Has RELIGION caused HARM? Sam Harris vs Jordan Peterson
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 พ.ค. 2023
- Has RELIGION caused more HARM than GOOD? Sam Harris vs Jordan Peterson
#JordanPeterson #SamHarris #Religion
Full discussion here: • Sam Harris vs Jordan P...
Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson & Douglas Murray - London
07/16/2018
This is the fourth time Sam & Jordan appeared live together on stage. They were joined by Douglas Murray. This event took place at The O2 Arena in London, England on July 16th 2018 in front of 6500 people. The event was produced by Pangburn Philosophy.
(No copyright infringement will be tolerated.) - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
You can now become a PANGBURN PRODUCER on our TH-cam channel. Check out the PERKS! 🤓 Exclusive access to live streams, live chat, custom emojis & more! This is a great way to directly contribute to our future live discussions ☺ ✌ th-cam.com/channels/m5J1Fu_dHgBcMTpXu-NXUw.htmljoin
Most people in Hitlers Germany was not antheists. There were a lot of believers. And Hitler took photos with Catholic priests too. The cunning nature of a lot of belivers is that they try hide their violence by blaming atheists.
At some point "word salad" is not enough to define the level of barrage of meaningless words that Peterson throws at you.
Sam doesnt do that at all. its such a contrast. But still he is the one who gets strawmanned left and right🤦♂🤦♂
he really wants to justify the fake need of an imaginary entity, totally dishonest and hypocrite as an intellectual
Couldn’t agree more
@@AntitheistHuman imaginary entity?
WATCH THIS.
Are you saying you believe the origins of Life came into existence without God. Please provide evidence to why you believe that. 😂.
I've never met an atheist that said they believe the origins of Life came into existence without God and can provide evidence to why they believe it.
And since atheism is a disbelief an unwillingness or inability to accept God as true it's logical to reason that if atheist didn't have an unwillingness or inability to accept God as true they would believe in God.
I'll be waiting for you to provide your evidence to why you believe the origins of Life came into existence without God it's your assertion when you implied God was imaginary.
I'll tell you what if you provide evidence to while you believe the origins of Life came into existence without God I will provide evidence to why I believe in God and we will see which one is more logical.
EXCUSE IN 3 2 1.
Same as your typical atheist he refuses to acknowledge that atheism has anything to do with the result of atheistic government.
The fact atheist governments are all Communists without exception in the atheist mind has nothing to do with atheism. But yet Nordic countries like Sweden which was created by Christian's and probably has more Muslims than atheist is somehow the result of atheist humanist.
I guess it's just a coinkydink you can't distinguish between the moral positions of the atheist humanist left in the United States and the Church of Satan they both support all the same moral issues
Christians have to build walls in their supposed to because so many people want to live amongst us where is atheist humanist have to build walls because their own citizens want to escape their shtholes. Not even atheist want to live under an atheistic government. USSR, North Korea, Albania, East Germany, all garbage.
Under only two atheistic human this government's China and USSR they killed more of their own citizens in a century than all of the civilizations combined probably since written word.
“The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don’t like that statement, but few can argue with it.” - Carl Sagan
I love Sagan, but that's an intellectually unsound point. A fair contrast would be to ask whether in a world with a couple billion Satanists, crime and child abuse would be less frequent. Letting the main moral control on the most psychopathic and misanthropic segments of the population be Satanist dogma somehow seems like a bad idea.
I can
As a atheist turned Christian I highly recommend you research books that discuss the effect of faith and how it’s a net benefit for humanity if balance with reason. Extreme religious often results in stagnation while extreme secular reason has always resulted in societal collapses throughout history. Balance is key.
@@The_preserver_x16 -- Honest question, as I was a Brainwashed christian for the first 30 years of my life... until I actually read the bibles = question is -- What made you believe in christianity?
Was it based on any Real Evidence, or was it Blind Faith?
The problem with religious books is that bookstores put it under nonfiction.
The Wermacht had belt buckles claiming 'Got mit uns' - 'God with us', yet they didn't think their 'god' was watching them?
They thought god told them to do it lmao
The fact that Peterson claims to have studied the holocaust at great length, and doesn’t know ‘Got mit uns’ was on the buckles of the Wehrmacht, not the SS but the regular German army is proof the either he doesn’t argue in good faith or is just plum dumb.
Hitler and all of his upper brass were atheists according to Hitler's own words.
Gobbles believed in God and not the revived paganism he created? Stalin lessened the persecution of the Orthodox Church to aid his war effort, did that make him a believer or the Atheist he claimed to be?
@@ChillAssTurtle atheism gives you no meaningful justification against it
If you got every preacher of every faith in the world together, and they held hands in a giant circle, praying for an end to, say, childhood cancer, nothing would happen.
And then, when childhood cancer was finally eradicated decades later they'd claim that it was the result of their praying rather than the work of actual people toiling for years to find a solution. Because absolutely everything good that happens is because of God/gods and everything bad that happens is because of stupid mankind.
it seems highly unlikely but we never tried. the effect of collectively have positive intentions might do more then we dare to think it would. and im not saying god would be the one who would be the source behind it but we human beings.
You said = ", nothing would happen". I disagree. WAR would happen! They'd KILL each other over differences in their version of "god". But remember, their god and religion is all about love and peace...
Really? Nothing would happen? Who knew? 😂
Probably war.
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” - Steven Weinberg
What is good and evil. And why not do evil
@@ceceroxy2227
Here is my perspective:
Morality is not a product of God but rather comes from the empathy that is present in humans. Empathy is an evolutionary mechanism which created morality that we developed in order to form an efficient society.
It is just rules and concepts so that humans can co exist peacefully and make the most of what we have. Basically, we collectively created it simply so all of us can benefit from it.
Morality from religion is morality that doesn't change. Although morality by nature is something that has to change to suit the needs of society. Religious morality is a variable that stays constant no matter what the contemporary social norms and conventional way of living are.
