1:21:05 the irony of Jordan Peterson telling anyone “you can summarize that in two sentences” is unbelievable. What a joke from a man who can’t answer a yes or no question in under 8 hours
A man that thinks and exposes all his thinking out in the open, unlike you, who probably need very short sentences with simple words so your mind can keep up.
@ do you think it’s intellectually honest to not be able to answer yes or no questions in less than 8 hours (which is how long JP said it would take to answer the question “did Jesus rise from the dead?”) and then have the audacity to tell someone that they can should be able to summarize something in a sentence or two? There is nothing profound about not being able to give a straight answer to a question without obfuscating the meaning of every single word in the question. In the wise words of Albert Einstein, “if you can’t explain something simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”
bro every kid can do this job, i just dont see god so why wouold i believe it? but that doesnt ivalidate this thinking.. just because you need to struggle more to build a foundation of thought that can be articulated coherently, in a certain subject, doesnt invalidate it, sure maybe a more "rational way " to go with is to not take a chance and not adhering to any religioun, but there is still much to explore, with a mind that can maneuver between creative thinking and fatual thinking. there is no challenge with going with the rational thinking.
@@unrecognizedtalent3432 the problem is in this conversation, they pr jordan more question the validity of binding to a "rational" thinking in the first place on this subject. To do so you need to get creative, unlike sam.
when you understand something and are talking to a wide diverse of people. must deliver in a manor for all to hear. he understands more than you your IQ prob. isnt near his. you cant fathom what is like to have a High IQ due to your statement. wake up boss.
The confidence with which Peterson says a human could not have written Cain and Abel is so telling. A statement for which he has absolutely no basis, but one said with such confidence, like many of his beliefs
@@jacobvanveit3437 self evidently - but that’s just an opinion, that isn’t based on any empirical evidence. To state an obviously unprovable opinion with such certainty demonstrates a real character flaw.
@Flickit100 he is not sharing earnestly that is the thing... he is got Trump thing where you blurb out a wound and then your chased it with so much rambling trying to make it valid, coupled with rehearsed catch phrases until your hapless fan base claps.... just watch him....
I think this the final video that convinces me. I just cannot understand what stance or point of view Jordan Peterson is trying to make at any point in time. I can't even say I fully disagree with him bc he can't articulate a succinct sentence. I feel like I understand Sam's points he making. I don't even agree with all of them but I understand what's being proposed. I can't click on any more JP videos. They're just a waste of time for me.
I have become very fond of Jordan, and he's not that much fun, to begin with. But I think I've realised he likes to expand all possiblities. because he too, is looking to be convinced.
I am a Therapist who specializes in the treatment of trauma and ptsd. I work with Veterans and non Veterans. Many of the Veterans have a faith system and believe in good vs evil. That faith system and belief does not keep them from developing ptsd or heal their ptsd. I think Jordan's statement about these Veterans being healed of their ptsd from listening to his talk is overly simplistic and not helpful.
I have no titles to show, nor I’m any kind of educated specialist in fact, I’m just an ignorant man listening to this educated people in hope of getting some wisdom. Having say so, I just want say that J.P. Is full of shit! Is just a sack of words that he puts together to make nothing but noise!
Just because they say that doesnt mean its true, you cant prove that they have it really as well as Jordan cant prove it because psychology isnt exact science.
Sam makes similar statements about facts and science though. So moral systems being as they are, are trying to provide such utility to humanity and so these type of anecdotes come into play.
@@smokert5555 If you do not understand half of what he's saying, then how do you know? Not saying I endorse everything Jordan brings to the table, but that response kinda wasn't it either.
@@fredsik When i say i don't understand, it's because what he says makes no sense, not because i lack the ability to understand the words he uses. I won't say all of what he says makes no sense, but half his "explanations" don't. If he can't communicate his ideas effectively, then there's really no point in listening to him.
@@smokert5555 I agree that he struggles to communicate his ideas - particularly his religious ones - in a manner that is even remotely accessible to most people, and that is an issue. To me it still does seem that there's something of value to be found in his arguments, despite their impenetrability.
@@TomOwen-w1j "...but that doesn't mean he is trying to sell something all the time" No, it's the trying to sell something all of the time that gives that part away. It isn't that JP is trying to sell something all of the time, it's his constant obfuscating to avoid accountability for it that's what most obvious. He's a fraud and a con man.
Dude i like jordan but i can not stand the man whenever religion is the topic. Every fucking time he knows he dont have a goid answer bc there isnt one he just falls into it depends on how u define “insert word everyone knows the definition of” Depends on what u mean by true Depends on whaf u mean by god Depends on what u mean by the creator of the universe. Cognitive dissonance is crazy
I love JP too, but do not like the religious turn he's taken - how can that help our world right now in a practical way, since we're all our own saviours, imho.
yeah he extrapolates something to a point that it falls apart. And everything falls apart when you extrapolate it enough. It just seems like a strategy he uses not in a genuine way and just to win a debate or argument.
We have to grow up Jordan, we shouldn't require a "father" figure to ensure a " good" person. I think we have progressed to the point we each can recognize our collective responsibility to community
@@rodehs688 Peterson lets his ego get in the way too much when he tries to get a point across. Behind his words are, “I’m right and you’re wrong.” Really hard to ignore that. You’d have to read a transcript of this conversation in order for his ego to not get in the way.
@rodehs688 I find this patience from harris to all of this troubling... I was quite relieve when Harris said " I am sick of hearing this" and who is Pieterson talking to, when he looks around his shoulders...weird
I have a hard time believing that Peterson is arguing in good faith. He's carved out a niche on taking on atheists, but his arguments are nothing but word salad that appeal to people who like word salad or mistake it for being intelligent.
Intelligent people never leave comments on youtube videos, because they're aware their opinion is insignificant and they know it means absolutely nothing. That's all I have to say, thank you very much !!
@@The-Underground-Man haha zinggggg, thank you for proving your own point 🤦, (clearly you didn't pass logic 101) as well as mine about Peterson's followers who eat up his word salad. That's all I have to say, thank you very much.
@@The-Underground-Manthis point is easily proven false as some intellectuals do comment really insightful things on RUclips comments. I’m not sure why you choose anger or hatred over being understanding but that’s the real sign of intelligence and mental growth is how you treat strangers when you can be anonymous. He is correct about his assumption to me in that Jordan Peterson was not like this until he had family members almost die from illness and then he himself had some dark times . This is the exact moment countless rational people wish to give some credit to faith or dogma because the shock of possibly losing the people they love most is too great for them.
@@The-Underground-Man The irony of claiming that intelligent people “never leave comments on RUclips videos” via leaving a comment on a comment to a RUclips video is quite entertaining.
Douglas is open to Peterson's way of thinking because he finds it much more palatable than Islamism and radical Marxism, not because he finds it truthful. His own words, paraphrased.
