURKEY when they were 50 cents a pack, because, "It's too goddamn expensive"
JP:s point was that you can't reliably stop smoking without a religious experience. Congratulations to your dads parents who are in the 3-5% of people who quit smoking successfully cold turkey. Something that has a 3-5% success rate, is not a reliable way to quit smoking. I don't understand how many people are confused about this. JP did not say it is impossible to quit smoking without a religious experience, but that religious experience has the highest success rate in quitting smoking.
@@k0lpA Congratulations for being in the (very rare, aka not reliable way to stop smoking) 3-5% of the people who succeed at quitting smoking cold turkey. If you had chosen a reliable method to stop smoking, a religious experience would have been the best choice. But since you quit, does not matter now. You chose a method with a very low success rate, aka not reliable way. And JP was talking about the most reliable way to quit smoking being religious experience. So many people are confused about this simple issue, people today are horrible listeners.
@@vege4920 You are misrepresenting the statistics. 3-5% quit through cold turkey. That does not mean 95-97% quit with a religious experience. The vast majority (50-70%) quit with nicotine replacement therapy, and those with access to better medical treatment are significantly more successful in quitting than those without. Social support from family and peers significantly increases the chances. Well-trained medical staff can almost double the chances. A combination of nicotine replacement, access to better medical treatment, better trained medical staff, and a strong support network has the highest chance of success for quitting longer than 6 months. Moreover, that 3-5% is about attempts to quit, not quitting per se. A smoker may attempt to quit many times in their life, and with continued failure they lower the overall success rate. I'll give you $1000 if you can prove religious experience has the highest success rate.
There's a lot to criticize about Jordan Peterson's ideas and philosophy. However, I personally am reluctant to do so for two reasons: 1) he was unfairly criticized and attacked in the worst way by people who never actually engaged with his ideas; 2) his addiction and recovery was so dramatic that people should acknowledge his recovery as an achievement. I generally agree with Yaron Brook's take on him.
You can only have a moral foundation based on atheism. There's nothing moral about doing good only because you fear divine punishment for doing bad. Obedience is not virtue. The only measure of good is doing good for its own sake without concern for reward.
Atheism is just another belief system. I'm agnostic, I don't need your atheism to be moral. Besides, all morality is subjective. Your morality as a Westerner is different to that of an Oriental or African.
@@RavusNox-z5i if we ignore all moralities, and decide that the goal of culture is to protect the best of humanity. then an atheistic culture will necessarily result.
JP built such a web of logical fallacies he got tangled up in it and can’t get out. He has a tell when he is going to string a new one because he says “this is really important” right before doing so.
@@hobbes305 That's a scientific fact, we do not live our life by scientific fact, you already can't be 100 non-bias, you going to select facts and rank them, which really beg the question do you really live by fact? or there is something else at play here.
It’s really quite simple: Peterson communicates via truisms and vague, “deep” sounding world salad because it’s an age old, highly successful strategy for becoming rich and famous. He’s Deepak Chopra for disillusioned young males. To me the more interesting phenomenon is the extent that less-popular content creators will go to in order to defend his positions in the hopes he invites them to participate in the grift. In totally unrelated news, congrats to a Murray on being invited to do an event with Peterson.
Peterson suffers greatly from the Dunning Kruger effect. He really is out of his league on 99 percent of topics and just blabbers along trying desperately to debate.
Peterson says a true atheist would have to be a murderer. Has he ever explained the existence of murderers who believe in the existence of a god? Which, by the way, would be 99 percent of all murderers who have ever lived.
I'm not sure Jordan believes what he says. I think he doesn't believe any type of mainstream religion but he knows if he agrees with you on anything he will lose his conservative fans. It's a pose with flowery language for a grift.
Why is it an issue to talk about the IQ differences between races? I don't see the problem. It bothers me that Douglas espouses Anti-Censorship but has an "Out of the Parameters of Acceptable Discourse." List. It just seems inconsistent and disingenuous on his part. No topic should be off limits. Learning is a dangerous game and anyone who limits that learning process by limiting topics because it insults the sensibilities of others, is no friend of education.
The garish dressing and exaggerated hand gesturing (sample a few of Jordan's recent podcast appearances) would suggest something is amiss. He also posts some seriously extreme & odd stuff on X that doesn't get repeated in TH-cam appearances.
You must be new here. He's been doing the "octopus playing a trombone" impression with his hands since his earliest lectures on youtube. He's a manic ex-benzo addict with no adults around to keep him on the straight 'n narrow.
Right! I also noticed that. He became more of a showman and he used to be a respectable lecturer and profesor. This 'fame' changed him and he got trapped in this new character
I think what is going on is he has realised that to maintain his lavish income he has to continue to evolve the character that is Jordan Peterson and he doesn’t care what it takes
What frustrates me about the "atheists can't be moral line" is it arguably constructs a test: If religion is the foundation of moral behaviour, then the absence of religion must lead to immorality. But there is nothing even resembling a correlation, let alone causation between being irreligious and being immoral. But instead of doing the intellectually honest thing and concluding that religion has failed that particular test of being the foundation of moral behaviour, all these apologists bend over backward pretending moral atheists are actually theists, and we're just being difficult about it for some reason. It's all the more frustrating when we have a known phenomenon that does pass that test, (the absence of x correlates with immoral behaviour and therefore is a contender for being the foundation of moral action) namely empathy.
It's disturbing that Christians assert that "biblical moral teaching" and a genuine belief in a judgment and eternal afterlife are required to make them eschew evil action for the most part.
It is also insulting to the humans that existed for 200,000-300,000 years prior to abrahamic religions existing. They had morals. Because when Peterson, or other theists bring this up, they mean morality mentioned in the bible, the bible has only existed for less than 2000 years, homo sapiens have been around for 300,000 ish years, at least.
Yes, but also reason. We need some over arching principles as well and in this respect I agree with religious people. The difference is, I think we can make our foundation without religion with empathy AND reason.
If you want to understand Peterson’s relationship to Christianity and why he seems to be more irrational these days than rational, look to his relationship with his wife. Peterson is the type of man who needs to control women. He frequently interrupts and speaks for the women he has interviewed, for example. His wife came into her own after a cancer diagnosis, and began asserting her independence, making TH-cam videos on her spiritual transformation and newfound focus on Catholicism. Peterson found this change in his wife and in his marriage dynamics threatening and began revising his views on Christianity in response. This move was not necessarily conscious on his part. It speaks to something many have observed: Peterson, like many of his personality type, manages his insecurities, even self-loathing, by trying to maintain control over the things he most fears.
Jordan desperately tries to make an argument for religion work amongst very clever and knowledgeable people like Harris and Dillahunty and it just doesn’t work so he tries to muddy every topic with word salad and obscure philosophical nonsense to avoid a straight up debate.
He’s not a theologian like William Lane Craig for example. Harris and Hitchens had their hands full with him. Peterson is a psychologist. I don’t understand why he’s trying to defend something that he doesn’t particularly specialise is doing
i'd say there too much meaning condensed in the word to put it so bluntly. There maybe a lot of fear involved. But seemingly people experience fearlessness when they are truly faithful to some cause. So if I had to try put in a sentence as you did I'd say: Fear brings people to pursue faith to get rid of it.
It's pretty obvious to me. There's a reason the word 'faith' is hyphenated. As is so often the case, English words can have more than one meaning. OP does not just mean 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. but 2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
It makes me feel like there is a state of being that many people have not actually experienced that rips you completely away from your conviction that you have any kind of actual understanding what reality is. I’ve had an experience like this and it was terrifyingly disconnecting. Trying to describe what it felt like to come back to “normal” is unimaginably impossible but the closest explanation ends up describing something like “god”. Not as a deity but a highest order, power.
Jordan Peterson has been good on challenging the totalitarianism of the Canadian government and the excesses of the far left, but when it comes to religion IMO he spouts the most relentless verbal diarrhoea. I'm flabbergasted anyone thinks he's worth consulting on the subject. It really is the Emperor's clothes and I cannot understand why so many purportedly intelligent people fall for it. He gets invited to dialogue with some very big names and he absolutely does not deserve to share platforms with them.
He has the best interview show on TH-cam. I still get a lot out of his conversations, and he’s really been a strong voice of reason in Canada as we deal with the downward spiral of Trudeauism.
This idea that people don't literally believe in God is a new one for me. I grew up Catholic until I left school and slowly throughout my 20's understood I was an atheist. Either my school, my church, my parents and every text and fellow believer were really really fucking bad at explaining 'we don't mean literally' or they all literally believed it. It was a cornerstone of my upbringing in religion. That the magic was real. That God is magic. Jesus is magic. That the rules of the universe as we understand them today were broken on a daily basis back then. This all stinks of moving the goalposts. First it was science reducing the God of the Gaps. Now it's interpretation saying Christians don't believe the Bible and God and Jesus's ressurection as literal. What next? That it's just how it makes you feel? It makes you all warm and fuzzy and anyone pointing out that it's inaccurate and full of inconsistencies and downright lies is being offensive and intolerant? Such a mighty religion that people have to fake believing in it. This notion that Christians think God is not literally real irks me so much because I spend 20 years of my life being told adamantly that he was literally real.
@@kevtb874 if you look at any of the prominent "Christian" intellectuals in the media... their main point is that it's good for society, fake or not. Which is kinda silly
@tom-ment-Capybara I know. Wishy washy shite. You'd think whether God is real would be a pretty standard and obvious fact as a believer but it's so shrouded in BS and mystery and vague notions I have immense issues not thinking it's manmade horseshit.