Whereas less religious people perceive morality as something that is within them
. Not something that comes from any organized system. They simply follow their innate empathy and instincts. So therefore their morality changes depending on how society is.
Now "Good" and "evil". From my perspective, doing good means to benefit society and humanity in any way. This can mean doing activities like taking care of family to benefiting society as a whole through useful innovations. Like finding a cure to a disease. Good can also mean to punish criminals.
However, "Evil" means to take something away from society and humanity as a whole.
It means to harm the collective harmony that we all have created. Example is genocide, even disrespecting elders, violence against people for their personal beliefs, etc.
In practice, it is a lot more complex than just this but this is a simplified way of viewing the topic.
@@avenotrius4340 "So, is virtue loved by the gods because it is virtuous to love virtue, or is virtuous because it is loved by the gods?" Euthyphro"s Dilemma (by Socrates)
About good and evil, I see as moral and thus subjective issue. That means, what is good or evil regards to the individual and how it it percepeted by him. Once it affect a thrid party, it comes down to ethics of right and wrong.
And you're right when you say that good and evil towards others is balanced by the or the lack of empathy. It independ of the codes, laws, douctrines, forseen punishments nor religion. If a person doesn't see the other as equal, anything can be used as an excuse to do evil with the argument of the greater good. That is the famous "the ends justifies the means".
@@Chapolin242 It's " Euthyphro"s Dilemma '( not " Eutipron") and it's been answered, successfully, for thousands of years,by Theists.
@@avenotrius4340 In other words - Pragmatism. Morality is a subjective game of 'make it up as we go along ". The Nazis had lots of empathy,too. Since Morality is not Objective and grounded in God. It's a game of subjectivity. 'Good" according to whoever is making up the rules at the time
The point is no ateist killed in the name of "nothing" but there is a shit lot of examples of theist killing in the name of god!
They don't kill in the name of nothing, though they kill in the name of something non-existent. They kill in the name of god, which is real to them
The point is atheists have killed 200 million just in the 20th century and falsely religious people have also killed their hundreds of millions.
@@anonxnor Read the post again.
@@anonxnor Yes, that is part of what Tomi Loger was saying: While there are many examples of theists killing in the name of "God," atheists do NOT kill in the name of nothing (there are no examples of such occurrences).
Or taking some liberties to expound further, Atheists do not kill in the name of nothing, but Theists do(kill in the name of nothing), they just call their nothing, "God". For, as Christopher Hitchens said, only religion can so thoroughly derange a person so as to make them commit such atrocities that no rational person would... or something to that effect.
and not only the actions religious do, but think about it... the very core of christianity and all these Bs systems is that "god" will come to earth sometime in the near future and that will be the apocalypse, it's gonna be the end, the destruction, the death of humans, this is the basis of those beliefs, so I can argue with a lot of sense that being religious actually makes you immoral and a possible terrorist, to say the least
What’s Murray talking about? The Catholic Church were up their neck in the holocaust business, god observing them didn’t seem to bother them one bit
Hitler had the ear of the Pope, who never actually condemned Nazism- you know the thing that killed 6 million Jews.
The catholic church had no problem cuddling up to Hitler (who was a self-avowed catholic). Among other things, let us not remember that up to the 1960s it was the church's official position that Jews were responsible for the death of christ. Hell, christianity invented anti-semitism!
There’s no Holocaust without the church.
As well as the Russian Orthodoxy which perseveered (somehow them evil atheist communists didnt get them) through communism and to this day does nothing to stop Putins bloodshed in Ukraine...
Among the lies I have realized were so as an adult, Religion was the first one. My mother was dying and the priest of our church said that he did not have time to pray for her, and so he didn't. Later, among the last of her efforts to live, people from the church who I had never met came into my home and into my mother's room to observe her, then turned to me and said "It's time" and left. It was immediately clear to me that they came for themselves, to pat themselves on the back, as if to say "I went to a house and looked at a dying woman - that was a good thing that I did - so selfless, just like Christ". I still believe in some of the values I was raised with, but I have lost my hope in people, and I accept the fact that there is no God. Losing my mother after 7.5 years of chemotherapy, watching her age 40 years in 7.5 - She was a devout Christian her whole life and pledged her life to Jesus, only to have suffered a fate worse than death before finally dying. God is a lie. Religion is a lie. Just like everything else that people try to tell you is "the answer". There is no answer. We are here, and then we're not. Live how you want, die how you want. There is nothing else. That is the only truth there is: Nothing.
Yeah my dad died at age 66 of cancer too after a long battle with chemotherapy too. It would be incredibly self-centered of us to assume that God does not exist for billions of people for all these years because of whatever happened to me and my life and my family. Get out of self. Crucify it to the cross. Self-pity, self-glory. There is an afterlife of heaven and hell. Hell is full of people who think they deserve to go to Heaven and Heaven is full of people who know they deserve to go to Hell. It's humbling. Sin is the great equalizer. Everyone is a sinner, no one more or less good than any one else. Objective morality exists, not intersubjective morality. The latter forces us to accept any and all behaviors in thr name of tolerance and its gonna get a whole lot worse. Mens hearts will fail them more than they are failing you right now. I know it sucks and it isnt fair but its the truth. I know people who have been unbelievers until their deathbed. We are commanded to have hope that the Holy Spirit saved at the last minute. Everything hinges on the resurrection. Without that it's a book about morality invented by men no more authoritative than any other book. The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, a historical figure, was witnessed by over 500 people who had conversations with him. That's not a group visual hallucination. Writing about him 60-100 years after his death is sound scholarship. It's the same sound scholarship we use as evidence for the existence of Julius Caeser in writings by Plutarch 100 years later. So God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit exists as a 3 in 1 God, the only true living God..and He exists whether we like it or not. And the Catholics? Dead wrong. "Call no man on Earth father but your Father in Heaven." Priests are not mediators between God and you. Anglicans and Catholics look at Mary as a co-redemptress and are obsessed with power and prestige over one verse about Peter being the "first pope." They must be saved too.