Religion exists to guide those who can't think for themselves, as a result of personal or collective trauma. If only they could allow themselves to experience the freedom that comes from critical thinking. Sam is such a clear thinker, listening to him is a beautiful trip.
It would be a fun drinking game to drink every time Peterson says “substructure” but then you’d first have to listen to him. Hearing Peterson induces an internal groan in me that I struggle to contain.
Jordan replaces substrate with substructure for this talk. I find his anti-intellectualism galling particularly since he is very condescending with Harris who is his superior in every respect (and yet manages to never raise his voice : unlike either Peterson or that English prig Murray...). These are all the examples for you that he used: abstract superstructure, dogmatic substructure, fictional substructure, religious substructure...for crissake, you want to slap him out of it!
This is the discussion that turned me on to Marcus Aurelius and Stoicism just a couple years ago. Completely changed my life. For me, it's been quite active in driving right thinking and right actions in the world in a way not unlike religion used to be for me. After that, I also became aware that Stoicism is undergoing a major revival, and I think it could provide a lot of the answers to JP's concerns about the limits to rationalist atheists' ability to inspire and empower.
We all mostly have access to the same tool box. Some folks are never allowed to move the top tray and dig deeper into the available tools. This sets human limits, that do not exist outside the instruction to never remove the top tray.
Hm interesting point.. this is something the atheists haven’t been able to produce so to say.. I think it’ll eventually be worked out.. as you know evolution,not just biologically, but ideologically can be a laborious process. Agreed with your point. Feel free to reply. Love trying to use language to find something to unite us vs divide us.
@@ZechariahHeck Yes, the strength and weakness of atheism is that it's a single answer to a single question - "do you believe in god?" - there are no inherent directives to this answer to this question. If one wants directives, they'll have to look elsewhere. Secular humanism is such a place one can look, as are various other schools of philosophy. Though, one of the challenges is that there's a long history of atheists/atheism being misunderstood and misrepresented - usually from the theists - so getting people interested, much less educated, on these other options can itself be a bit of work. There are a growing number of atheist communicators - not the least of which coming from the growing science communication resources, science itself also being quite misunderstood and misrepresented largely from the same theistic sources lol - but yes, social and personal awareness and development can be a laborious process. I'm hopeful though. :)
Yeah what a bunch of simplistic thinkers. So much worse than the Sam Harris fanboys who subscribe to secular Calvinism and mindlessly applaud the idiotic claim that Christianity can be likened to astrology
@@dailyDorc Both are based on unjustified beliefs. Before you call other people's claims idiotic you should at least present an actual argument against them.
That's a presupposition that there is no truth in any dogma and so all dogma is to be rejected. If the presupposition is wrong then the pursuit of truth will be in vain
@@dailyDorcWe don't need dogma to cherry pick from it what little objective reality may exist within. That's nothing more than rationalizing belief in fairy tales.
@@dailyDorc Lulz. You're smarter than the institution of modern science. Rando internet dudebro has the story. Everyone listen up and we'll get a multi-discipline science lesson. Get over yourself.
@texasclimatealarmist4801 ah, yes, appeal to the institution of modern science they haven't discredited themselves at all. If you're going to follow-up with the classic "98% of scientists agree about the climate crisis" try to leave your dentist off the list it's not really relevant to the conversation
Petersons preaching, jam packed with his agonised assertions, is a very public psychotherapy of himself. The revelation he strives for through his tortured verbiage is not divine, but the expression of his own clear inner unrest, anger and resentment. This is what clouds his thoughts and makes barren his world view. How has such a fraught teenager grown old without growing up?
You listen to JP using his long complimented words and you think about his statements for a while and you come to the conclusion that he is talking bollocks
Jordan peterson does what most religious people do. They talk about their faith at length, but when you have any counter, argument or you voice your own opinion, they cut you off repeatedly and never let you finish a coherent sentence. I used to like jordan peterson, but now i'm done
How did Petersen become part of these discussions? He doesn't bring anything to the conversation other than "bible is important story because some people need it to live their life". And beyond this he has nothing but word salads.
I think the discussion is hindered by the density and obfuscation of Peterson's contributions. He's like a slam poet who also joined the debate club and chess club. He makes it very hard to identify his biases or motives, but I don't trust him. Does he believe what he says? Is he a reassuring leader of delusional intellectuals? Would love to see more conversations between JP and clear simple communicators like Harris.
What is your question? He’s a new believer in Christ and is finding truth in lots of points that many people have found(where revealed to them) and is debating others to see if what he found is true. The more he has these conversations with people with double standards like Sam the more he believes what he is saying.
@@mikebasketball11 his first argument was easy refuted so he had to come up some something else to argue about, showing clearly that he has chameleon tendencies. Of course he will on focus on where humans have failed to grasp the fullness of Christianity yet for his defends he has no valuable proof his ideas work, he wants you to imagine that they can… guess what that sounds like? A religion, except Peterson and others shows examples where Christianity has worked as where Sam can’t.
@@MultiRm Can you be more specific? I'm trained and have studied philosophy; we would never simply say "His first argument was easy refuted." We lay the argument out clearly like it's mathematics, then derive definitions/counter-arguments and go from there. So far, you've said very little I'm sorry. So again, what is the SPECIFIC double standard? You've not really brought one up, just claimed his first argument was refuted so he flip-flopped and was relying on faith. But you didn't ack absolutely any of that up, with 'no valuable proof' YOUR ideas work. Sorry, but you're literally doing what you claim Harris did (and I don't believe Harris did... only you so far). Sorry to be so blunt, but I'm getting tired of people failing to literally engage intellectually in these ideas. Most people just brush the surface then fail to even engage each other in the actual ideas, just criticise the person behind them. So, what was the double standard? That Sam relies on 'Faith' but criticises it? I can respond to that easily, if that's what you're claiming the double standard is.
He got skooled if you as me when he said not understanding someones point because they aren’t able to explain themselves on all sides of that argument, so he considered himself omniscient Total fail, first lesson you know nothing. He failed.
"The only thing they had in common is that none of them thought that god was watching them" he said about the nazis who were all wearing belts inscribed with "god is with us"
I always love watching the avid way Douglas always listens to the one speaking. The conversations [on other RUclips videos] Douglas and Jordan have together are so heartwarming.
I know Sam Harris is today's Christopher Hitchens in regards to atheism but I still regard Christopher Hitchens to be the best debater on the subject . Having said that Douglas Murray is my favorite living debater and possibly all time . It's his ability to see truth and deception and his ability to clearly speak with clarity and commitment . He is polite and follows good debate eticate . He defends those who need help when the truth is being ignored . Jordan Peterson is a good man who is well educated in psychology . He is emotionally driven and digs deep for answers from the soul . He needs to speak more in lamen terms and avoid laboratory terms and quotes from PHD papers and studies . Most people can neither confirm or deny those . All three are here together for the betterment of mankind thank God . Wouldn't it be nice if they represented the governments of the world ?