I find it ironic that these guys are constantly on about God and intellect and the greatest philosophers of God recommend two things to not become mired in the topic, it should be discussed if at all in few words, and never rely on the intellect to solve a problem concerning being. This is not an intellectual discussion it’s a discussion on being. It is the kind of discussion which led to a field called philosophy which is a fancy way of saying people love to argue so we better make a profession out of it. The point of these discussions I do not see mentioned much is that these men disagree and there is an invisible skill of keeping these kinds of difficult conversations continuing despite the desire to shut them down. It is invaluable to see how those who disagree about truth which leads people not unlike them to brutality. It is good to see that they will take the role of not letting the emotions or self identity become too looming over the discussion and turn it in to a fist-less fight. It’s an art of relating. The compassion they show Jordan is probably more critical than the discussion. Because that shows me that they believe in something more than tasty word salads.
I think both of these erudite and complex thinkers are missing the actual point about Jordan Peterson: Peterson is simply not that clever. Not that complex. He just uses big words to obfuscate. Deconstruct his argument and it's faux-complexity for the sake of an audience.
What a salve this was., especially Douglas M last sentence. I am not going to pile on JP, he has helped many more people than anyone commenting here, including me. JP had an unexpected fame and infamy. That would impact anyone, it was a trauma. Given his work is about deciphering or even mining meaning, it is no surprise he says things that can come off as whimsical or dogmatic. I like him, I dont have to agree with everyone he says, and I wish him well.
To be honest, it feels like he's become different after the whole "reeducation" issue with the board of psychologists. It's really weird, I just can't put my finger on it.
You guys give Peterson too much credit. He is simply a man who makes a lot of money off his appearances. I don’t for one minute think that he believes anything he says.
“ as it is impossible to verbally describe the sweetness of honey to one who has never tasted honey, so the goodness of God cannot be clearly communicated by way of teaching if we ourselves are not able to penetrate into the goodness of the Lord by our own experience.” Quote from our church bulletin ☦️
I have read one of Petersen's books, watched a number of his videos on DW, and I have this fascination with his persona. He's been notable outside academia since his paper on the comparative intelligence of different races, through the fracas of personal pronouns ( here, though, I think his point was that people should not be coerced or forced [by law or social convention] to use certain pronouns as similarly people should be free to use whatever pronouns they wish). He's had further run-ins since and established his own academy. There's much in what he says that makes sense and is actually good advice, but then there's the opposite side where he seems just on the border of rational and irrational. He and his family have gone through some difficult events, he suffered from a drug addiction, and now he has found religion. And here is where I think that he hasn't quite grasped it: he wrangles God and the biblical stories to fit his own world view of hierarchies, personal responsibility, and life's meaning and purpose in "adventure." He seems to have totally missed the truly spiritual side of religion. He never speaks of grace, mercy and love which are more important than stories and morality. Petersen is missing the Spirit. But, he's an intelligent man and a deep thinker so I expect there may be more from him yet. As to the debate in this video: there is no point in religious/spiritual people arguing with atheists/materialists or vice versa. Both exist and tolerance of each other's beliefs or non-belief is all that's needed.
I try to take the best someone can offer, and throw out the parts I do not agree with (within humane actions). If we continually throw out the entire human being, like destroying Thomas Jefferson statues because he owned slaves, we become hypocritical to not allow culture and historical social norms to define him, as our own modern identity is more than skin color or sex. It is also cultural, historical, and social. As a psychologist and social critic, he has some very good points, such as with regards to free speech and gender delusions and woke narcissism.
Douglas Murray equally says nothing and more drawls with his upper middle class British tone than say anything of substance. It’s insufferable listening to him as he’s beyond his level of competence as a journalist when he engages in a lot of discussions that he’s clearly not a specialist in by formal training and only comes to these topic as an autodidact
That's the majority of humanity then, to some varying degree or other. A humanity that you also are a part of. Unless that is that you yourself have found some way to reverse your own intergenerational and accumulated epigenetic changes away from our species and phenotypical norm. Which is self evidently not the case otherwise you would not have made such an ignorant and self serving statement.
what bought his favour and turned him televangelist? why does anybody do it? to fill the plate, to expand into another demographic, for appearance sake or new owners maybe? selling god always rubs me like a catholic priest. i don't like it. maybe the second coming is a movement.
here is the simplicity of concept: With 6 billion people alive this moment and billions more who passed, the vast majority had active minds of contemplation. That is a fact. So to what purpose would it please a creator to create or at least allow confusion about HIM among all those thinking beings?
For me, knowing some of his childhood and watching Peterson's old Harvard lectures puts a different light on who he is today. There's a certain type of guy who comes from abuse in poverty as the town smartypants, burns bright to escape that through his 20s-30s, becomes his job, becomes the very picture of an isolated academic, turns around to find an unfamiliar world, gets angry enough to scare himself, and Finds God in some way to develop a moral compass he now believes he didn't have before. That's my psychoanalysis of the psychologist, anyway. Maybe because this was also the trajectory of the smartest JP fans in my life.
Jordan Peterson converted into Christianity after experiencing a life altering event, when he admitted he was contemplating going to Swithland for assisted dying, and the same goes for his wife, when she was diagnosed with rare cancer and survived, but that shifted her mindset, it looks like they both experienced some spiritual awakening. This is why maybe now Mr Peterson thinks his moral compass is aligned with who he is. I understand him because I went through a life altering event that changed the entire course of my life. Sometimes, things happen to us that shift our entire perspectives on things.
Imagine being in the pub/bar chatting to a mate, and the whole pub/bar pulls up a chair and listens in....talking on stage like this must be nervewracking
You can't have an honest and realistic conversation with someone who has a slippery grasp on reality. Peterson has no real sense of reality as he's OBSESSED with mythos and metaphor. He lives in his own world and bubble and so transfers his supposed "intellectualism" as dogma and absolutism. In short, he's a magician trying to dictate law onto a world he really doesn't live in, has no real-world association with nor any relationship with. And then when faced with pushback, he cries, whines, bellows and plays victim, much like the evangelical militant xians do when they face the same criticism and challenges. Their protests and epithets are actually CONFESSIONS of their own agenda. Facing REALITY and having to CONFORM to REALITY feels like persecution for them. The emperor has no clothes, let alone power.
WeLl iVE REad the LiteraTure oN That anD its verY clEar. Ive lost count of the amount of times hes tried to push completely bogus ideas with these stock lines
That’s nonsense, he is as factual as humanly possible. Just because you can’t understand him. Maybe you could have a dictionary at hand when you listen to a lecture.
@@Stanley_Baby haaahahaha no. He makes a few valid points about a few things, but outside of that his nonsense unfortunately only convinces the least perceptive people... sorry about that.
@@Stanley_Baby one of his tricks is to claim something is backed by a study when its not. He knows he wont be questioned because it sounds convincing to reference a study, and he knows people like you never bother to look up these studies or do any of your own research
The problem here is the metaphysical concept of primacy: is there primacy of existence or primacy of consciousness? On the one hand, Jordan says that there is primacy of consciousness because "reality needs an observer and that is consciousness" Therefore, reality is because the observer is conscious of it. Therefore objective reality can't exist because it depends on a conscience. But where does that conscience exists then? Furthermore, he says there's divine revelation, thus saying that reality is not objective and identifiable but being passed from divine consciousness (God's) to illuminated human, prophet or whomever, which comically plays out the process of human faith (unchallenged assertion or dogma passed from a mind to another) and ultimately goes allong with the Jungian concept of collective consciousness. On the other hand, there's primacy of existence where objective reality contains forms of consciousness that have objective means of connection and correspondence (senses, reason and logic) to that existence. Thus being the conscience that needs the existence to exist and not the other way around.
@@stevewise1656 Conman? That’s a bit harsh. I loved him. He has less words of wisdom for me now than he used to have. I now view him as I have many bands over the years. First two albums were great, then he sold out. One day I’m hoping he will go back to his roots. 🤣
IQ is measures such a limited part of what we do when thinking. There are so many things people do when thinking that IQ is irrelevant to. It's not useless to measure it, but it doesn't tell you much about a person, and definitely not a valid way of judging someone's worth.
when i hear anyone say something like "jordan basically said..." its instantly a strawman, knowing how much context jordan provides. From my understanding of jordan what he means when he says "atheists still believe in a god" isnt an accusation that theyre lying, just that they are ignorant of what religion and belief really mean. What is a religion? At its core its a set of beliefs. This doesnt mean there exists a tangible extra dimensional entity bestowing these things, it can be as simple as a belief that racism is wrong, but theres nothing that says thats true. If you were someone that has absolutely zero faith in any morallity then you would be a murderer because theres nothing to say thats wrong.
@@booperdee2 Religion is at its core a set of beliefs, but that doesn't mean that every set of beliefs is a religion, this is an obvious fallacy, and god isn't a stand off for morality in any accepted debate context, except when it's convenient for Mr. Petersen, and it's not his or yours to decide "what religion and belief really mean". Why not just say "atheists still have beliefs not based on reason" of "atheists still have faith in something" if that's really what he means? Because everyone would agree and it doesn't serve his narrative.
At 1:09 Matt Dillihunty said a fellow messaged him on Twitter claiming that most people who profess belief in God don't actually believe. Matt said it's arrogant and dismissive and I thought so too, but after pondering it a bit more I wonder. Because I grew up in church and all the different pastors and Sunday school teachers would concede that all of them have doubts from time to time and occasionally a full blown crisis of faith. Why does it not follow that they might secretly not believe in God after all. What other core beliefs do we doubt? Do we doubt our parents love us? Do we doubt the mathematics and science we learned in college and high school? Maybe some do and I'm unusual. The simple fact is that our parents are real and science and math predict exactly what will occur in the physical world if we mix certain chemicals or apply an electrical charge to a certain substance or launch a rocket toward one of Jupiter's moons. But God stands apart because of his chronic absence. He never shows up. He never tells his believers that they are correct and doing the right thing. How can any person with even an 8th grade education believe in God without a shred of doubt? They profess their own doubts. And isn't doubt just a less rigorous and specific skepticism?