Very Friedrich Nietzsche of you.
If you want to talk about the soviet union then religion was stamped out
because the church like the RC Church was corrupt and was used as used
to indoctrinate and thieve off the peasants and to make them accept and
know their place in the the class system, just like feudalism in England
and France , the religious were their to exploit the peasants and keep
them brainwashed and to accept their poverty as god's will . The
church supported the Tzar of Russia to maintain the class system. The
religious were not killed because they believed in god but because they
abused their power to exploit the peasants just as the RC Church did.
You’ve received two very unhelpful pseudo-therapeutic answers to your comment so I’ll try to keep this brief. First, I’m sorry about your mother. The lack of meaningful authentic support from your church environment denotes the shallowness of morality based on the Christian idea of God, and more importantly, the fear in that idea.
I think you should continue to question and criticize organized religion because of your firsthand experience with its pitfalls. But your second conclusion, which is that we should live and die as we want and that there is no answer, isn’t accurate. We can derive value from our actions outside the confines of dogmatic theism. Just because you lost hope in people and religion doesn’t mean that your well-being isn’t contingent on how you value yourself. Your mother sought her worth from Jesus, but you can do so from an exclusively empirical perspective: you are a human, you share your experience with other humans, you are a part of the same universe as other humans. If you accept these axioms as universal reality then you have true liberty to explore your self and continue enhancing your human experience with meaningful connections to the universe. Life has a purpose, it’s just not the one the Bible thumpers say it is. I wish you a meaningful life.
zeems a bit tainted but no one can understand hiw you feel. we are individuals with hopefully individual experiences. one gets an unknown amount of time on this earth. some more some less some natural has been very good to and some natural has made suffer from the start. we are just a small part of the long millennium of time . our arrogance to believe we are the most important thing on earth in nature is born in christian religion. man in the image and likeness of god. all things on earth are for our consumption. etc. its a lie. and evil. try to live independently for your own joy.
Peterson gets paid by the usage of the words “substructure” and “substrata.”
lol. I was JUST thinking that the other day. "Big boy" words.
lol. he should throw a few 'qualia' in there for extra income.
Plus a big bonus for hitting the "a priori" quota
Every manchild has some sort of compensatory behavior, Peterson's is his word salad.
I love Sam Harris. He corners Peterson from every angle and exposes him that he actually too has gone too far, the very thing that Peterson opposes!!
I like these shorter format videos of the Sam-Jordan conversations. It makes it easier to revisit and digest certain topics, and share it with others who might be interested but don't have the patience to watch hours of footage!
Sam is absolutely correct. A religious culture is a culture which suspends reason and prosocial behavior due to irrational idolatry. The "idol" is sometimes a supernatural deity, but it's also often a human, government, or ideology. In fact, it's precisely when we start treating natural and mortally limited things (humans/ governments/ ideologies) AS IF they're supernatural, that we begin to create a religion.
Wow. That's actually disturbing when you think about the challenges we face today, and how people might cope (in part) by abstracting the things they can actually see into some vague, mysterious forces that they've presupposed into existence -- probably to try to make sense of and explain all of the complex challenges they face in their actual life.
Scary thought!
Wait but didn’t Christianity create modern science, human rights, modern morality, and capitalism which have all been a net good.
@@The_preserver_x16 No on all counts. The roots of modern science actually began in Ancient Greece and with significant contributions from the Islamic Golden Age between the 8th and 14th centuries, long before the European Renaissance added onto its momentum (which itself was only partially influenced by Christianity; far from a direct extension of it). As far as human rights, the first code of human rights, called the Code of Ur-Nammu in Mesopotamia, dates back to before 2,000 BC, with the Code Of Hammurabi being nearly as old, both of which informed "modern morality" as you're calling it (which obviously wasn't a strongsuit of Christianity given the Inquisitions, American slavery existing as recently as 160 years ago, etc.). As far as capitalism being a "net good", there's never been a large capitalistic country, so the experiment hasn't even been run. America, China, India, Russia, etc, are all variations on "state-capitalism" which is a marriage of central regulation and free markets, often with a robust welfare state created for billionaires. The closest thing we have on earth to unfettered capitalism, where you can just buy and sell anything (or anyone) without pesky regulations and suffocating laws getting in your way, in a true survival of the fittest arena, are places like Haiti and the Congo if you want to relocate there and escape all the regulatory socialistic meddling that makes life so brutal in places like Switzerland, Austria, and Sweden.
Dante, I'm assuming you're 10 to 12 years old based on your sentence. If not, I'm assuming you wear a bicycle helmet on the playground while your 70 year old mother pushes you back and forth on swing sets. But until you either become and adult or are reincarnated as a non-dependent in a household, I heavily recommend you primarily play with blocks or something on the living room floor and leave adult thinking to the grownups. Thanks kiddo.
@Dante_Erembour The father of the scientific revolution, Galileo, faced the Inquisition because of his scientific views. The church supported science PROVIDED it did not contradict the bible - if you did, then you could be burnt! The scientific revolution led to the Enlightenment, which, thankfully, led to the decrease of the Church's power.
Supernatural element is not needed, suspending reason is not needed and idolatry is not needed either to end up with a f**ed up system.
The bad things happen when people are consumed by an idea. It does not matter what it is, the important part is that it pushes out all of the other ideas out of their heads. Communism is one example, nobody believed that Communism is supernatural, however Communists were ready to sacrifice themselves (and others), so the world can turn Communist and everyone can be equal. Another example are all people that were willing to die for their countries in WW1 and WW2. If we are left with few ideas in our heads, we will turn dangerous. It can be an obsession over religion, politics, love for a famous person, money and many other things, that can turn a good person into a bad one.
"Nothing is more dangerous than an idea, when it's the only one we have."