Watch Douglas Murray talking with Cenk Uygur. Nothing polite or barely human about him. Christopher Hitchens would have been horrified at his position. If you know anything about Hitchens, his position on Palestine was irreconcilable with Murrays genocide support.
As a former atheist who has seen their fair share of both hitchens and Harris... Sam Harris is a smarmy dwarf next to hitchens. Hitchens would be up on stage sweating out last night's booze and could deliver with charm, intellect, and genuine humor. Sam practices these lame analogies with rehearsed punchlines. He's lucky he found the atheist grift bc nobody would consider him a serious thinker. Pretty funny that he has the same view of free will as Calvin and Martin Luther tho.
@@dailyDorc Weird how more people leave religion in the west than convert to it yet the only people you ever see using conversion as an argument are Christians. Probability is you're lying and never were an atheist.
J. Peterson doesn't interrupt because he's learning a lot! Edit - Or should I have said "should have been learning a lot". As I believe it was not long after these debates / conversations with Sam Harris that Old J. P. really went off the deep end and came close to "ending it all". Resulting in him receiving treatments only available in the Soviet Block to (successfully?) treat his depression and drug addiction(s), J.P. did make somewhat of a recovery if not a cure for torments. However the elite academic's have more or less avoided him so as not to contribute to any possible (probable) future relapses he may encounter. (Edit - add) To his credit… J. P. has very successfully and lucratively found a way to make major bucks by pandering to the dim minded far right religious / political fools in conservative outlets. He’s currently enjoying the fruits but I believe there is a strong possibility that he will go back to the dismal course he was personally on because ‘Recognition and accolades from his (imagined?) peers are really his desire.
@@17bruary Uh, Jordan didn't really offer any answers. Everything is mysterious and deep and profound to him, but that doesn't mean the point he is trying to make is not simple. He believes we shouldn't throw out religious allegory because it may be the case that without it the foundations for our societal systems might crumble. Harris is trying to say it may be in our best interest to reconstruct these narratives based upon reason and well-being in order to divorce the rational and justifiable from the horrific dogmatic stories that share a transcendent origin. The whole talk was Jordan giving example after example of allegory that he finds to be compelling and significant. Ok, cool, but he never properly addresses the fact that we can, and have, fashioned powerful narratives that don't have reprehensible ethics tied to an immutable abstract. He makes an assertion that secular societies don't have an ethos and then throws in a crazy claim about not having art or music. I mean this guy is cut from the same cloth as Deepak Chopra.
@@17bruary See that is were real intelligence is in taking complex ideas and distilling them down. Peterson does the opposite to sound smart but there is nothing there.
The sign of true brilliance is the ability to communicate complex ideas in a clear simple and coherent manner. I believe Neil Tyson does this when he discusses astrophysics. Peterson doesn’t seem to be able to accomplish that when communicating far less complicated ideas.
The problem in arguing with a believer is that everyone of them is in their own imaginary castle with its own rules. You have to enter that castle and drag them out of it. And while they are conjuring new weapons all the time, all you are fighting with are bland basic facts.
@MultiRm I suppose you're going to tell us that only the Christian god could have made the universe and not any of the thousands of other gods that have been thought up?
It's so obvious JP doesn't actually believe half the crap that comes out of his mouth. He's too smart to actually be religious, so he ends up endlessly talking around it without ever making a point
26:40 “well it depends by what you mean about the creator”. No it doesn’t Jordan! It’s very clear that for billions of people the creator means god and that’s what Sam is saying. Stop equivocating every time god is used to demonstrate a bad example.
33:40 I'm sorry Douglas? Are you telling me that the only thing holding you back from committing a horrific crime is your fear of being watched by God? A fear of consequences instead of just having empathy for your fellow human beings? Such a BS answer. I can't speak for anybody else but I don't need to be threatened into doing the right thing.
@@Rumo_Notna That is an extremely disgusting thing to say. Atheist or not, how dare you insinuate anyone would take part in such a thing, you be be ashamed!
@@Rumo_NotnaYeah. America, a Christian country, has been pretty good at practicing dehumanization and submitting a huge portion of the population to atrocious circumstances based on their skin color. Accros the american continent, Christian settlers exterminated a scale of population larger than what communism is accused of. Are you implying that Auchwist guards acted out of empathy? No they were devoted believers. There is something extremely odd in the way these guys will link atheism to fascism and stalinism and act as christian apologetics as though Christiannity is a cure to barbarism. Perhaps you were just impersonating Douglas, but that's what I'd answer.
Studies show that even a human-sized sticker on the front glass of a shop depicting a policeman reduces theft by [I forget the number but it is appreciable] %. Derren Brown also did an experiment on this which was quite convincing, I think it was the one where he 'converted' an atheist to deism. What I'm saying is, the fear of being watched by someone is one of the factors that prevents humans from committing amoral acts. You may not like it but it appears to be true. It's a depressing truth, but I don't think hiding from it is helpful.
The issue lies on the over analyzing tendency of anyone who listens to most of what JP has to say. Like the emperor's new clothes, nobody quite dares to admit that. It’s exhausting!
@@MultiRm What do you mean by "simply?" What do you mean by "put?" What do you mean by "you?" What do you mean by "can't?" What do you mean by "understand?" What do you mean by "him?" 🤣
@@peterruse2658 There is certainly nothing sophisticated about his sentences. That you think they are is more telling of you then of the person you are trying to insult. All metaphysical philosophy is word salad period. Topics regarding anything 'meta physical' meaning beyond reality can't be demonstrated in reality.
Douglas Murray needs to be recognized for his genuine concern for mankind's coexistance with one another and his intelligence and perception . He is absolutely brilliant and is a person that only good people could ask to to mimic . He's a treasure . God keep him safe !
As a soldier diagnosed with PTSD I am incensed that Peterson seems to think that this mythological reference to good and evil is the only way to relieve the disorder. Where to start?; 1) Most soldiers are atheists 2) people experience and recover from PTSD in their own individual way. Not everyone needs the good and evil BS 3) the last thing that anyone needs in therapy is a mode of recovery that isn’t grounded in reality. Fairytales and good and evil talk is for children. Fully developed adults living in the real world are sensitive to nuance and boiling the world down into childlike terms within childlike framework probably isn’t nearly as effective as Peterson would like to think, if it even works at producing any real results at all. Lastly, wisdom sounds more like “things are various shades of gray” not “things are black and white”. Peterson is much more of the latter.
Jordan the apologist and Harris the realist. Jordan appeals strictly to the emotion without an ounce of rational or proof! Harris merely says no what you are addressing is not demonstrable nor logical!!