Is there anyone that thinks murray;peterson,harris they just sit around talking bollox..just get paid talk hot air and people think there like a messiah.there not solving anything.
@@Story_Sandwich murray is a bigot and a racist.peterson just talks hot air.there are more male brick layers than women.wow.amazing.woke?what is woke anyway.and now jordan has decided to weigh in on the middle east.dont forget these are the two guys who think tommy robinson a far right thug is the new churchill.
No, most ppl never cared for him. The few that did, he was just a meme. Getting ppl to be loyal to a meme, like Trump, is hard to do. Plus his only direction to get more attention is down some authoritarian rabbit hole.
He's become audience captured by the religious right, which is incredibly lucrative lol. He still offers great insight onto human psychology and relationships, which is his background, but his rhetoric on religion is embarrassing and he's way out of his depth.
You have to have faith. I do so I'm a child of God, as a Christian I have total faith in him. You on the other hand well......go ahead and believe in yourself.Best wishes for the time being after that......
I understand why some people may question what Jordan Peterson was saying, but please don't discredit the man's entire contribution to knowledge he passed on to the humanity. He is a flawed human being, just like all of us.
Jordan Peterson exhibits a profound understanding of psychology and the mechanisms by which religious beliefs shape human behavior and societal development. His intellectual depth suggests that he is too enlightened to accept traditional biblical narratives in a literal sense. Yet, for reasons that remain unclear, he hesitates to critically examine or openly challenge the doctrines of Abrahamic religions. This reluctance stands in contrast to his analytical approach toward other belief systems, where he often employs a level of scrutiny similar to that of a classical atheist. By promoting these traditional religious beliefs without subjecting them to the same critical analysis, Peterson may inadvertently encourage a regression to less tolerant worldviews. This paradoxical stance not only creates tension within his intellectual framework but also risks undermining the positive impact of his work. Some argue that this inconsistency detracts from his credibility, as it appears he supports doctrines that have historically contributed to societal division and conflict.
He's full of shit, I have never heard him say a reasonable or intelligent thing, granted I don't listen to much of him but what I have heard is just nonsense
Indeed his "reasoning" about christianity is so blurry, so mumbo-jumboed I came to a conclusion it's total BS. It's not that you lose the thread. There is no thread to be followed in the first place.
I started listening to JP during the pandemic. I enjoyed his bible conferences very much (I'm an agnostic). I think that version of him was pretty interesting. He extracted wisdom from biblical/mythological stories using a psycology lense and he had a pretty neutral perspective. The pandemic, increasing fame and woke attacks took a pretty heavy toll on him. He lost me when he started radicalizing towards a religious/conservative/right wing speech (just as annoying as the woke/left wing speech).
It’s pretty simple, what is true is repeatable, Jordan’s advice through narrative and metaphorical meaning isn’t repeatable, it’s doesn’t apply to everyone, it doesn’t have the utility he thinks it does and he lets down the people he wants to help. It’s shameful really.
It’s shocking how many accept his broad concept and repeat it, without thinking about the utility and whether it maps onto reality. When he’s questioned he goes for the ‘I know the literature’ as if that phrase is the ultimate debate winner.
Jordan's main problem is that he has become cringe. The things he says, his attitude and general behaviour as well. Part of being cringe is that you do not recognize it yourself.
My thing with Jordan and the whole art thing is that gorillas and elephants in captivity have both created paintings. Does he think that this suggests the existence of elephant and gorilla gods? And metaphorical truth is not synonymous with non-fiction. We can generate these narratives without appealing to the supernatural
Completely disagree with both regarding investigating IQ differences. It's a perfectly valid scientific query to be asked and answered. The adverse reactions are inane and the property of the holder.
My brother is super interested in investigating the IQ range from differing ethnicities. I told him, "that's called Eugenics, and as a society we decided it was an evil thing to study almost a hundred years ago." Once someone determines which race has the "greatest IQ", what do you do with the others? What do you do with the race you determine to be of the lowest IQ? The last big group that studied this subject extensively, decided mass-murder was the answer.
@@Dr.Ian-Plect what type of groups? We've been down this road multiple times before, and it leads nowhere good, and rarely comes without the baggage of failed destructive political ideologies attached to this query. If you are just a genuine scientifically curious mind, then maybe you can start with engaging with existing literature on topic, and if possible joining and helping further the research in the field, otherwise I have valid reason to be skeptical of your motives.
@@yamahkogribbis6212 "My brother is super interested in investigating the IQ range from differing ethnicities. I told him, "that's called Eugenics" - no, it isn't. You clearly don't understand what eugenics is " Once someone determines which race has the "greatest IQ", what do you do with the others? What do you do with the race you determine to be of the lowest IQ? The last big group that studied this subject extensively, decided mass-murder was the answer." - irrelevant, if you employ your 3 brain cells, you might just see that I stated 'investigating IQ differences as a scientific enquiry', not 'act upon the findings' whatsoever.
NEW EVENT! THE ANTISCIENCE OF GOD? Lawrence Krauss & Stephen Hicks th-cam.com/video/extbcWCnhxU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=zbwVhOBBgwxLtB1e
@Pangburn thats each persons perogative.
As Jesus said a person by "his words will be condemned, and by his words he will be justified".
Matt with have no grounds for complaints then when he breaks hell wide open will he.
No doubt though, he will not be so cocky when he does.
Escaping Hell is a valid reason for being saved.
God is just, and hell is a just ends for those who choose the violation and condemnation of sin over the grace of Gods provision of salvation through Christ.
As a spiritual law, sin seperates from God.
Its not just like God says 'play by my rules or go to hell'
The law of sin means one is categorically unable to dwell with God. Hell is where one exists eternally without God. Without life, live nor light.
Its spiritual law, not spiritual simon says.
...and all of you will meet the abyss empty but for the horror.
Well, depends what you mean by Jordan Peterson…
😂😅
😂😂😂😂😂
That’s funny
Good one 😂
😂
Like so many clergymen and despots before him, Jordan Peterson has discovered how incredibly profitable outrage is. He cries, points his finger and issues an endless procession of complaints, sophistry, claims without evidence whatever it takes to keep is audience in thrall - and money flows and flows into his bank account. He's not the first. He's not the last. No one will read this comment but it felt good to write.
I read it and I am thinking about it it. Thank you.
Yep
i have listened to what I would qualify as a 'fair bit" from Peterson. I guess in total it would amount to the better part of a days worth of him speaking about, or debating things. Early on I was astounded how his modus operendi to make many of his points 'sound reasonable" is to only speak on many things part of the way into them. Its like he starts speaking on an issue he wants to make a point about, and he only delves into it far enough to speak on his points why he thinks his opinion on the issue is correct, but leaves out things that would actually then show his thinking, or at least his explanations have serious holes in them when properly filled in with the relevant important facts, or even likelihoods, show his position is often seriously flawed.
I literally find this totally astounding that a person with his education and public profile operates this way, AND that hes sucked in so many who I guess are quite happy to only hear one side or part of a story that they like, without addressing other directly relevant facts to the contrary. Im always left feeling like hes given what on the surface would sound like a great speech on how and why the Titanic cant be sunk, only to leave out all the possibilities where it could be.
Ive found myself listening to his nonsense to be left asking, "but what about all this over here you dont mention anything about on this subject,", or that what he has said, provides absolutely no reasonable explanation in these other circumstances that also plainly can exist. As Matt essentially says above, Peterson regularly literally depends on some absolutely astoundingly poor ideology, such as "Atheists are not REALLY atheist, they must believe in god" just to make some of his ideas even workable. For a guy who is a high profile psychologist, his ability to use his intellect to comprehend how human minds actually work is almost laughably flawed.
And its because hes so cemented into so many indefensible, and even extreme ideas, hes sort of invented a reality in his mind thats required to keep the whole ideology glued together. And that reality in his mind requires elements in it that if he actually had as great an insight into human psychology as he should, he would know that a lot of what he relies so heavily on is actually fundamentally wrong. It usually requires hes somehow read humans minds so well he knows their inner most thinking, yet I already know it matters little how deep I dig into my most deeply accessible feelings and thoughts, I cant find any trace of what Peterson often relies upon existing in people.
For example; I must believe if somehow as an atheist I actually still in some way did believe in a god, that that thought would exist someplace somewhere in my mind, even if I could only find it by sitting down and carefully mentally inspecting my most buried thoughts on the matter, yet, I cant even find a singular concept or consideration that I could somehow unpack into the claim that as an atheist I still somehow believe that anything even slightly resembling any god of a religion of any kind exists. Let me simply say, without an extensive conversation about THAT, I can assure you, if you have any thoughts you actually act on, in some way or another with some careful intent and consideration, you will find the source of such thoughts, even if its something you would never discuss in public, its in you there someplace you obviously can get at, because you act on it. While Im not claiming everyone is so self aware and introspective they always can do the wok required to understand why they do the things they do or say the things they say, but plenty can, IF they try hard enough. And as fact, Peterson has made claims about humans that often just dont pan out.
And Peterson seems to think many things about what people think and believe generally, and yet those things simply dont exist in reality as he seems to wish they did to make his theories always work for him. In some particular cases they may, after all, its a big world, and there may well be a number of people who think in any number of ways. In many other instances they simply do not. Despite Petersons over generalizations he has to make, in order to make his ideas workable.