Émile-Auguste Chartier
We need to keep the open mind and talk to each other so we are not left with "one idea" in our heads.
Religion is not a bad thing, it can help the society and it did in the past. The important part is that we remain open to other ideas.
You have to love how Harris is completely respectful in allowing Peterson to drone on the way he does even though his point gets lost in what he's spewing, but the second Harris tries to make a point the mediator and Peterson constantly try to interrupt him.
English is my second language but I have a somewhat difficult time following Peterson but I understand everything Harris and Murray are saying.
My eyes glaze over after JP talks for more than a minute
I made it to 45 seconds
Because he is too smart
Intellectual baffle babble can be mentally fatiguing.
JP likes to impress himself with himself
The guy in the middle shouldn't chime in. Nobody is there for him
Murrays claim about for eg the Nazis not being 'observed' etc is his usual utter nonsense. "We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people." and again from Mein Kampf:
"The völkisch-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."
Totally agree. He's also ignoring that the majority of german people at that time were Lutheran or Catholic who had heard hatred towards jews for many years from the pulpit. Martin Luther hated the jews and wanted to burn down their synagogues and drive them out, something the nazis capitalised on. They couldn't care less if they were observed by god.
@@Kenneth-ts7bp A throw away line versus multiple statements of his and Germanys divine mission
@@Kenneth-ts7bp The vast majority of germans were christians (94%). It's ludicrous to consider the situation as "atheist". Even if the top brass weren't christians, the population who engaged in the activities absolutely were and like I said, had been conditioned by their religion to hate jews.
@@Kenneth-ts7bp What does that prove? nothing. Atheism doesn't make claims about the diversity of life on earth and its origins. Francis Collins is the head of the human genome project and absolutely believes in evolution, yet he's an evangelical christian.
Hitlers behaviour has nothing to do with the evolution by natural selection. It has far more to do with Martin Luther's idea about how Jews were to be treated.
@@Kenneth-ts7bp Its not chilling, its complete creationist BS propagated by possibly the dumbest website answers in genesis! Its a complete fallacy that quite literally presupposes a connection based on the pre existence of darwnisim before fascism. The nazis proposed many times that Darwins book be banned and it appeared on banned lists. Lets let Hitler speak for himself:
"Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?"
Hitler believed that Jesus was an Aryan and that the races were created...note the word...created by God, scattered by the flood and further cast around the world by the end of Atlantis with divine purpose in mind.
Hitler 1933:“we have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”
Middle and right dudes having a human conversation, meanwhile JP’s spewing salad faster than chat gpt mating with a vegetable slicer
You'd be hard pressed to find someone who says so much while saying so little than Jordan Peterson.
Sam has to deal with a 2 v 1 but makes it look easy
By his own reasoning Douglas should be unable to decide whether or not a religiously inspired suicide bomber would be more or less violent if he were to lose his religious convictions.
cognitive disonance from that dude, he really be comparing atheism to religion, oh hell how can people be so dishonest, and even so forget about the ACTUAL harm religion done, is doing and surely will continue doing, the only reason for terrorism is religion on one hand, then we have every other single commandment which has lead to atrocities, witch hunting? inquisition? crusades? colonizacion? most of wars? Is it really not obvious yet?
He would be less likely to be compelled to blow himself up to kill his God's enemies, and he would be less convinced that an eternal paradise of constant virgins for him to sleep with (though I imagine that would be difficult with all the children getting married off) as a reward for him blowing himself up, and an eternity of punishment for disobeying the creator and judge of the universe. He might still be angry and hate the west that has tilted the axis of the world in previous centuries, but whatever he does will be because he thinks it's right, not because some guy claimed some book written by some other guy claims that an invisible, intangible, omnipotent force that loves him specifically, despite his faults, wants him to.
Then we can work on trying to fix the broken people in our world, at the moment we struggle to do it with those in our SOCIETY but...baby steps.
@@TheOmegaXicor Your first sentence contradicts the third portion of your second.
Regardless, you’re mirroring the deeper point, which is he would require something in addition to & independent of atheism to motivate said action.
@@BarrySometimes I'm not sure where you see contradictions but maybe I'm not reading it the same. If you can point out where, I'll be happy to reword it (or just change it if there is a contradiction)
You asked if a religious suicide bomber would still be violent without his religion. I stated that without religion they are less likely to blow themselves up, so without religion they wouldn't be a suicide bomber but religion only gives you an outlet for your emotion and permission to do bad things to anyone who isn't within your group.
@@TheOmegaXicor Believing in "eternal paradise", being "compelled to blow himself up to kill his God's enemies", & expecting a “reward for blowing himself up” requires the assertion that a “book written by some other guy claims that an invisible, intangible, omnipotent force that loves him specifically, despite his faults, wants him to”.
Juxtaposed, you stated it won't be "because some guy claimed some book written by some other guy [et cetera]"
I understand that violence can be perpetrated for non-religious reasons.
If you enjoyed this clip, please drop a like and consider subscribing. Full discussion here: th-cam.com/video/aALsFhZKg-Q/w-d-xo.html
I normally like Murray, but he's bad around religion. Not to be confused with Peterson, who I normally don't like (some exceptions), and who's even worse when it comes to religion.
I'm not sure I understood him correctly, but he has the most interesting and contradictory ideas over religion. I don't think he is religious himself, but he seems to think that religion is needed to create and identity and counter other intruding identities which is is always his main concern. Mind you, he might have a point, but I see several problems with it, religion in terms of identity is mainly and primarily divisive and if I were a believer, I'd take issue with the way he seems to regard religion as a tool. Perhaps, I misunderstood him perhaps, he is religious which would put him at odds with him being gay and would make him even more incoherent.
@@fabriziocamisani5477 Douglas isn't religious but of the people on the stage:
Sam is a little worried what would happen if religion disappeared tomorrow
Douglas is a lot more worried about what would replace religion
and Jordan is terrified of the idea of what happens if you take away religion.