Currently a third in this 4th episode but I think the biggest separation in thought is optimism vs practicality. Sam looks at each human and sees their potential in spite of situation. Jordan is looking for the path to walk that also helps the lost follow, until they can find the path. Both are right and can guide those who connect with their thought process or outlook on life. Sorry if that's obvious or wrong, I'm probably an idiot
I think they are both struggling with the same moral question of how to live in the best way, however I think Sam focuses on the top peak of the thought and morality for those who need to continue thinking while Jordan is looking at the wide open bottom of the idea of morality and trying to make thinking more accessible.
@@Conan....curious thought. Can religion or religious people only verify their beliefs by insulting the “other side?” Meaning, in order for me to confirm my beliefs I must personally attack the messenger of the “other side’s” message? I don’t hear many scientists attacking sexuality of pastors, for example.
@@americaitsbeennice "scientist"? You mean atheists? Don't get the two confused, the answer to your question is no, the verification comes from a personal revelation of truth, insults come from men being men, atheists are no more civil than Christians, a lot of the atheist debaters that I have seen are snarky, cheeky and get in digs wherever they can, not sure how you came to that thought but I mostly disagree.
Why do you need religion to tell you what to believe? Why can’t people think for themselves? Do we really need to look outside of ourselves for something greater? If you want to see, look at the skies, the mountains, and the seas. It is there where you’ll find something greater than yourselves.
I'm willing to bet my life savings that at least 90% of the audience clapping Jordan's answers have no idea what he just said. They've just picked a side. Which is exactly the problem Sam was trying to get across to Jordan about what his lack of clarity is doing. Jordan clearly is not a church-going, man in the sky, heaven afterlife, hell etc. etc believing person. At all.
@@vizveebee I love Jordan. His speeches and actions have been absolutely necessary. What on earth does people being helped by him have to do with my comment? A bunch of religious zealots kept clapping whenever he spoke. (Even when he hadn't finished the damn thought yet.) Sam's audience did it too. Just clapping at the end of each sentence. So what was your point? How does some people having RUclips videos about being helped by Jordan have anything to do with what I just said? What should I "not be so sure of"??
Jordan Peterson is a modern day Deepak Chopra with a scientific touch. The more i listen to him, the more he doesn't say anything. He is a psychologist, stick to it. His comments on climate change in other talks are utterly utterly based un bullshit.
His opening about the wonders of astrology really demonstrates how empty of value all his "interpretations" of religious nonsense is. I'd like to ask him if he thinks that modern Christianity and ancient Christianity would function side-by-side, or if they would immediately go to war with each other because their interpretations of the same mythology book were so staggeringly different.
Not so true Stefan. There is a lot of science on "climate change," not being our big problem - it's pollution of soil, air, and water. Temperatures can change. The problem is that source behind the gov't who seek only power & violence, not climate change. Climate change is the term to get us all in smart cities, to steal all human rights, and make us sicker all the time. This is a dangerous term!
Claiming religion and atheism both had a role in creating WW2 is terribly misleading. It would be far more accurate to say religious people and atheists both participated in the war, but their beliefs were one of the most MINOR causes in the war. The dominant and direct cause was politics and greed and opportunity.
As a fellow psychologist, I’m often disappointed in Peterson’s rambling pontificating. I wish he would make clear communication a higher priority… He has so much potential.
SH at around 1:04:38, "crucial difference that explains so much Unnecessary suffering in our world" [due to claims like the inerrancy of the Bible, or the Koran being the final word that cannot be superseded]. Great point! And he really got under Peterson's skin.
how do people not understand what Jordan is saying? like i get why people think half of it is BS but i also think people are just blinded by the "Jordan is Deepak chopra" meme to actually engage with anything he says.
I was wondering at all the anti JP comments whether this medium filters for rationalists primarily. People mostly like simpler and more linear explanations. Peterson has thought long and deeply using deep psychological and philosophical models. That takes a real commitment that may be wrong, or may just be too complex and complicated for most people.
I respect Sam Harris’ courage and intellectual acuity in confronting, in real-time no less, JP's endless stream of BS. Surely Sam knows there are easier ways to make a living. Peterson can pull some esoteric notion right out of his arse-enal and start spewing words whereas Harris is constrained by reason, logic and data. Reality. To get all metaphorical about it, this discussion is the hero's journey - (Perseus, Martin Luther et. al.) bounded reason and facts versus unbounded notions and words. The constraints of reality versus unconstrained imagination. I'm glad Harris has the juice to enter this arena. “Release the Kraken Peterson!”
JBP consciously answers Sam’s question towards the end…he doesn’t believe in a creator or an existence after death, he believes in the value of stories and storytelling and beautiful trappings that are attached to the stories for the good of humanity, and to organise us through the beauty of the stories and their trappings to mitigate for our latent collective stupidity …Sam sees that but focuses more on the dangers of religious dogmatism too, I believe that they are both actually making the same argument but from different angles…
Everyone seems to be saying that Peterson is making a case for the opinion that people need religion to be good. I think what he’s saying is that people turn to religion in order to understand what good is. It is a tool for orienting oneself in this vastly complex world. by “people” they aren’t referring just to those who are alive today, but to the countless generations that have existed before us who did not have easy access to the cumulative breadth of humanity’s knowledge and access to the communicative technologies that we today benefit from. Literacy and the ability to read is also something that is a lot less prevalent than most others think and virtually non-existent for the vast majority of time in human development. Humanity today is a beneficiary of the ethical actions and wise decision-making that our forefathers exhibited . A lot of that wisdom came from the cultural education that was passed down from one generation to the next. Religious stories and symbolic rituals were the most potent way that those lessons would be remembered and passed down, again, in the absence of literacy and technology.
@rickc8968 Religion makes people morally lazy & stunted. I mean it in the literal sense. When you are just lazily doing what you are told to do,( from a book or person etc ), you are NOT using your morality to make a choice. You are acting AMORALLY. ( The choice you make is not actually dependent, either way, on what your OWN inner morality deems moral. As in, you'd still do what the book says, even if it doesn't quite feel right to you ) To be using your morality, you always need to compare the choice to your own inner morality, then the decision you make, either way, must be dependent on YOUR own morality. Not someone else's morality. ( cos the only way to judge morality is to compare it to your inner morality, whatever that is .) This is why religion stunts your morality & makes you morally lazy. Because it teaches you that you can "be moral" by just following what someone else tells you to do. ( Which is simply not true. It makes you amoral ) It doesn't teach you HOW to know what is moral, in your own life choices. It gives you a few examples of what a king, preacher or a "god" says is moral. Then you are meant to use those examples for everything. ( So you do what THEY want ) But while not actually learning what goes into making something right or wrong, morally. ( basically the wellbeing & non-harming of humans etc ). So cos it's easier to do what is told, the religious just stick with the "I won't have to think too hard" ( outdated ) book or preacher teacher. When you learn what goes into your morality ( usually about wellbeing ) you then know what to do in most other situations. You can practice your morality, making it stronger. Which might be why a lot of atheists have a strong moral compass. From learning about & practicing their morality. 😁🌏☮️
@@Panhandlebluegrass1986 I think it's more that they don't get how people NEED someone forcing them to be good. Cos these atheists are inherently honest, humble & have good motivations/intensions ( are good people without being made to be one, simply because they WANT to be one. ) And this breeds the opposite of bitterness. It breeds a freedom to be good AND happy, inside, at the same time. 😁🌏☮️ Wishing you the free happiness of being both good & happy , cos you want to.