And thats where so many of his presumptions fall apart because he makes them under the guise of being a commonality largely among all, and he has to to make his general theories work. But his over arching conclusions typically only apply to some, or even very few, and as a result often arnt dealing with actual core foundational issues that he claims they do, and only peripheral outcomes that often differ for differing specific people and circumstances, but speak nothing to any kind of universal truth that has much deeper foundations that might apply to all people.
TRYING HIS HARDEST NOT TO BE A CLERGMAN YOU STILL LABEL HIM AS SUCH. WE WRESTLE NOT AGAINST FLESH AND BLOOD BUT AGAINT PRINCIPALITIES AND POWERS OF THE AIR. YOU ARE LIKELY A MINION OF YOU KNOW WHO
You are correct
I quit smoking when I was homeless. There was no mystical experience. I was just sick of picking up butts off the street and smoking them.
Peterson would argue that was your mystical experience.
But then you changed, so you transcended 😁
@@miguelzavaleta1911 I'm sure he would, but that doesn't make it so.
@@AndyS-85 Are you saying it's impossible to break a bad habit without a mystical experience?
Peterson thrives on fuzzy language. It is his refuge to never admit anything or get pinned down. As long as he can create a fuzzy definition and shift the question in a completely different direction, wave his hands around, use big words to impress his followers and avoid actually engaging.
Exactly! His endless, convoluted rhetoric is withering and he loses himself in his own "logic?" It's all truly blather. State your position, don't wander off into a miasma of high-falutin verbiage and stick to the point. I've come to find him intolerable. He's a parody of himself.
It's also a way for his followers to just read anything into anything he says, and when people counter Jordan, the Jordanites come running in to tell you that you don't understand what Jordan is saying and that you have to read all his books and watch all his speeches to really comment on the stuff he says...
It's a cult of personality and everyone, and I mean EVERYONE who buys into that guy's nonsense is a complete and utter dunce. I'm no genius, that's for sure, but I spot charlatans like Jordan a mile away... Why can't everyone just spot his nonsense? And why is it that the people who worship him the most seem to be completely lost in this world? If all your followers are virgins who struggle with the basics of adulthood... maybe you're not so much a brilliant philosopher but more of a youth pastor type character... Know what I mean?
Any adult who still believes Jordan's drivel should be seen as suspect. I would not let a Jordan Peterson worshiper date my daughter, and neither would most jordan peterson fans... They'd want better for their daughter than someone who seeks guidance from someone like Jordan.
And the Far Left does not? Do they define their terms? What is their single definition of "White Supremacy"? How about "Racism"? "Harm"? "Hate Speech"? Or are they committed to the fallacy (formerly) known as Shifting Meaning?
I think the explanation for Peterson's degeneration is quite mundane: brain damage. Benzos, by preventing deep sleep, cause brain damage. He is a shadow of his former self. Not that he was ideal to begin with. But the difference between pre-absence Peterson and post-absence Peterson strikes me as "qualitative".
But hey, who wants to entertain a mundane interpretation when it is sooo much more gratifying to engage in demonization snidely implying one's own inherent moral superiority ... Lefty intellectual orgasm achieved!
And if all else fails his eyes start watering his voice starts quivering. Then he cries.
God I wish Peterson would have just stuck with psychology (pun intended). I genuinely enjoyed his lectures.
Me too, but I don’t hold it against him. He became both revered and vilified across the western world almost overnight. That would screw with anyone’s head.
Exactly
How is that a pun?
he was too over-invested in the validity of Jungian mysticism to ever contribute anything more to the field of psychology than post-hoc justifications for his emotional responses to things he didn't like
I think he is doing well, and should have kept it that way, he really helps boarding the horizon.
Jorden Peterson destroyed his reputation the minute he started talking about his religious beliefs.
Maybe not entirely...
@@pianistaJBP Yes, entirely.
@@mikethespike7579 I don't think so.
@@pianistaJBP He used to be known as an expert psychologist. Now he's just peddling unproven superstitious beliefs. Luckily religion is disappearing. People will all be atheists in 100 years time.
@@pianistaJBP Jordan beclowned himself years ago
That latest video of Jordan ranting with Dawkins is so painful. His followers think he is being profound when he simply alludes to really, really old ideas (that any mildly educated person knows), when he tries to blur the lines between literary criticism and reality, when he floats Jung as if Jungian claims are a given. His laboring over the nonsense that the metaphorical dragon is really real...as a super metaphor...or whatever. The only thing a mildly skeptical person can come away with is that he REALLY REALLY likes Jung, archetypes, etc. But that's not an argument, that's not evidence, and ultimately that's not all that interesting or even remarkable. But he's riding that nonsense all the way to the bank. [Edit: TH-cam won't let me reply anymore. But anyone who reads this thread will see the only counterarguments I've gotten are laughter, the claim that Peterson doesn't really believe in the supernatural, the claim that Peterson could be right that the supernatural exists because "nobody knows", the claim that he doesn't want to say he doesn't believe the supernatural because he would lose fans/money, and the claim that I'm wrong that Jesus is a myth even though I never mentioned Jesus being a myth. It is bizarre how Peterson fans can't look themselves in the mirror, or when they do, they only see what they want to see.]
Quite right. Out of his depth.
He wrote one good self help bs book and that's it. I think he knows absolutely nothing about eastern philosophy nor does he know anything about religion or god. He blabbers the most ridiculous bs with the biggest word possible and the whole western audience jerks off on him. He is not an intellectual or philosopher, he is just a good psychologist thats it.
Reality is reflected in stories both religious and secular. It's possible to find patterns and lessons and truths from those stories. The leap into something religious is what I can never grasp.
Freud and Jung were the two greatest pseudoscientists of the Twentieth Century.
@@nineteenninetyfive There is an impulse in many of us to want stories to be real. When we are young, and become transfixed by certain stories that are at least somewhat believable/realistic, our first question to an adult is "Is this a true story?" I think religion and religious stories ride that line. We want to find that "real toad" in the "imaginary garden", but we don't want the real toad to be "the friends we made along the way" or "don't lie or you'll end up like the boy who cried wolf". We want to hear a TRUE story where the MAGIC is real, where the extraordinary is real. You blur that line just a little bit, and you can squeeze out a much more compelling story than if you simply admit the story isn't literally true. The Coen brothers did this with Fargo (floating the idea that it was true, when indeed it was not), Blair Witch did this, that "Communion" book by novelist Whitley Strieber did this (where he claimed to have been abducted by aliens), "reality" tv does this, etc. I think what religion does is confuse the metaphor/symbol for the "deeper" reality, when ultimately doing this means the metaphor simply becomes a metaphor for itself--analogous to a circular argument, but in literary terms. I think this is indeed fascinating, but not for COMPLEXITY as Jordan floats, but for simplicity. Admitting that an individual's personal idea of "god" always reflects their own views on just about everything gives the whole game away. When have you ever met a religious person who disagrees with god on anything? Or if they do, they simply deny that god ever did X, Y, or Z, or claim THAT part is only a story, lol
Jordan used to be quite eloquent with this ideas but he has now gone so far down the 'rabbit hole' defending some of his ideas that he has lost his way completely. I am not sure he believes half the stuff he is saying or defending anymore, he just doesnt want to 'lose face' and admit he is wrong on a number of subjects
Eloquent? When? I remember when he was the college professor going viral on youtube. He was full of jibberish. An hour lecture would lose track of itself a million times. He just didn't have emotional outbursts.
He also is quite happy for the money to keep rolling in. 😮
@@hinduismwithpremananddasbhagat
Yup. Always full of BS
The love of money really does ruin everyone it seems. Even Peterson. Such shame a man would trade his intellect for the dollar.
Yes. We don't like being wrong. How eloquent one is tends towards perception...
I am very leery of anyone who needs the supreme creator of the universe to tell them how to be a decent human being.
Whose definition of decency are we talking about?
Shhhh, don't make him think.
Clearly given the current state and history of mankind all do need that direction. From the horrors of the organized terror of constant wars and forced subservience to the universal propensity of human selfishness and narrow perspective we all need the guiding light of the creator.
@@claytonyoung5005 Yes, a creator who could fix everything with a thought while apologists spend centuries Jordan Petersoning reasons why he won't.
The not-so-obvious question is: So, *HOW DO YOU* figure out how to be "decent human being"? Likely, your notion of what that entails is wildly at odds with what most humans have believed throughout history and a cultural artifact of the Judeo-Christian heritage of Western civilization.
I know Peterson is very polarizing. I never had any issue with him but he's never made sense to me when he's pressed on anything. It seems he just tries to word-salad his way out of an argument to make it so vague and hard to interpret it makes him come off as intelligent...
I think the polarization may come from.the fact he genuinely used to be a pretty good speaker and has genuine qualification on certain subjects.. but a combination of medical issues and partisan politics/modern terminally online discourse and healthy dose of bitterness made him into a dark chaotic parody of himself, the other side of the same coin. So his statements now are contrast to his previous self
this
Basically what Dawkins said of him at one point.
@@maxsrebro6072Perhaps Peterson is just always curious and asking questions?
Bingo
For the record, I quit smoking without a mystical experience....
I did with one . I didn’t know it was a thing lol. Just happened
Same hah, meaning doesn’t necessitate the existence of magical entities. Smh
I just had a mystical experience last night, bout to go for a fag as we speak!
As did I, but it was pot and it was because of illness not religion or morality.