@Fabrizio Camisani Peterson doesn't see religion as just a tool. He is deeply "spiritual" about it. He doesn't believe in the belief itself, he believes in the power of the belief. His enthusiasm for exploring the human mind and human culture lead him to draw overreaching conclusions and express overdramatic "deepities" (as Dennett would describe).
His basic shtick is that people developed religion to express the complex ways people have wrestled with life guidance and moral behavour, so we better not crush it because then chaos will ensue. Or something like that.
He’s a Conservative above all else… he keeps trying to help Peterson
@@dansharp2860 I agree for the most part, except (for me) Sam doesn't seem at all worried if religion disappeared tomorrow, provided we replace it with the things he's proposed in other videos.
Douglas and JP might be worried about what happens when you take away religion, but neither have been able to address Sam's central thesis: that no matter how many advantages or benefits religion may have, it is (on balance) harmful and can be replaced with better alternatives.
As we see today, more harm is continually being done under religion. I don’t see non-religious people judging other like Christian’s and religious do. Religion should be considered a mental illness!
There is no Hate like Christian love!
Are you nuts. Atheists judge people every single day, they tell people how they should respect trans people, they tell people gays should get married, they say people who are pro life are fascists.
Another round of JP not actually sure that he said something that he may or may not have said unless he said it but did exactly mean it that way. Are we clear?
Well, what do you mean by actually? What do you mean by sure? What do you mean by are?
Peterson always focuses on his words to sound intelligent and sophisticated, whereas Sam Harris actually tries to make you understand his message!
Peterson is a champion of using a lot of big words to say nothing coherent...
True I think he could be more simple and concise but what he said here, whether or not you agree, was actually pretty meaningful. He was explaining something pretty transcendent and sometimes that needs bigger words.
Maybe you just don’t understand the words
@@ceceroxy2227 that's a really tough question. It depends on what you mean by understand and what you mean by words... Lol Peterson is a hack.
The sheer amount of gish galloping JP has to do in order to tell people that it's a good idea to lie to themselves is astonishing.
Like appealing to ancient customs for how we should live in the 21st century might imply he has some seriously unresolved personal problems.
@@ilymxiang considering all of his very public personal problems, I'd say it's a certainty that his room is a wreck.
Harris is a man of patience
This is my take on what they said:
Murray: No belief in "God" equals immoral actions.
Peterson: Most humans are too dumb and immoral to act like there is no "God".
Harris: Nope, all we need is a rational methodology based on critical thinking, empiricism and empathy, no imaginary overlord needed to be a moral agent.
I would add that we need to raise the standard of education, too, which will dramatically lower the levels of personal ignorance and credulity, thus lowering the levels of superstition and religiosity around the globe.
@@edernomelenko
So are you saying that the more educated one is, the more ignorant they become? Assuming so, ignorant of what exactly, and how did you come to this conclusion?
@@edernomelenko
Im sorry, but you failed to answer my questions.
"There is more ducation available to people than there's ever been, yet human beings are stupider than ever..."
- If by stupid you mean, a lack of commonsense and or intelligence, then you are demonstrably wrong. All indications from around the globe clearly indicate that a higher education correlates with higher intelligence / IQ, which arms one with more and better tools to more easily differentiate fact from fiction, which is one of the driving forces behind the leading demographic in most western countries now being non-religious.
"What you seemed to advocate for was a form of propagandist education that would attempt to detach people from 'superstition' and 'religiosity'."
- How exactly is using reliable, testable methods that uncover verifiable truths about reality, "propaganda"? And why do you think its bad to allow people to come to know the truth about reality?
You must think that the scientific method is "propaganda"... is that what you really think?
"these elements have always been intertwined in both religion and science"
- Religion was humanities first, ignorant and erroneous attempt to explain the world they saw around them, they didnt have the tools necessary to be able to comprehend where lightening, earthquakes, plagues, animals, plants, planets, etc, etc.. came from, they were literally too uneducated (not their fault) to be able to comprehend the world around them, and the various religious scriptures that exist are their attempt to explain what they very clearly didnt and couldnt comprehend.
Thankfully, due to the enlightenment and advent of modern science, we now know without a shadow of doubt that the majority of attempts by various religions to explain phenomena, is absolutely false, and for most of those phenomena we have very good scientific explanations that have nothing to do with superstition or religious dogma.
"there are elements of reason in faith and elements of faith in reason."
- That entirely depends on how you define "faith". If its religious faith (belief in the absence of evidence) then no, there is no faith in reason or science, but most theists Ive come across use religious faith and trust synonymously, which is fallacious due to them being, as you said, diametrically opposed, as one is based on reason and evidence, while the other is not.
@@edernomelenko
Wow, why are you typing extremely long monologues filled with fallacies that do not specifically address my points or answer my questions, its as if you dont want to be clear about anything, all you want to do it preach what you think is true.
Addressing specific points and answering questions is really quite easy, put the quote or question in "quotation marks", then specifically address that, and leave spaces between each one, instead of the dribble you spewed all over this thread which is near impossible to follow...
@@edernomelenko
So you’re refusing to do what is right because you couldn’t be bothered…
Your actions and words clearly indicate your lack of knowledge and understanding on this topic, which is not surprising considering you think that a good education is a bad thing.🤔🤷♂️🤦♂️. Goodbye.
Sometimes, when I see Peterson in conversation with people like Sam Harris or Matt Dillahunty, I think about how Peterson would fare if Christopher Hitchens were sitting across from him. Would the grandiloquence abandon him?
Hot hens has already met God, so he would probably have rather listened to Jordan
Said the same on another podcast.....Why didn,t they meet? Too late...sad really.
The magic power of word vomit.
Oh the utter relief of Sam Harris’s clarity of speech & ease of understanding his views! JP is way to “wordy” & uses so much ancient customs & beliefs that are irrelevant today.
is it just me or....when Harris speaks he sounds coherent, cogent almost deductive in his mental process...when Peterson talks is just a mess of gish-gallop....I doubt this is because I am not intelligente enough to follow him...