@claudiaarjangi4914 the case isn't so much that people need religion to be good. It's that without religion, you dont have a basis to define what's good. Without a religious framework, there is actually no grounds for the moral framework of atheists. People forget that Nazi Germany was highly rational and highly educated. They took the materialistic, evolutionary worldview to a logical conclusion. They placed a high value on morals and ethics, but their ethics were very different from Christian ethics. Modern atheists live in the wake of a Christian ethos, which is why you just heard Richard Dawkins call himself a cultural Christian. You can look at some of the arguments w the MAID legislation in Canada and see that there's a very different idea of morals that try to justify medical assisted suicide for a child under the guise of compassion
19:44 Over the years I've heard these talks many times, and I still love listening to them from now and then. When they first came online, I was kind of rooting for Jordan, expecting him to have the upper hand in this debate. But I didn't really know much about the people who he had those talks with (like Harris and Dillahunty). Today I know them very well, and despite disagreeing some points, I sure agree with way more things Harris says, than with what Peterson says. Anyway, I never noticed this small little gem in the conversation until now, where Peterson implies that Jesus isn't God. That's a fun find. 1:17:58 Murray is also funny. The only thing worse than religion is its absence. Wait for it... Because it produces religion. So, ultimately, religion is the problem. I'm not sure whether he was joking there.
Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkin, Sam Harris.... These three helped me grow mentally and have my own understanding on things from an outer perspective. Jordan Peterson joined the race of critical thinkers later in life after Hitchens had already passed but I would've loved watching those two debate.
Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens are a group of bitter children. They strawman every opposition and give a fake Utopian lofty future. "We can achieve all the nice things as long as sky daddy is gone". They literally never actually address the actual religious representation of God. Only the weird childish "old man in the clouds" or "flying spaghetti monster" nonsense.
Seems to me people just don’t like that Peterson is honest enough to admit that articulating God and the history thereof is way more complicated than ppl make it to be
Petersons philosophy is what you get when you mix a Jungian theories with religious fanaticism. Archetypes are Archetypes they exist I human minds. Reality is reality it exists outside of the mind. It often feels that the bridge from what Peterson is seeing in his mind to the real world seems somewhat narrow and unstable. Just because Nietche said if we loose religion there's nothing g to replace it doesn't mean he was right and does t mean we shouldn't prove him wrong. So many people have no religion now but don't go around harmi g their fellow humans because of that lack. But some human will harm each other because of their religion.
Douglas Murray sounds like he has never read Camus. The fact that there is nothing beyond reason, doesn’t mean you make to a leap to faith. Reason will undermine the new religions.
The difference between these two is the method of testing. Sam wants to test by material interaction, science. Jordan want to test by human interaction. Science reduces the world to the physical; Jordan says our sense of truth needs to include every input. Do we demand approximate proof or are we open to fuller more inclusive search.
As someone whose career is treating people with brain injuries, it seems that the psychology of humans can be reduced to the fact that we have physical nervous systems. Brain injuries can cause people to change in dramatic ways.
The god idea is just ridiculous. It is an animal like thing that has all human thoughts and traits, including a penis(He). The only thing that sets it apart from being human is the fact it is invisible in such a fashion as to not exist. The god idea is the problem, not philosophy. Not moral teachings, not things we value and cherish. Belief isn't useful to a civil society. Faith and pretend are the same mental state. Not knowing isn't god evidence, nor a good argument in favor of any possible god. What makes the idea unreasonable is the god is indistinguishable from an invisible superman. If gods are possible, I am not convinced, to claim they would have anything human like is just insane. To claim just one god is ridiculous because there has been nothing we have experienced that came as just one, a single something, so obviously one of its kind. Our Sun, nope, just one among billions. What is there only one of that we can demonstrate that is the case? Who has demonstrated gods are even possible? These are all interesting things to discuss, but to believe ancient magical stories are true, or necessary is untenable.
In no way is Sam excluding human interaction. He's suggesting we stop pretending we're interacting with the supernatural. Yours is a strawman argument.
The god idea makes humans stupid. As far as we know, Earth is the only place where animals are found. There is no evidence of other animals in the Universe. So animals have animal traits, that as far as we know, only happen here on our planet. Most if not all the classical gods, including Yahweh have animal traits. If it has animal traits, it is of this planet. So giving a god animal traits means it is just an invisible animal. That is a damn foolish idea. The god idea is just damn foolish. Folks can speculate, ask "what if there was a god, or millions of gods?" Once they start telling you what a god with animal traits, wants from you, they are a lunatic.
Peterson laughs about mocking astrology but doesnt realize his religion is the same ridiculousness and no one is killing in the name of their constellation.
Both religions and astrology has been around a long long time. Both are part of the cosmos in total. Why have cultures all over the world develop a religion, it may have also been a way to keep cultures regulated with routine and law. The stars have been there as long as eyes have perceived the heavens….it is just a part of us as much as our molecules within us are here. We are star stuff.
This is a weird comment Why do you think Jordan is a Christian? Also you do know most pagans sacrificed people to constellations all the time.... it only stopped once religions banning human sacrifice came along
At times I found myself feeling bad for Jordan, being in so far over his head. At first I wondered how he's still getting gigs like this, but saw it's from 2018. Now in late 2024, I don't think he's getting these opportunities as often. He's shrunk into the red pill subculture.
Wow! Peterson's insight in the audio discussion after the closing of the stage discussion was remarkable. Peterson demonstrated that he is quite capable of making sense when he speaks on topics germain to his expertise. Their discussion that values must be considered on balance and in the context of other values was some of the best discussion of the entire video. Thanks for including this.