If they put me in front of a firing squad and offered me a blindfold and a cigarette, I would pass on the cigarette, because if they missed I would have go through quitting again. I quit in 1972, over several months of using a number of strategies. One day my girlfriend and I were together, which meant we were either screwing of fighting. It was always one or the other. This time we were fighting and I lit a cigarette, thought no, and knew I would never smoke again. A few weeks of withdrawal and a few years of occasional nightmares about smoking again and it was past me. No face of God, just my angry girlfriend, who also managed to quit before we broke up.
This video didn't live up to its title, in my opinion.
"What happened to Jordan Peterson" should mostly be about:
- personal tragedy,
- how flexible beliefs are when dealing with clinical depression,
- the effects of pain reliever addiction
- grifting,
- fan clubs and social media addiction,
- and pontificating outside your specialty.
That is what happened to Jordan Peterson.
100%
I wish more people saw it this way
@@jackallen3524 Jordan Peterson was talented in his field. His counter to one British interviewer about her demands being offensive to him; he just doesn't go around complaining to everyone else about such "micro-aggressions" ... she was stunned and left speechless.
Peterson was unafraid to bring scientific data to arguments about physiological and psychological differences in men and women, etc.
I would put Professor Peterson in with Steven Pinker in this regard. They know the science that has discovered uncomfortable truths for those SJW's promoting a sex-blind policies (aka "genderless").
This made Peterson a natural magnet to incels and related conspiracist, discorianist, and paranoiac crowds.
I guess Peterson just got lost in that cultishness. His depression, addiction, etc. just made him more open to the social transformation.
JDP is clearly a deeply cynical and wholly disingenuous grifter posing as an intellectual traditionalist.
Claim without evidence, just ad hominem attack. How and what is he conning from someone? Your claim is just conjecture.
Jordan seems to have disappeared up his own backside in order to extend the grift. That’s the most charitable approach I can come up with.
Way to turn a phrase, though! Thank you.
After all that bellyaching about “postmodernists”, turns out Peterson is one!
peterson is not a postmodernist because postmodernists say that all "stories" are equally valid while peterson says that some stories are absolutely better than others
@ stories mean whatever we want them to mean, THAT is what postmodernists say and so does Peterson. People disagree on which stories are better/worse but everyone knows it’s all make believe fantasy
always has been
@tom-ment-Capybara WE KNOOOOOOW. Jordan Peterson inflicts post modernism on others and is a post modernisnist when it comes to others, and an extreme essentialist when it comes to his beliefs. WE KNOW. This is literally the "everyone is an atheist to every other religion except theirs"
lol ... I've always thought the same! I accept that he isn't a post-modernist in talkings about universal truths, archetypes etc, but boy! .... does he talk like one! And the weird way he combines developmental/evo psychology with jungian psychology and Christian mysticism. This kind of 'creative mixing and blending', phuking with metaphors, associations, (meaning over truth), the word salady obscure verbiage; an almost pained refusal to demarcate fact from fiction in favour of blurring lines (esp fact from myth) ... it's just SOOOO po-mo.
He got lost in his own word salad; and is still trying to find the way out.
He's tangled in a word spaghetti.
It depends upon what you mean by salad.
@@Conn30Mtenor I mean salad metaphorically and allegorically, maybe even metaphysically.
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification."
-Ayn Rand-
Still better than someone like Dillahuntly who says he wants to believe as many true things as possible without any sufficient definition of truth. If you have no metaphysical groundings, you cannot believe to be objectively right on metaphysical issues. Or you really want to tell me that you can show me some data claiming that (for example) tolerance is objectively true?
I remember being a little kid , maybe 6 or 7 , when I was put in Sunday school or something like that. I distinctly remember not believing a word of the religious teachings. In fact my mother still remembers me saying to her that what they were saying was stupid and I didn’t believe it. I’m now 65 and nothing has changed. The way I see it, and this might be a very simplistic outlook, but way back then when they were coming up with this stuff, those people were out of their damn minds. So violent, burning people alive who they looked at as heretics. All those ridiculous things they did to anyone who didn’t agree with them. These priests molesting children. I’m going to follow along with these lunatics and believe their crap? Forget that! I’m an Atheist and proud of it.
I'm kind of the same as you on the other side. I always remember believing in the existence of God and and I'm 50 now and this hasn't changed a bit. I also know of atheists who have done terrible things...... I also always thought that atheists were dumb... and this hasn't changed. So, we are kind of opposite.
I can relate to your comment. My parents were none practicing Catholics and therefore never talked about religion at home. Because of that I had my first experience of religious practice at five when I started school at the local Catholic denomination school. And same as you, I simply couldn't take anything the teachers told us in religious studies seriously. Oh, I played along - what else could I do as a kid? - went through the motions, learned the catechism, learned the prayers, learned the sign of the cross and the important stories in the Bible. But when I left school, that was it, fuk yu all I thought, I'm now free. I didn't know what an atheist was back then, but I had never-the-less become one and have never looked back. And I made sure that my kids didn't get indoctrinated, although I don't think any teacher would have managed that with those two.
Similar to me. Just moved away as I could not buy it and saw hypocrisy. My approach now is if it works for you goodo but don't force it on me or my kids thanks.
@@MSA-uj7cp I have a bridge to sell you. Honest, it's very very holy and was given to me by God. He told me the one who buys it off me will get his money back ten fold. Interested?
Keep on praying...
I agree what you say, but I would also add that those religious figures who sin are not the entire reflection of the core essence of religious dictrine that gave moral compass to so many and become redemption for those who went on the wrong path. We take what resonates with us and we leave the rest.
Please correct me if I'm wrong:
Jordan Peterson adopts the Biblical narrative and the idea of God to better work with concepts that are not properly explainable in a scientifical or rational sense (meaning, value, art etc.) but that clearly have a significant impact on people. He conceptualized God in many ways that refer to the unexplainable nature of humankind, perception and the universe. This view greatly differs from the traditional and common doctrines and beliefs of Christianity.
Sam and Matt conceptualize God in the traditional way, referring to the many negative effects it has had on people.
They are not having the same conversation. They are talking and arguing about two different things with the same name. It makes absolutely no sense to have a debate this way.
Your last paragraph is my exact thoughts on conversations gone wrong. As is with Jordan Peterson and also I have witnessed it in life around people.
Our reality differ by what we experienced and what our life thought us. Just because we use the same words, it doesn't guarantee we mean the same thing. We add self-deception, and we can't even communicate our simplest ideas.
Peterson's convoluted statements on religion are aimed at obfuscating the truth. He is a non believer posing as a believer to rake up the big bucks on the conservative speaking circuit.
I belive JP is smart enough to understand what's the debate is about. He just don't want to admit it because he knows he will lose followers and people pay him on patron.
The problem is that Jordan's followers do not see the psychological "god"; instead, they see the god that fundamentalists and backward-oriented people perceive.
Peterson is not a believer but he doesn't want to openly say it to maintain his fan base, social media followers and keep selling his books.
Asking someone to prove something they know can't be proved does not prove who's right or wrong. It is always more productive to ask someone about things they know.
"You can't quit smoking without a mystical experience"
In the late 70s/early 80s my dad's parents both quit smoking COLD TURKEY when they were 50 cents a pack, because, "It's too goddamn expensive"
And he him self put him self in a comma to quit benzoes. I don't think a lot of mystical things happen when you are in a medically induced coma.
JP:s point was that you can't reliably stop smoking without a religious experience.
Congratulations to your dads parents who are in the 3-5% of people who quit smoking successfully cold turkey.
Something that has a 3-5% success rate, is not a reliable way to quit smoking.
I don't understand how many people are confused about this. JP did not say it is impossible to quit smoking without a religious experience, but that religious experience has the highest success rate in quitting smoking.
I quit last year smoked for 20 years, no mystical thing
@@k0lpA Congratulations for being in the (very rare, aka not reliable way to stop smoking) 3-5% of the people who succeed at quitting smoking cold turkey. If you had chosen a reliable method to stop smoking, a religious experience would have been the best choice. But since you quit, does not matter now. You chose a method with a very low success rate, aka not reliable way.
And JP was talking about the most reliable way to quit smoking being religious experience. So many people are confused about this simple issue, people today are horrible listeners.
@@vege4920 You are misrepresenting the statistics. 3-5% quit through cold turkey. That does not mean 95-97% quit with a religious experience. The vast majority (50-70%) quit with nicotine replacement therapy, and those with access to better medical treatment are significantly more successful in quitting than those without. Social support from family and peers significantly increases the chances. Well-trained medical staff can almost double the chances. A combination of nicotine replacement, access to better medical treatment, better trained medical staff, and a strong support network has the highest chance of success for quitting longer than 6 months. Moreover, that 3-5% is about attempts to quit, not quitting per se. A smoker may attempt to quit many times in their life, and with continued failure they lower the overall success rate.
I'll give you $1000 if you can prove religious experience has the highest success rate.
In all my life i have never heard someone use so many words, take so much time and combine so many concepts to say absolutely nothing.
There's a lot to criticize about Jordan Peterson's ideas and philosophy. However, I personally am reluctant to do so for two reasons: 1) he was unfairly criticized and attacked in the worst way by people who never actually engaged with his ideas; 2) his addiction and recovery was so dramatic that people should acknowledge his recovery as an achievement. I generally agree with Yaron Brook's take on him.
The difference for me between Peterson and Murray is that I still have respect for Murray after following for a while. For Peterson, not so much.
You will soon realize Murray is a hack too!
Those chairs look really uncomfortable.
I listened, so I took a look after reading your post, and now I can’t unsee it.
You can only have a moral foundation based on atheism. There's nothing moral about doing good only because you fear divine punishment for doing bad. Obedience is not virtue. The only measure of good is doing good for its own sake without concern for reward.