If anyone ask what an anxiety disorder looks like, point them toward a video of Peterson trying to justify his views to Sam Harris.
As a fan of Jordan Peterson I appreciate this series of clips you’ve curated.
Must be a vegetarian with all the word salad you eat up. 🥗
"not believing in god" is not a commonality. Atheists aren't a social demographic. It's like saying 99% of people in prison aren't albino, and therefore, non-albino people have a proclivity for being in prison. Not believing in something isn't a defined position. It's a position that specifically lacks definition. Trying to make it otherwise is self-deluding..
Sam Harris dismantled JP’s specious ramble about a Mesopotamian King with surgical precision. Utter genius.
No god was indeed watching them. And they did it. It happened. If there was a good and just god, it wouldn't happen. But infact it does. Both-side-ism isn't going to remedy what we observe in reality.
People did bad things because no god was watching them, and people did bad things precisely because their god is indeed watching them. That informs me there is something deeper going on with these people. My guess is some combination of ambition, narcissism, and fear.
Atheism and Religion. One is mere observation, the other is role-play. Only, they aren't pretending. They really believe this stuff.
To assess my relationship with a particular idea or person or activity, I always start from a admittedly simplified perspective based off of two things: mutualism, and reciprocity and move outward from there
Stalin: The only institution where he studied was a priest academy.
Hitler: He wrote "Mein Kampf" in prison and tells several times how he threw himself to the cell floor and thanked "Faith" for this and that. This is also the 1st sentence in the book's American edition.
During WW2, the belt buckle of the German soldier had the text "Gott mit Uns" = "God with us".
Mussolini: Catholic.
Of course, Sam Harris is right about the religious nature of totalitarian regimes. Refugees from North Korea often do not want to hear about religions because "they saw enough of it in North Korea".
How do you prove any war was prevented because someone thought their god was watching?
Am I the only one who misses Christopher Hitchens
Absolutely not. Imagine if you put The Hitch on stage with these three!
Sam Harris has a black belt in mental jujitsu, and both Murray and Peterson were choked out.
Sam Harris is in the big leagues. The other two are in the minor leagues.
Grown men and women have to accept that this world is cruel and people do evil things because they are evil, not because atheism or religion. Dogmas, doctrines and ideas can be used as a weapon to control people and justify your crimes.
The SS literally had “God With Us” engraved on their daggers and belt buckles.
It seems that atheism can ALLOW some bad people to horrible things by taking away their fear that God is watching them,
while religion can DIRECT some people to do horrible things by making them think God wants them to do those bad things.
I really miss Hitchens
The idea that none of the people involved in the various steps of the holocaust weren't religious or didn't believe in God is absurd.
The camp guards etc, knew their commanders were watching them. Those commanders knew their commanders were watching them and so on. The ever present fear of repercussion was still there and actually tangible.
Peterson uses the math teacher strategy very well when it comes to this. Just hurls word after word of boring jargon until you’re completely numb and forget what he was even talking about in the first place. He KNOWS he has no argument for god whatsoever, and he KNOWS that Sam is lightyears out of his league when it comes to debates, so he muds up the water as much as he possibly can and runs the clock out. People like Peterson and Ben Shapiro look very good when they’re arguing against naive college kids, but the moment they’ve come into contact with Sam he just mops the floor with them.
Never ever do you hear mass shooting in the name of "ATHEISM WILL BURN YOU", but you literally hear human beings calling on God when comitting attrocities.
"I came into the Indian Sea, where I discovered many islands inhabited by numerous people. I took possession of all of them for our most fortunate King by making public proclamation and unfurling his standard, no one making any resistance."
*The inhabitants . . . are all, as I said before, unprovided with any sort of iron, and they are destitute of arms, which are entirely unknown to them, and for which they are not adapted; not on account of any bodily deformity, for they are well made, but because they are timid and full of terror."
They manifest the greatest affection towards all of us, exchanging valuable things for trifles, content with the very least thing or nothing at all. . . . I gave them many beautiful and pleasing things, which I had brought with me, for no return whatever, in order to win their affection, and that they might become Christians and inclined to love our King and Queen and Princes and all the people of Spain; and that they might be eager to search for and gather and give to us what they abound in and we greatly need."
Excerpts from Christopher Columbus' first letter to the Spanish monarchy on his discovery of the New World.
I feel like atheists and Christians often talk past each other on whether atheism or religion inspires more evil, when both are partially right.
1) Many Christians believe that all human beings are evil at heart, and the primary thing that keeps human beings in check is the fear that God will punish them (for some bad human beings, this might indeed be true). Once a religious person accepts this premise as true, it's simple logic that atheism would lead to many people committing all sorts of unspeakably evil acts, since it removes the "one" barrier holding people back from committing unspeakable acts.
2) Atheists recognize the fact that the vast majority of people who don't believe in God don't in fact turn into evil serial-killing lunatics. They instead focus on the many examples of religious people doing terrible things in the name of God. For them the scary thing is the potential for religion to convince people to do bad things they wouldn't otherwise do by teaching them "God wants these things done."
Both of these are true:
1) Some bad people, freed from the constraints of a God who judges, have committed horrific crimes;
2) Some people have, in the name of bad religion/misunderstood religion, committed horrific crimes in the name of God.
Blaming atheism for genocide makes no sense
The beltbuckles of SS soldiers read "Gott mit Uns" (God is with us). Peterson's protestations are either ignorant or an excellent example of cherry-picking (not surprising).