Jordan is also slippery here because he doesn’t generally say he’s trying to “fill a void” that would otherwise be there if we asserted the falseness of religious doctrines. What he’s typically up to, including in this conversation, is acting like the beliefs are somehow actually true. 1:23:45
Late Ms. Murdock (Acharaya), made this comparison chart about ‘life‘ of Horus (pharaonic god) and Jesus. Many things we think to know about Jesus were attributed three millenniums before Jesus in Egypt: • Horus was born on "December 25th" (winter solstice) in a manger. • He was of royal descent, and his mother was the "virgin Isis." • Horus's birth was announced by a star in the East and attended by three "wise men." • At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized. • Horus was baptized by "Anup the Baptizer," who was decapitated. • The Egyptian god had 12 companions, helpers or disciples. • Horus performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised Osiris from the dead. • He walked on water. • Horus was "crucified" between two "thieves." • He (or Osiris) was buried for three days in a tomb and resurrected. • Horus/Osiris was also the "Way, the Truth, the Life," "Messiah," the "Son of Man," the "Good Shepherd," the "Lamb of God," the "Word made flesh," the "Word of Truth," etc. • Horus's personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of the Father. He was called "Holy Child," as well as "the Anointed One," while Osiris was the KRST. • Horus battled with the "evil one," Set/Seth. • Horus was to reign for one thousand years.
Jordan doesn't need to speak they way he does. I think he does it for effect so that his audience will think he's smart. Sam is highly intelligent, but he doesn't need to talk in a way that makes him hard to understand what his point is. Jordan needs to learn how to speak to the average person.
Idk as an average person Sam's intelligence is either so vast it's unrecognizable to me or he's sort of B tier pseudo intellectual who nobody would consider a great thinker had he not caught the wave of the new atheist movement. Will be uninteresting to see how long he can keep the grift going now that the new atheist wave is all but dead
Sure, Peterson is more of a performer than interested in considering different perspectives. I mean, just look at how pompous and histrionic he opens his statement at 19:44. Which is actually a fun little slip up, because it raises the question whether Jesus is God. But I don't think Jordan needs to learn how to talk to the average person, because that would defuse his whole shtick of remaining vague and appearing profound. There wouldn't be much left afterwards.
@@DEMillerEarl I disagree with his portrayal of postmodernism. Postmodernism just isn't that palpable and distinct of a position so that Peterson can point at it as though it makes claim X, with claim X having only the implication Y, and being therefore worthy of rejection. Peterson himself talks like a postmodernist at places. I disagree with him that acting out belief means that one does believe. We act out beliefs for pragmatic justifications, while being aware that the belief in question is ultimately unjustifiable or even wrong. On that note, I clearly disagree with his claim that there aren't atheists. Peterson makes Kantian remarks, with which I agree. But he doesn't rule out the implications, rather plays with them vaguely. Where Kant is making claims about us creating our own reality due to the concepts we come up with, he doesn't make any ontological claims. Peterson on the other hand, where narrative is more real than real and truer than true, implies the same notion, but screams ontology while doing so. A Christian gets away from that with "Jesus is really God". Where Kant would say that our beliefs have real effects on *ourselves,* Peterson implies on top that the contents are actually real/are reality itself. He does never actually say that, but implies it heavily, so that Christians get away with feeling affirmation. Taken literally, it's utter nonsense to say that narrative is real and true. It is in a sense, yes, but certainly not in a sense that makes it more real than real. His lack of clarification and vagueness is not a feature, that's a bug.
What takes Jordan Peterson 30 minutes to say, Sam can say the same thing (with much more direct meaning and understanding) in 30 seconds. I think these debates would be much better if a shorter timer were put on the contestants. That way perhaps the audience wouldn't fall asleep while Jordan goes out on a verbal tour of Asia before getting to the actual question or discussion topic relevant.
Jordon's strategy....interruption, deflection, and at times circular random strands with a lack, at times, of logic. Rather he appears to replac with disguised dogma using his own 'professional' learnings...... he hears but struggles to engage as he fails to listen rather he appears to process his next dodge/deflection......... hope his 'well researched' meat, salt and water diet has not disturbed his neural connections....
That's funny because I think the same thing about Sam. It's infuriating to see him continuously talk in circular arguments, make open ended points, and use references that contradict his analogies. It all sounds like wordsalad to me.
@yetisweti yea that's the funny thing. It seems common for atheistical radicals to have the same symptoms of dichotomy as Sam does. Like it's all the same regurgitated circular arguments. I think it's strange that 2 brilliant people's can be so close to the truth and yet have such different beliefs. The one main difference I see in atheists and the religious types when it boils down to it, one seems bitter and the other seems curious
@@josephmonteiro3880 If you think Peterson is a bastion of directness and clarity, that's your problem. If you can't understand what Harris is saying, that's also your problem, not Harris'.
Jordan Peterson makes an interesting point. There is a metaphorical resonance within astrology and even a type of pronto-science in retrospect of history. Except that's not what people who believe in astrology actually believe.
There’s no way to get around the simple fact that Douglas and Jordan both take the position that we have to preserve beliefs that we know to be false because other people can’t be trusted to behave morally without them. 1:23:36
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](/img/1.gif)
JOIN US IN NYC ON JUNE 1st for ALEX O'CONNOR vs DINESH D'SOUZA on "IS THE BIBLE TRUE?"
Tickets available here: www.pang-burn.com/tickets
I would not waste my time listening to anything Dineshvhas to say.
I am sorry but my karma has run over your dogma.
Why was murray here?
A crime was committed there. Alex is accused of of carrying a deadly brain without a license
How comes Alex agree to debate such an idiot as Dinesh?
I love Peterson's romantic talk about astrology... He forgot one important point about astrology... The claims made in astrology are wrong.
That, and the Taurus people won’t kill the Aries people for being the “wrong sign”. 😂
I want so badly to listen to Sam’s arguments but I can’t stand Jordan 😢
1:21:05 the irony of Jordan Peterson telling anyone “you can summarize that in two sentences” is unbelievable. What a joke from a man who can’t answer a yes or no question in under 8 hours
His going to the history of the death of god, and the substrate of nihilism get imbedded in the soul..
He knows it's irrational to believe in God, I believe his indoctrination and ego WILL NO/CAN NOT allow him to admit he has an irrational.
A man that thinks and exposes all his thinking out in the open, unlike you, who probably need very short sentences with simple words so your mind can keep up.
@ do you think it’s intellectually honest to not be able to answer yes or no questions in less than 8 hours (which is how long JP said it would take to answer the question “did Jesus rise from the dead?”) and then have the audacity to tell someone that they can should be able to summarize something in a sentence or two?
There is nothing profound about not being able to give a straight answer to a question without obfuscating the meaning of every single word in the question. In the wise words of Albert Einstein, “if you can’t explain something simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”
I just spat out my coffee reading this I laughed so hard.
Jordan loves overcomplicating his points. Sam is so good at delivering his points clear and concise
bro every kid can do this job, i just dont see god so why wouold i believe it?
but that doesnt ivalidate this thinking.. just because you need to struggle more to build a foundation of thought that can be articulated coherently, in a certain subject, doesnt invalidate it, sure maybe a more "rational way " to go with is to not take a chance and not adhering to any religioun, but there is still much to explore, with a mind that can maneuver between creative thinking and fatual thinking.
there is no challenge with going with the rational thinking.