Protagoras of Abdera: Of All Things Man Is The Measure
@@thedeviousgreek1540 Deeds will not be less valiant because they are unpraised.” - Aragorn
Lord of the rings.
@@Mogorman87 It is Man who judges things as valiant. Praise is also his domain.
Atheism is just another belief system.
I'm agnostic, I don't need your atheism to be moral.
Besides, all morality is subjective. Your morality as a Westerner is different to that of an Oriental or African.
@@RavusNox-z5i if we ignore all moralities, and decide that the goal of culture is to protect the best of humanity. then an atheistic culture will necessarily result.
JP built such a web of logical fallacies he got tangled up in it and can’t get out. He has a tell when he is going to string a new one because he says “this is really important” right before doing so.
truth is backed by facts; not faith or belief
What facts because many facts can or turn out to be wrong
@@jonpaulcox4954facts are supported by solid evidence, that which can be repeated and tested and is falsifiable.
@jonpaulcox4954 then they're not facts.
@@jonpaulcox4954 Independently verifiable and objectively observable facts
@@hobbes305 That's a scientific fact, we do not live our life by scientific fact, you already can't be 100 non-bias, you going to select facts and rank them, which really beg the question do you really live by fact? or there is something else at play here.
Having a large vocabulary and having critical thinking skills are 2 completely different things.
B.S. is a business model.
Peterson gotta pay the rent!
I would appreciate it if Matt opened his house to illegal immigrants just to show he's an honest stand-up guy
That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Makes no sense whatsoever. Only a twat would come out with a remark like that.
It’s really quite simple: Peterson communicates via truisms and vague, “deep” sounding world salad because it’s an age old, highly successful strategy for becoming rich and famous. He’s Deepak Chopra for disillusioned young males.
To me the more interesting phenomenon is the extent that less-popular content creators will go to in order to defend his positions in the hopes he invites them to participate in the grift.
In totally unrelated news, congrats to a Murray on being invited to do an event with Peterson.
He is a very dishonest person and I am very tired of his word salad monologues.
Fame, ego, social media clout and $ destroyed Peterson
Peterson suffers greatly from the Dunning Kruger effect. He really is out of his league on 99 percent of topics and just blabbers along trying desperately to debate.
Anything on the hard sciences is just whoosh straight over his head.
Peterson says a true atheist would have to be a murderer. Has he ever explained the existence of murderers who believe in the existence of a god? Which, by the way, would be 99 percent of all murderers who have ever lived.
Thanks for that, it's an important comment.
Saddam Hussein was a believer.
Check his CV regarding murder sometime. Or maybe better not.
I'm not sure Jordan believes what he says. I think he doesn't believe any type of mainstream religion but he knows if he agrees with you on anything he will lose his conservative fans.
It's a pose with flowery language for a grift.
Why is it an issue to talk about the IQ differences between races? I don't see the problem. It bothers me that Douglas espouses Anti-Censorship but has an "Out of the Parameters of Acceptable Discourse." List. It just seems inconsistent and disingenuous on his part. No topic should be off limits. Learning is a dangerous game and anyone who limits that learning process by limiting topics because it insults the sensibilities of others, is no friend of education.
The garish dressing and exaggerated hand gesturing (sample a few of Jordan's recent podcast appearances) would suggest something is amiss. He also posts some seriously extreme & odd stuff on X that doesn't get repeated in TH-cam appearances.
You must be new here. He's been doing the "octopus playing a trombone" impression with his hands since his earliest lectures on youtube. He's a manic ex-benzo addict with no adults around to keep him on the straight 'n narrow.
Right! I also noticed that. He became more of a showman and he used to be a respectable lecturer and profesor. This 'fame' changed him and he got trapped in this new character
@@iza1405able Yes, pitfall of social media celebrity. A cautionary tale.
I think what is going on is he has realised that to maintain his lavish income he has to continue to evolve the character that is Jordan Peterson and he doesn’t care what it takes
What a refreshingly honest conversation. Thanks for uploading - liked it and subscribed.
i thought it was lovely too, it was kind, almost wholesome
Peterson, the world's greatest tent preacher
Why is Matt discussing Jordan’s issues with someone that suffers from the same issues?
What frustrates me about the "atheists can't be moral line" is it arguably constructs a test: If religion is the foundation of moral behaviour, then the absence of religion must lead to immorality. But there is nothing even resembling a correlation, let alone causation between being irreligious and being immoral. But instead of doing the intellectually honest thing and concluding that religion has failed that particular test of being the foundation of moral behaviour, all these apologists bend over backward pretending moral atheists are actually theists, and we're just being difficult about it for some reason. It's all the more frustrating when we have a known phenomenon that does pass that test, (the absence of x correlates with immoral behaviour and therefore is a contender for being the foundation of moral action) namely empathy.
It's disturbing that Christians assert that "biblical moral teaching" and a genuine belief in a judgment and eternal afterlife are required to make them eschew evil action for the most part.
It is also insulting to the humans that existed for 200,000-300,000 years prior to abrahamic religions existing. They had morals. Because when Peterson, or other theists bring this up, they mean morality mentioned in the bible, the bible has only existed for less than 2000 years, homo sapiens have been around for 300,000 ish years, at least.
@@rdizzy1 Prehuman ancestors had morality even if they didn't have tenured professors of Ethics.
What does an atheist base their morality on?
Yes, but also reason. We need some over arching principles as well and in this respect I agree with religious people. The difference is, I think we can make our foundation without religion with empathy AND reason.
I love how intelligent you guys sound, without even defining your terms. It's like you just enjoy "sounding smart" more than wisdom and truth itself.
Love Matt.. I physically can't bear to look at Douglas anymore.. his disgusting support of the Israeli genocide is beyond forgiving..
If you want to understand Peterson’s relationship to Christianity and why he seems to be more irrational these days than rational, look to his relationship with his wife. Peterson is the type of man who needs to control women. He frequently interrupts and speaks for the women he has interviewed, for example. His wife came into her own after a cancer diagnosis, and began asserting her independence, making TH-cam videos on her spiritual transformation and newfound focus on Catholicism. Peterson found this change in his wife and in his marriage dynamics threatening and began revising his views on Christianity in response. This move was not necessarily conscious on his part. It speaks to something many have observed: Peterson, like many of his personality type, manages his insecurities, even self-loathing, by trying to maintain control over the things he most fears.
It was very generous to suggest anything about Peterson’s views are realistic.
Harvard and Toronto University must be the worst schools in existence since they hire teachers with 0 realistic views.
Many of them are realistic, I mean pretty much everything political he gets right.
Jordan desperately tries to make an argument for religion work amongst very clever and knowledgeable people like Harris and Dillahunty and it just doesn’t work so he tries to muddy every topic with word salad and obscure philosophical nonsense to avoid a straight up debate.
He’s not a theologian like William Lane Craig for example. Harris and Hitchens had their hands full with him. Peterson is a psychologist. I don’t understand why he’s trying to defend something that he doesn’t particularly specialise is doing
'Faith' is merely fear dressed up as virtue...
That is a remarkably simplistic understanding of 'faith' which ignores all of the work that has been done on the term.
@@bayreuth79 Yet so accurate.
@@bayreuth79what work has been done on faith apart from ad nauseam church marketing crapola???
i'd say there too much meaning condensed in the word to put it so bluntly. There maybe a lot of fear involved. But seemingly people experience fearlessness when they are truly faithful to some cause. So if I had to try put in a sentence as you did I'd say: Fear brings people to pursue faith to get rid of it.
It's pretty obvious to me. There's a reason the word 'faith' is hyphenated. As is so often the case, English words can have more than one meaning. OP does not just mean 1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something. but 2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
It makes me feel like there is a state of being that many people have not actually experienced that rips you completely away from your conviction that you have any kind of actual understanding what reality is. I’ve had an experience like this and it was terrifyingly disconnecting.
Trying to describe what it felt like to come back to “normal” is unimaginably impossible but the closest explanation ends up describing something like “god”. Not as a deity but a highest order, power.
Jordan Peterson has been good on challenging the totalitarianism of the Canadian government and the excesses of the far left, but when it comes to religion IMO he spouts the most relentless verbal diarrhoea. I'm flabbergasted anyone thinks he's worth consulting on the subject. It really is the Emperor's clothes and I cannot understand why so many purportedly intelligent people fall for it. He gets invited to dialogue with some very big names and he absolutely does not deserve to share platforms with them.
He has the best interview show on TH-cam. I still get a lot out of his conversations, and he’s really been a strong voice of reason in Canada as we deal with the downward spiral of Trudeauism.
Matt Dillahunty is way better when he isn't trying to bark others out of the room.
Wait…he doesn’t always bark others outta the room???😂😮💨😉
I know right?! Jordan never shouts his opponent down or speaks over them constantly. What happened to civility in debate?! /sarcasm
Mmmmkay. Muffin.
Does he ever not bark at people?
Except when Fox News constantly interrupts their guests right
when was this? no info on date this was recorded anywhere
Sept 2023.
This idea that people don't literally believe in God is a new one for me.
I grew up Catholic until I left school and slowly throughout my 20's understood I was an atheist.
Either my school, my church, my parents and every text and fellow believer were really really fucking bad at explaining 'we don't mean literally' or they all literally believed it. It was a cornerstone of my upbringing in religion. That the magic was real. That God is magic. Jesus is magic. That the rules of the universe as we understand them today were broken on a daily basis back then.
This all stinks of moving the goalposts.
First it was science reducing the God of the Gaps.
Now it's interpretation saying Christians don't believe the Bible and God and Jesus's ressurection as literal.