That claim (that Nazis were atheists) just baffles me. They were OVERWHELMINGLY Christians. To say after all is said an done, "Well, they weren't REAL Christians because they did really bad stuff and Christianity wouldn't allow REAL Christians to do that," is just a perfect circle of logic. The belief in the "final solution" was directly related to the belief that Jews were responsible for killing Jesus. And Jesus is, you know, pretty central to Christianity! The idea that a bunch of fanatical atheists killed so many people because they thought those people killed their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, is, when s p e l l e d o u t , pretty preposterous. And yet the notion is floated again and again to audiences of modern Christians who nod as if that it is obvious Nazis were atheists. How else could they have done such horrible things? And we KNOW atheists are always murders because they have no god to hold them back from all the murders they want to commit. Good grief.
Great discussion ... Sam's great to listen to . I don't consider him to be Atheist ... he is spiritual and resonates deeply with core Buddhist philosophy on seeking the truth, morality and reality on the nature of mind.
That's not the same thing as believing in a spiritual being. If Sam believed in Buddha, he'd call himself a Buddhist.
Religion can be blamed for the ignorance in humanity
The worst harm, because not only do they harm others when confronted with beliefs that don't line up with theirs. They also harm themselves and think it's a virtue.
fire has caused harm but we still need it, some things are a double edged sword.
Murray just making claims without substance
as usual
He's really dull and an intellectual lightweight
Religion is not an after school program we fund and take advantage of the benefits. It's accompanied by thoughts and behavior that are pernicious to the "out group".
Religion is the worst tragedy in human history.
Hi Pangburn, yet again I am stimulated by the thumbnail caption for this video, it is another one that I can answer categorically in the affirmative!. While adherence to a religion of any other cognitive delusion does not necessarily cause harm they can never confer any benefit!. The only 'use' of such things is that they can alleviate the stress that doubt and uncertainty can engender, those with extreme anxiety and insecurity can make themselves feel less isolated if the 'believe' God is on their side, apart from such temporary relief the risk that such mis-placed confidence can also produce is mot-re than likely to encourage reckless behaviour, one of may ways in which individuals can convince themselves that the end justifies the means and doing significant harms to others can be justified if the intentions were good!. This in and of itself another type of cognitive delusion for which the specific religion cannot be blamed but such subtle combinations of error so easily combine once the first desperate steps are taken.
Cheers, Richard.
I really appreciate your good faith, helpful engagement. 👍
@@Pangburn Hi Pangburn, thank you very much for your kindness and consideration, it is quite funny really during the night I suddenly realised that I had totally failed to make my intended point properly!.
This relates to the fact that I presented the first part clearly enough about how beliefs and delusions cannot contribute anything of value while still having significant capacity for harm, it is this relationship that exposes the primary contention, that in the total absence of any benefit we have only the damage on the other side, however slight that harm it is infinitely worse than the benefits which are zero!.
There is one other aspect of all this that I have been fascinated by for several decades, this is the ratio of cost benefit relating to the number of individuals engaged in a campaign, here we find a significant correlation in historical records between the number of protagonists and the damage resulting, the more people the worse the outcome!, from gangs and sects to tribes and faiths all the way up to nations and peoples. At the opposite end of the scale very few single individuals have ever managed to do much harm but many have done a lot of good!.
I am much intrigued by your application of the word 'faith' in your reference to me and this makes me think that yet again our words have specific meanings and this example shows how belief and faith are not the same at all!.
I had been minded to treat them the same and renounce all faith as well but now I see that is not required, I can claim to stick with some of my ideas and methods on the basis of some style of 'faith' in so far as they appear to serve me so far but I have and need no proof of their veracity, just like the lemmings going off the cliff, - so far so good!.
I think the same applies to my assertion that the uncertainty that I have chosen to embrace as an alternative to the prescriptive 'control' model that I have rejected is also an act of faith, not 'belief'.
Cheers, Richard
Jordan is so clueless to how offensive he is to actual Christians. Like when he talks positively of the followers of Marduk. Why does he bother trying to please these people when he makes such grave offenses without realizing? It's like his Message to Muslims video, he's clueless how repulsive he is to the people who actually believe in these faiths.
*nods.. It’s a point that isn’t discussed anywhere near enough. I’m a nonbeliever, however oftentimes when Jordan speaks I find myself offended on the behalf of theists.
Can you explain further? I don't know much about Christianity or Islam. Just interested I suppose.
Testing out my new membership! 😮❤❤❤
The badge looks great :) - Travis
Douglas Murray is so utterly dishonest. I think he thinks it’s hilarious that people take him seriously. In the debate he was in with Matt Taibbi he actually argued that the main stream media can’t be trusted because it takes the time to verify information when it could just be publishing everything, stirring shit up and scoring points.
we common people is the big problem on earth. We are 8 billion and we dont hesitate to do as we please
Whether God is watching, or God is not watching makes no difference to human calamity. God is a tool that some use to foment their atrocities, and the lack of God is a belief that some use to commit their destructions upon mankind. I heard these debates at the time, and I still think they are peddling around rose bushes and not getting to the deeper truths of the humanity.
The absence of religion and dogma does not exist within human beings. The point with Stalin and Mao etc, is that when people don't have a religion, they make one. And when people make new religions, they are TERRIBLE. You can't really get rid of belief STRUCTURES. And if you do not choose a belief structure, it doesn't mean that you don't have one, it means that you are not in control of what belief structure you have.
I like to make the distinction between religion and organized religion.
Usually like douglas murray, but in this instance I don't think he understood what Sam was saying, and if he did, then he was a moderator presenting his side of argument, which is a bit of a no no.
It's not a tennis match Doug. It's not a tennis match precisely because the "crimes of 20th century" were committed by people/governments who happened to be atheist/secular; while on the other hand much of the crimes prior to that were committed by people who were religious, either christian or muslim or select your faith, but crucially were committed precisely in the name of, directly part of, or to further their specific religion. Thats the difference, and Doug seems to want deny that, or argue against it. It is a tennis match, except the religious player is playing against a brick wall
The chap in the middle at 3:51 claims that people do evil if they do not believe in a just god who punishes evil. I hope Harris points out that religious people do evil things because they believe…or pretend to believe…that god has ordered it or allowed it. The jihadist can claim god’s support as can the Inquisitor.