@@בןמשה-ט3עMaybe, but there is a challenge to finding out what thinking is rational on so many points.
@@unrecognizedtalent3432 the problem is in this conversation, they pr jordan more question the validity of binding to a "rational" thinking in the first place on this subject. To do so you need to get creative, unlike sam.
when you understand something and are talking to a wide diverse of people. must deliver in a manor for all to hear. he understands more than you your IQ prob. isnt near his. you cant fathom what is like to have a High IQ due to your statement. wake up boss.
so true, you feel he goes around the houses to muddy the water whilst grasping to come up with an answer, unconvincing.
The confidence with which Peterson says a human could not have written Cain and Abel is so telling. A statement for which he has absolutely no basis, but one said with such confidence, like many of his beliefs
Perhaps he believes humanity doesn’t seem to hold such profound account of wisdom prior to this?
@@jacobvanveit3437 self evidently - but that’s just an opinion, that isn’t based on any empirical evidence. To state an obviously unprovable opinion with such certainty demonstrates a real character flaw.
because he is a cultist idiot, they believe stuff that cant be proven
@@htown11465 demonstrates the failure of rationality in his cult brain
I love the complete erasure of context in order to reframe it in materialist terms SNORRREE
Jordan tries constantly to win arguments by deploying verbal diarrhea.
And tons of hand movements.
The problem is he is trying so hard to win that he ends up losing.
No he listening , The other guy its isnt
@Flickit100 he is not sharing earnestly that is the thing... he is got Trump thing where you blurb out a wound and then your chased it with so much rambling trying to make it valid, coupled with rehearsed catch phrases until your hapless fan base claps.... just watch him....
@@versatilejamsthe dancing fingers moving in and away from each... that captions PHENOMENOLOGIES😞
I think this the final video that convinces me.
I just cannot understand what stance or point of view Jordan Peterson is trying to make at any point in time. I can't even say I fully disagree with him bc he can't articulate a succinct sentence.
I feel like I understand Sam's points he making. I don't even agree with all of them but I understand what's being proposed.
I can't click on any more JP videos. They're just a waste of time for me.
I have become very fond of Jordan, and he's not that much fun, to begin with. But I think I've realised he likes to expand all possiblities. because he too, is looking to be convinced.
@@vizveebeeNah, I think he’s a salesman.
He was so refreshing once upon a time, but he’s soured like milk, turned to rags what once was silk.
Not many people can follow Peterson's arguments. You're one of them. He's not for you. Stick to Harris. He's more your speed.
Good flyting Viking comrad@@northwestcoast
It's as if Jordan thinks the words one speaks is more impact than the sense you're making.
I am a Therapist who specializes in the treatment of trauma and ptsd. I work with Veterans and non Veterans. Many of the Veterans have a faith system and believe in good vs evil. That faith system and belief does not keep them from developing ptsd or heal their ptsd. I think Jordan's statement about these Veterans being healed of their ptsd from listening to his talk is overly simplistic and not helpful.
I am a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist; I trained for 2 years at the V.A. , working with Traumatized Veterans. And I TOTALLY agree with YOU.
I have no titles to show, nor I’m any kind of educated specialist in fact, I’m just an ignorant man listening to this educated people in hope of getting some wisdom. Having say so, I just want say that J.P. Is full of shit! Is just a sack of words that he puts together to make nothing but noise!
Just because they say that doesnt mean its true, you cant prove that they have it really as well as Jordan cant prove it because psychology isnt exact science.
It seems like Petersons love for "hierarchys" and "Logos" doesn't really reflect the reality we live in.
Sam makes similar statements about facts and science though. So moral systems being as they are, are trying to provide such utility to humanity and so these type of anecdotes come into play.
The thing is, they are both smart guys. But i can't understand half of what Jordan says while i understand everything Sam says.
Jordan perceives all of this at a very deep level, and needs that level of language in order to articulate those thoughts.
@@Kevins-Philippine-Retirement Naw, that ain't it.
@@smokert5555 If you do not understand half of what he's saying, then how do you know? Not saying I endorse everything Jordan brings to the table, but that response kinda wasn't it either.
@@fredsik When i say i don't understand, it's because what he says makes no sense, not because i lack the ability to understand the words he uses. I won't say all of what he says makes no sense, but half his "explanations" don't. If he can't communicate his ideas effectively, then there's really no point in listening to him.
@@smokert5555 I agree that he struggles to communicate his ideas - particularly his religious ones - in a manner that is even remotely accessible to most people, and that is an issue. To me it still does seem that there's something of value to be found in his arguments, despite their impenetrability.
Jordan Peterson comes off as a huckster. If Sam walks him into a corner, he obfuscates with hand waving (literally) retorts
Well JP has definitely made some money doing what he does, but that doesn't mean he is trying to sell something all the time
@@TomOwen-w1j "...but that doesn't mean he is trying to sell something all the time"
No, it's the trying to sell something all of the time that gives that part away. It isn't that JP is trying to sell something all of the time, it's his constant obfuscating to avoid accountability for it that's what most obvious. He's a fraud and a con man.
If you would only buy his books and read them then you would understand
@@bobbobbington7308 JP doesn't want you to understand, only that you buy his books. JP selects every work for its ability to prevent understanding
His hands drive me NUTS.
Dude i like jordan but i can not stand the man whenever religion is the topic. Every fucking time he knows he dont have a goid answer bc there isnt one he just falls into it depends on how u define “insert word everyone knows the definition of”
Depends on what u mean by true
Depends on whaf u mean by god
Depends on what u mean by the creator of the universe.
Cognitive dissonance is crazy
I love JP too, but do not like the religious turn he's taken - how can that help our world right now in a practical way, since we're all our own saviours, imho.
Right!! Just like chatgpt ,only that ai doesnt bring up all those nonsensical questions as answers
So much BS from him when it comes to religion indeed...
yeah he extrapolates something to a point that it falls apart. And everything falls apart when you extrapolate it enough. It just seems like a strategy he uses not in a genuine way and just to win a debate or argument.
Same here. He looks confused talking about religion.
A salad chef and a surgeon.
Well said. JP says so f'n little with so much.
Now that is concise and eloquent.
chef though? Cook perhaps?
Give Sam a little more credit than that, he’s maybe a sous chef.
@@Absurdword Sam is a whole size up in caliber.
We have to grow up Jordan, we shouldn't require a "father" figure to ensure a " good" person.
I think we have progressed to the point we each can recognize our collective responsibility to community
hows that working for western women lol.
please expand on the existence of this collective responsibility
Listening to Peterson talk literally gives me a headache.