What next? That it's just how it makes you feel? It makes you all warm and fuzzy and anyone pointing out that it's inaccurate and full of inconsistencies and downright lies is being offensive and intolerant? Such a mighty religion that people have to fake believing in it.
This notion that Christians think God is not literally real irks me so much because I spend 20 years of my life being told adamantly that he was literally real.
@@kevtb874 if you look at any of the prominent "Christian" intellectuals in the media... their main point is that it's good for society, fake or not.
Which is kinda silly
different people have different views on what god is
@tom-ment-Capybara I know. Wishy washy shite. You'd think whether God is real would be a pretty standard and obvious fact as a believer but it's so shrouded in BS and mystery and vague notions I have immense issues not thinking it's manmade horseshit.
I find it ironic that these guys are constantly on about God and intellect and the greatest philosophers of God recommend two things to not become mired in the topic, it should be discussed if at all in few words, and never rely on the intellect to solve a problem concerning being. This is not an intellectual discussion it’s a discussion on being. It is the kind of discussion which led to a field called philosophy which is a fancy way of saying people love to argue so we better make a profession out of it.
The point of these discussions I do not see mentioned much is that these men disagree and there is an invisible skill of keeping these kinds of difficult conversations continuing despite the desire to shut them down. It is invaluable to see how those who disagree about truth which leads people not unlike them to brutality. It is good to see that they will take the role of not letting the emotions or self identity become too looming over the discussion and turn it in to a fist-less fight. It’s an art of relating. The compassion they show Jordan is probably more critical than the discussion. Because that shows me that they believe in something more than tasty word salads.
I think both of these erudite and complex thinkers are missing the actual point about Jordan Peterson: Peterson is simply not that clever. Not that complex. He just uses big words to obfuscate. Deconstruct his argument and it's faux-complexity for the sake of an audience.
Some People JP like to Hear themselves talk…
What a salve this was., especially Douglas M last sentence. I am not going to pile on JP, he has helped many more people than anyone commenting here, including me. JP had an unexpected fame and infamy. That would impact anyone, it was a trauma. Given his work is about deciphering or even mining meaning, it is no surprise he says things that can come off as whimsical or dogmatic. I like him, I dont have to agree with everyone he says, and I wish him well.
What did happen he's doing fine is great is making an impact on people's lives
Trying to get a straight answer from Peterson on anything is an exercise in futility. His grift model relies on never delivering.
Jordan Peterson must be a prophet since he only speaks in tongues nowadays.
“Happiness is beneficial for the body, but it is grief that develops the powers of the mind.”
To be honest, it feels like he's become different after the whole "reeducation" issue with the board of psychologists. It's really weird, I just can't put my finger on it.
I mean they slowly stole his career and profession of a lifetime off of him
You guys give Peterson too much credit. He is simply a man who makes a lot of money off his appearances. I don’t for one minute think that he believes anything he says.
“ as it is impossible to verbally describe the sweetness of honey to one who has never tasted honey, so the goodness of God cannot be clearly communicated by way of teaching if we ourselves are not able to penetrate into the goodness of the Lord by our own experience.” Quote from our church bulletin ☦️
I have read one of Petersen's books, watched a number of his videos on DW, and I have this fascination with his persona. He's been notable outside academia since his paper on the comparative intelligence of different races, through the fracas of personal pronouns ( here, though, I think his point was that people should not be coerced or forced [by law or social convention] to use certain pronouns as similarly people should be free to use whatever pronouns they wish). He's had further run-ins since and established his own academy. There's much in what he says that makes sense and is actually good advice, but then there's the opposite side where he seems just on the border of rational and irrational. He and his family have gone through some difficult events, he suffered from a drug addiction, and now he has found religion. And here is where I think that he hasn't quite grasped it: he wrangles God and the biblical stories to fit his own world view of hierarchies, personal responsibility, and life's meaning and purpose in "adventure." He seems to have totally missed the truly spiritual side of religion. He never speaks of grace, mercy and love which are more important than stories and morality. Petersen is missing the Spirit. But, he's an intelligent man and a deep thinker so I expect there may be more from him yet. As to the debate in this video: there is no point in religious/spiritual people arguing with atheists/materialists or vice versa. Both exist and tolerance of each other's beliefs or non-belief is all that's needed.
I try to take the best someone can offer, and throw out the parts I do not agree with (within humane actions). If we continually throw out the entire human being, like destroying Thomas Jefferson statues because he owned slaves, we become hypocritical to not allow culture and historical social norms to define him, as our own modern identity is more than skin color or sex. It is also cultural, historical, and social. As a psychologist and social critic, he has some very good points, such as with regards to free speech and gender delusions and woke narcissism.
Douglas Murray equally says nothing and more drawls with his upper middle class British tone than say anything of substance. It’s insufferable listening to him as he’s beyond his level of competence as a journalist when he engages in a lot of discussions that he’s clearly not a specialist in by formal training and only comes to these topic as an autodidact
He definitely said a lot more than what you just said, WTF was that?
Agreed. Murray actually does look down his nose, and he likes to holiday in war zones.
Yeah, the posh accent does 90% of the work
A deeply disturbed and disordered person it would be best to ignore.
That's the majority of humanity then, to some varying degree or other. A humanity that you also are a part of. Unless that is that you yourself have found some way to reverse your own intergenerational and accumulated epigenetic changes away from our species and phenotypical norm. Which is self evidently not the case otherwise you would not have made such an ignorant and self serving statement.
what bought his favour and turned him televangelist? why does anybody do it? to fill the plate, to expand into another demographic, for appearance sake or new owners maybe? selling god always rubs me like a catholic priest. i don't like it. maybe the second coming is a movement.
He went trough depression and addiction. I assume thats where he really got into this god stuff
@@miquelr2353 Or he saw that farming the religious is the most profitable business move, not to mention the easiest.
@@thedeviousgreek1540 okay donut
here is the simplicity of concept: With 6 billion people alive this moment and billions more who passed, the vast majority had active minds of contemplation. That is a fact. So to what purpose would it please a creator to create or at least allow confusion about HIM among all those thinking beings?
For me, knowing some of his childhood and watching Peterson's old Harvard lectures puts a different light on who he is today.
There's a certain type of guy who comes from abuse in poverty as the town smartypants, burns bright to escape that through his 20s-30s, becomes his job, becomes the very picture of an isolated academic, turns around to find an unfamiliar world, gets angry enough to scare himself, and Finds God in some way to develop a moral compass he now believes he didn't have before.
That's my psychoanalysis of the psychologist, anyway. Maybe because this was also the trajectory of the smartest JP fans in my life.
Jordan Peterson converted into Christianity after experiencing a life altering event, when he admitted he was contemplating going to Swithland for assisted dying, and the same goes for his wife, when she was diagnosed with rare cancer and survived, but that shifted her mindset, it looks like they both experienced some spiritual awakening. This is why maybe now Mr Peterson thinks his moral compass is aligned with who he is. I understand him because I went through a life altering event that changed the entire course of my life. Sometimes, things happen to us that shift our entire perspectives on things.
Jordon says a lot with out saying anything he is totally lost the plot in the last few years
Love Peterson in his self help role. The religious crap is tedious. Too esoteric to be useful or interesting.
You’re IQ is too low to understand it, makes perfect sense to me
His main problem is he’s giving opinions on literally everything.
Imagine being in the pub/bar chatting to a mate, and the whole pub/bar pulls up a chair and listens in....talking on stage like this must be nervewracking
You can't have an honest and realistic conversation with someone who has a slippery grasp on reality. Peterson has no real sense of reality as he's OBSESSED with mythos and metaphor. He lives in his own world and bubble and so transfers his supposed "intellectualism" as dogma and absolutism. In short, he's a magician trying to dictate law onto a world he really doesn't live in, has no real-world association with nor any relationship with. And then when faced with pushback, he cries, whines, bellows and plays victim, much like the evangelical militant xians do when they face the same criticism and challenges. Their protests and epithets are actually CONFESSIONS of their own agenda. Facing REALITY and having to CONFORM to REALITY feels like persecution for them. The emperor has no clothes, let alone power.
WeLl iVE REad the LiteraTure oN That anD its verY clEar. Ive lost count of the amount of times hes tried to push completely bogus ideas with these stock lines
That’s nonsense, he is as factual as humanly possible. Just because you can’t understand him. Maybe you could have a dictionary at hand when you listen to a lecture.
@@Stanley_Baby haaahahaha no. He makes a few valid points about a few things, but outside of that his nonsense unfortunately only convinces the least perceptive people... sorry about that.
@@Stanley_Baby one of his tricks is to claim something is backed by a study when its not. He knows he wont be questioned because it sounds convincing to reference a study, and he knows people like you never bother to look up these studies or do any of your own research
@@enterpassword3313 Of course you’ve totally convinced me now. Good luck voting for Harris anyway you simp 🤯
The problem here is the metaphysical concept of primacy: is there primacy of existence or primacy of consciousness?
On the one hand, Jordan says that there is primacy of consciousness because "reality needs an observer and that is consciousness" Therefore, reality is because the observer is conscious of it. Therefore objective reality can't exist because it depends on a conscience. But where does that conscience exists then?
Furthermore, he says there's divine revelation, thus saying that reality is not objective and identifiable but being passed from divine consciousness (God's) to illuminated human, prophet or whomever, which comically plays out the process of human faith (unchallenged assertion or dogma passed from a mind to another) and ultimately goes allong with the Jungian concept of collective consciousness.
On the other hand, there's primacy of existence where objective reality contains forms of consciousness that have objective means of connection and correspondence (senses, reason and logic) to that existence. Thus being the conscience that needs the existence to exist and not the other way around.