I find it stunning that an educated person can make such errors in reason. Also that an experienced debater trots out with a dramatic flourish such a tired argument, one he knows is specious.
If you are fair, you win. If you are unfair, you lose. Unite against unfair religion.
I always thought that Peterson is a carnivore. I was wrong, he really likes his salads.
Isn’t the chairperson supposed to be impartial?
That panel functioned like the us Supreme Court and Republican Party.
good people do good things, bad people do bad things, it takes religion to make a good person do a bad thing. Remember that old chestnut? The atrocities were not done "in the name of atheism" that would make little sense.
Hogwash
@@johnnelligan7093care to explain? Or must we trust you on faith?
There is no Hate like Christian love!
Yes, religion makes people do stupid evil things. But, that is coming from an evil god of the Bible as well. Christian’s love to do “good” things to lift up their ego’s, but it’s usually bad things they do. Nothing like taking away human rights for women and the LGBTQ+ community in many states. Where is the love?
''how can atheism be responsible for genocide? we have no doctrine''. What Sammy is essentially saying in the most wiggly way possible.
The more I watch of these two talking it becomes clear that Harris is trying to distill his ideas to the point that they can be clearly and convincingly conveyed, while Peterson tries to be as obtuse as possible so that we completely loose sight of the question at hand and are left with the point he wants to make which typically is an attempt to shift the conversation.
Germans thought that God was on their side. They wore Gott it uns (god is with us). Certainly this phrase was used in other places before and after but the point is that this is what they wore.
Some intellectuals are so scared of the so called 'woke culture" they decided pretend to be religious.
Ok.
Let's use the Bible.
Saul killed his thousands.
David killed his Ten Thousands.
Who were these people he killed.
If I am not mistaken it was other Jewish tribes and others.
Sam Harris has a nice idea, but has he ever found a person at the top of a hierachy that is thankful to and subservient to the needs of the people below them? That is not human nature. JP is acknowledging that humans get giddy with power and a demonstrable way to overcome this is to have them feel that they are subservient to a greater good. The hang up that Sam has is that he is thinking of God as a religious 'being', you need to just think of God as an ideal to strive towards.
@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu Precisely!
Never, ever disrespect my mother, unless you can say that you can "palpably", you can't though
You could never say anything against her honestly, argue with Sam Harris all you want to, he'll just destroy what you call a career
Unfortunately Sam Harris is so good at this the other two look silly. Outgunned here…
I genuinely got annoyed over the whole tennis analogy over the atrocities of the twentieth century. to do the kindergarten thing and distribute equal responsibility to both sides is not only ridiculous but childish in a debate such as this. Especially when one of the participants clearly demonstrates that it cant be done so rightfully through argument. The moderator just threw it out there without a shred of information to backup his point.
7:42
A leader of a group of people does not need to be accountable to a God to be moral and just.. He is accountable to the group he is the leader of.. His place in the hierarchy and even his existence depends on the group..
We hold dear our principles of democracy and freedom. The principles in the Bible are directly opposed to both. Democracy came about for the first time in Ancient Greece completely unrelated to religious principles. Their word was ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ (democracy) from the words ΔΗΜΟΣ (plebeian) and ΚΡΑΤΟΣ (strength). It required a revolution by the people that threw out the aristocracy and replaced it with a limited democracy around the end of the 6th century BC.
There is no reference whatsoever in the Bible regarding democracy, nor is the idea ever presented, even though around the time of Nehemiah in the Old Testament Greece's democracy was well established in Athens and the surrounding area.
Peterson knew Sam had the upper hand here
Excellent debate. As always, I must "side " more with Sam Harris. Every single deity conceived is completely invisible and not detectable. For me, the Universe itself snd all it entails is the transcendent entity, not some made-up spirit of sorts.
How can the universe be a "transcendent property"?
The universe transcends itself??
Does anyone else notice that Jordan Peterson, being out of his depth in the discussion on stage, turns his attention to the audience with his arguments.
I wonder if this is because he feels the crowd is less sophisticated and more apt to be impressed or influenced by his pretzel logic?
It's obvious he can't keep up with Sam Harris so diverts to a lower base.
It is also telling how he is playing with his hands and ring. A sign of lack of confidence or lack of thought
Nothing Jordy ever says is “sophisticated”.
Peterson is not arguing whether religion is true, as he has already in so many words (SOOOO MAAAANNNNY WORDS) admitted that religion is fiction. Peterson is arguing whether religion is necessary, and he is afraid of what he perceives as its modern replacement.
The funny part is that Christian’s listen to Peterson thinking that he is a Christian just like them, but in reality he is essentially saying,
“Yes, religion is just a fictional story but it is a fictional story which certain members of the human species NEED to believe, otherwise (without it) these same religious folks would be raping people, killing people, and doing all sorts of evil despicable sh!t.
It’s like when a religious person thinks that without religion everybody would be killing and raping one another, and how THAT says A LOT more about the religious person’s tendencies than it does an atheist.
It’s kind of another form of religious projection.
I think that’s what’s happening in this country at the moment in regards to the awful Christian religion.
When you turn on the tv you see the most awful excuses for humans are often those who identify as Christian’s. And those are the people who think that everyone is trying to take away their “special” superstitious fairy tale, and so they react in disgusting ways
…and let’s be honest, they are probably willing to murder in the name of their religion.
It seems to be pretty common with the abrahamic religions…
Weird huh?
Lol, the abrahamic religions are disgusting
No sound
I am calling Bullshit.
To claim that people who said GOD was not watching them are atheist is ridiculous.
If they actually claimed to be atheist then they would have stayed that.
Imagine this was about Islam... Wouldn't get away with that.
Someone tell the chap in the middle that two is company and three is crowd.
I think that a dictator has to appear to his people as someone who has a sky friend, to pretend better that its not him, its the boss who makes the decisions.