Have you read Ayn Rand?
Peterson is the Jesus of Gibberish. Sam Harris did perfectly fine in that debate, Jordan is a conman.
@@stevewise1656 Conman? That’s a bit harsh. I loved him. He has less words of wisdom for me now than he used to have. I now view him as I have many bands over the years. First two albums were great, then he sold out. One day I’m hoping he will go back to his roots. 🤣
IQ is measures such a limited part of what we do when thinking. There are so many things people do when thinking that IQ is irrelevant to. It's not useless to measure it, but it doesn't tell you much about a person, and definitely not a valid way of judging someone's worth.
You guys are so confusing. There is so much left out details that you keep inferring or skipping.
I kept waiting for a point but you never got there.
when i hear anyone say something like "jordan basically said..." its instantly a strawman, knowing how much context jordan provides. From my understanding of jordan what he means when he says "atheists still believe in a god" isnt an accusation that theyre lying, just that they are ignorant of what religion and belief really mean. What is a religion? At its core its a set of beliefs. This doesnt mean there exists a tangible extra dimensional entity bestowing these things, it can be as simple as a belief that racism is wrong, but theres nothing that says thats true. If you were someone that has absolutely zero faith in any morallity then you would be a murderer because theres nothing to say thats wrong.
@@booperdee2 Good take.
@@booperdee2 Religion is at its core a set of beliefs, but that doesn't mean that every set of beliefs is a religion, this is an obvious fallacy, and god isn't a stand off for morality in any accepted debate context, except when it's convenient for Mr. Petersen, and it's not his or yours to decide "what religion and belief really mean". Why not just say "atheists still have beliefs not based on reason" of "atheists still have faith in something" if that's really what he means? Because everyone would agree and it doesn't serve his narrative.
What was left out that should have been included? You didn't say!
@niblick616don't expect any intellectual integrity from this OP!
At 1:09 Matt Dillihunty said a fellow messaged him on Twitter claiming that most people who profess belief in God don't actually believe. Matt said it's arrogant and dismissive and I thought so too, but after pondering it a bit more I wonder. Because I grew up in church and all the different pastors and Sunday school teachers would concede that all of them have doubts from time to time and occasionally a full blown crisis of faith. Why does it not follow that they might secretly not believe in God after all. What other core beliefs do we doubt? Do we doubt our parents love us? Do we doubt the mathematics and science we learned in college and high school? Maybe some do and I'm unusual. The simple fact is that our parents are real and science and math predict exactly what will occur in the physical world if we mix certain chemicals or apply an electrical charge to a certain substance or launch a rocket toward one of Jupiter's moons. But God stands apart because of his chronic absence. He never shows up. He never tells his believers that they are correct and doing the right thing. How can any person with even an 8th grade education believe in God without a shred of doubt? They profess their own doubts. And isn't doubt just a less rigorous and specific skepticism?
L az
Glad more and more people are starting to see Peterson for what he is
Is there anyone that thinks murray;peterson,harris they just sit around talking bollox..just get paid talk hot air and people think there like a messiah.there not solving anything.
@@Story_Sandwich murray is a bigot and a racist.peterson just talks hot air.there are more male brick layers than women.wow.amazing.woke?what is woke anyway.and now jordan has decided to weigh in on the middle east.dont forget these are the two guys who think tommy robinson a far right thug is the new churchill.
Crazy how fast everyone turns on Jordan Peterson. But that is life one minute everyone loves you the next minute everyone hates you. No loyalty.
No, most ppl never cared for him. The few that did, he was just a meme. Getting ppl to be loyal to a meme, like Trump, is hard to do. Plus his only direction to get more attention is down some authoritarian rabbit hole.
He's become audience captured by the religious right, which is incredibly lucrative lol. He still offers great insight onto human psychology and relationships, which is his background, but his rhetoric on religion is embarrassing and he's way out of his depth.
and the maga right that admire authoritarianism.
You have to have faith. I do so I'm a child of God, as a Christian I have total faith in him. You on the other hand well......go ahead and believe in yourself.Best wishes for the time being after that......
What really happened to him is the Chloryl Hydrate treatment he received in Russia for his benzo addiction. At least, that's my hypothesis.
I've wondered about that treatment. Are there psychological side effects?
Bad grammar everywhere means I may have lived too long, but there it is. One must endure.
I understand why some people may question what Jordan Peterson was saying, but please don't discredit the man's entire contribution to knowledge he passed on to the humanity. He is a flawed human being, just like all of us.
Jordan Peterson exhibits a profound understanding of psychology and the mechanisms by which religious beliefs shape human behavior and societal development. His intellectual depth suggests that he is too enlightened to accept traditional biblical narratives in a literal sense. Yet, for reasons that remain unclear, he hesitates to critically examine or openly challenge the doctrines of Abrahamic religions. This reluctance stands in contrast to his analytical approach toward other belief systems, where he often employs a level of scrutiny similar to that of a classical atheist.
By promoting these traditional religious beliefs without subjecting them to the same critical analysis, Peterson may inadvertently encourage a regression to less tolerant worldviews. This paradoxical stance not only creates tension within his intellectual framework but also risks undermining the positive impact of his work. Some argue that this inconsistency detracts from his credibility, as it appears he supports doctrines that have historically contributed to societal division and conflict.
He's full of shit, I have never heard him say a reasonable or intelligent thing, granted I don't listen to much of him but what I have heard is just nonsense
What exactly is his contribution to society other than word salad?
You didn't provide a single example for some reason.
Indeed his "reasoning" about christianity is so blurry, so mumbo-jumboed I came to a conclusion it's total BS. It's not that you lose the thread. There is no thread to be followed in the first place.
When I am asked if I believe in God, I simply respond, "Which one?"
Atheists and believers reject the existence of hundreds if not thousands of Gods. Atheists add just one more to the list.
Wow... checkmate, theists!
Atheists and believers reject hundreds if not thousands of gods. Atheists just add one more to the list.
got him 🤦♂️
Actually all believers believe there is only one god. How stupid of you to say
I started listening to JP during the pandemic. I enjoyed his bible conferences very much (I'm an agnostic). I think that version of him was pretty interesting. He extracted wisdom from biblical/mythological stories using a psycology lense and he had a pretty neutral perspective. The pandemic, increasing fame and woke attacks took a pretty heavy toll on him. He lost me when he started radicalizing towards a religious/conservative/right wing speech (just as annoying as the woke/left wing speech).
It’s pretty simple, what is true is repeatable, Jordan’s advice through narrative and metaphorical meaning isn’t repeatable, it’s doesn’t apply to everyone, it doesn’t have the utility he thinks it does and he lets down the people he wants to help. It’s shameful really.
Nonsense... Its been proven to be repeatable for centuries and proven utility. How do you think humans lived before modern day enlightenment.
It’s shocking how many accept his broad concept and repeat it, without thinking about the utility and whether it maps onto reality. When he’s questioned he goes for the ‘I know the literature’ as if that phrase is the ultimate debate winner.
Jordan fears being seen as stupid but that stops him from truly going into the depths of understanding of complex issues.
Jordan's main problem is that he has become cringe. The things he says, his attitude and general behaviour as well. Part of being cringe is that you do not recognize it yourself.
My thing with Jordan and the whole art thing is that gorillas and elephants in captivity have both created paintings. Does he think that this suggests the existence of elephant and gorilla gods? And metaphorical truth is not synonymous with non-fiction. We can generate these narratives without appealing to the supernatural
I noticed that Peterson accuses others of being narcissistic during his anti-woke rants. Pot calling the kettle black, eh Jordy?
He’s all in American now 🎉🎉🎉
What happened to Matt Dillahunty?
"...one must accept and use reason in any attempt to prove anything".
-Leonard Peikoff- Objectivist
I really like this version of Matt. The vitriol he shows toward believers on his show is so juvenile and fremdscham-inducing.
Isn‘t he the simping for Islam guy? At least I think that was why I lost interest in him a decade ago. Islam simps get people killed.
@@GeoffJRC Matt only reacts to persistently dishonest theists.
What happened to the good doctor?Benny "the odious gnome "Shapiro,drove a dump truck full of money up to his house and bought him.
Completely disagree with both regarding investigating IQ differences. It's a perfectly valid scientific query to be asked and answered. The adverse reactions are inane and the property of the holder.
Investigating IQ differences in relation to what?
@@pshehan1 Across all human groups.
My brother is super interested in investigating the IQ range from differing ethnicities. I told him, "that's called Eugenics, and as a society we decided it was an evil thing to study almost a hundred years ago." Once someone determines which race has the "greatest IQ", what do you do with the others? What do you do with the race you determine to be of the lowest IQ? The last big group that studied this subject extensively, decided mass-murder was the answer.
@@Dr.Ian-Plect what type of groups?
We've been down this road multiple times before, and it leads nowhere good, and rarely comes without the baggage of failed destructive political ideologies attached to this query.
If you are just a genuine scientifically curious mind, then maybe you can start with engaging with existing literature on topic, and if possible joining and helping further the research in the field, otherwise I have valid reason to be skeptical of your motives.
@@yamahkogribbis6212 "My brother is super interested in investigating the IQ range from differing ethnicities. I told him, "that's called Eugenics"
- no, it isn't. You clearly don't understand what eugenics is
" Once someone determines which race has the "greatest IQ", what do you do with the others? What do you do with the race you determine to be of the lowest IQ? The last big group that studied this subject extensively, decided mass-murder was the answer."
- irrelevant, if you employ your 3 brain cells, you might just see that I stated 'investigating IQ differences as a scientific enquiry', not 'act upon the findings' whatsoever.