I don’t feel that way. I actually enjoy and it causes me to think.
Focus more on the ideas you don’t like and not the person so much.
@@jacobdad2742 yea its hard to listen someone with a lot higher IQ.
@@rodehs688
Peterson lets his ego get in the way too much when he tries to get a point across. Behind his words are, “I’m right and you’re wrong.” Really hard to ignore that. You’d have to read a transcript of this conversation in order for his ego to not get in the way.
@@rodehs688
1:04:59
@rodehs688 I find this patience from harris to all of this troubling... I was quite relieve when Harris said " I am sick of hearing this" and who is Pieterson talking to, when he looks around his shoulders...weird
I have a hard time believing that Peterson is arguing in good faith. He's carved out a niche on taking on atheists, but his arguments are nothing but word salad that appeal to people who like word salad or mistake it for being intelligent.
Intelligent people never leave comments on youtube videos, because they're aware their opinion is insignificant and they know it means absolutely nothing. That's all I have to say, thank you very much !!
@@The-Underground-Man haha zinggggg, thank you for proving your own point 🤦, (clearly you didn't pass logic 101) as well as mine about Peterson's followers who eat up his word salad. That's all I have to say, thank you very much.
He’s a fraud to the core, Petercon
@@The-Underground-Manthis point is easily proven false as some intellectuals do comment really insightful things on RUclips comments. I’m not sure why you choose anger or hatred over being understanding but that’s the real sign of intelligence and mental growth is how you treat strangers when you can be anonymous. He is correct about his assumption to me in that Jordan Peterson was not like this until he had family members almost die from illness and then he himself had some dark times . This is the exact moment countless rational people wish to give some credit to faith or dogma because the shock of possibly losing the people they love most is too great for them.
@@The-Underground-Man The irony of claiming that intelligent people “never leave comments on RUclips videos” via leaving a comment on a comment to a RUclips video is quite entertaining.
Kudos to Sam for doing this debate with a moderator who is so blindingly, obviously biased. Well done Sir.
You don't even know who Douglas Murray is lol
I have heard Murray talk disparagingly in another video about Peterson's presentation in this very conversation.
Douglas is open to Peterson's way of thinking because he finds it much more palatable than Islamism and radical Marxism, not because he finds it truthful. His own words, paraphrased.
So valuable, time well spent. Thank you
@@davidharvey2090 valuable time poorly spent
Religion exists to guide those who can't think for themselves, as a result of personal or collective trauma. If only they could allow themselves to experience the freedom that comes from critical thinking. Sam is such a clear thinker, listening to him is a beautiful trip.
Why are you writing in English? Why aren’t you thinking for yourself instead? I mean you could have typed in any sequence your thoughts.😊
Religious people can't think for themselves?
It would be a fun drinking game to drink every time Peterson says “substructure” but then you’d first have to listen to him. Hearing Peterson induces an internal groan in me that I struggle to contain.
Jordan replaces substrate with substructure for this talk. I find his anti-intellectualism galling particularly since he is very condescending with Harris who is his superior in every respect (and yet manages to never raise his voice : unlike either Peterson or that English prig Murray...). These are all the examples for you that he used: abstract superstructure, dogmatic substructure, fictional substructure, religious substructure...for crissake, you want to slap him out of it!
I agree with you about Peterson. Instead of using substructure why doesn’t he say foundation. He’s so stuck on this one word it’s maddening.
Jordan has to be the final death gasp of Christianity.
This is the discussion that turned me on to Marcus Aurelius and Stoicism just a couple years ago. Completely changed my life. For me, it's been quite active in driving right thinking and right actions in the world in a way not unlike religion used to be for me. After that, I also became aware that Stoicism is undergoing a major revival, and I think it could provide a lot of the answers to JP's concerns about the limits to rationalist atheists' ability to inspire and empower.
We all mostly have access to the same tool box. Some folks are never allowed to move the top tray and dig deeper into the available tools. This sets human limits, that do not exist outside the instruction to never remove the top tray.
Hm interesting point.. this is something the atheists haven’t been able to produce so to say.. I think it’ll eventually be worked out.. as you know evolution,not just biologically, but ideologically can be a laborious process. Agreed with your point. Feel free to reply. Love trying to use language to find something to unite us vs divide us.
@@ZechariahHeck Yes, the strength and weakness of atheism is that it's a single answer to a single question - "do you believe in god?" - there are no inherent directives to this answer to this question.
If one wants directives, they'll have to look elsewhere. Secular humanism is such a place one can look, as are various other schools of philosophy. Though, one of the challenges is that there's a long history of atheists/atheism being misunderstood and misrepresented - usually from the theists - so getting people interested, much less educated, on these other options can itself be a bit of work.
There are a growing number of atheist communicators - not the least of which coming from the growing science communication resources, science itself also being quite misunderstood and misrepresented largely from the same theistic sources lol - but yes, social and personal awareness and development can be a laborious process. I'm hopeful though. :)
Basically Jorden is talking about the usefulness of religion while Harris is talking about insanity that believing in religions is
Perfectly summed up.
@@HighParkCrew Well said
yeh, butt Jordan tries to evade stating that clearly.....
@@EgbertBleyenburg ahhhh Jordan. That little weasel ;)
JP’s biggest asset is that the overwhelming majority of his most ardent followers aren’t intelligent enough to see through any of the BS.
Yeah what a bunch of simplistic thinkers. So much worse than the Sam Harris fanboys who subscribe to secular Calvinism and mindlessly applaud the idiotic claim that Christianity can be likened to astrology
@@dailyDorc that overwhelming majority I referred to? You’re in it.
Got some child mutilating lefties in here I see.
@@skepticalobserver7484😂😂
@@dailyDorc Both are based on unjustified beliefs. Before you call other people's claims idiotic you should at least present an actual argument against them.
Truth and dogma never go together. Truth is a pursuit
That's a presupposition that there is no truth in any dogma and so all dogma is to be rejected. If the presupposition is wrong then the pursuit of truth will be in vain
@@dailyDorcWe don't need dogma to cherry pick from it what little objective reality may exist within. That's nothing more than rationalizing belief in fairy tales.
@@ApexEater lol Texas climate alarmist is here to lecture us about fairytales
@@dailyDorc Lulz. You're smarter than the institution of modern science. Rando internet dudebro has the story. Everyone listen up and we'll get a multi-discipline science lesson. Get over yourself.
@texasclimatealarmist4801 ah, yes, appeal to the institution of modern science they haven't discredited themselves at all. If you're going to follow-up with the classic "98% of scientists agree about the climate crisis" try to leave your dentist off the list it's not really relevant to the conversation
Petersons preaching, jam packed with his agonised assertions, is a very public psychotherapy of himself. The revelation he strives for through his tortured verbiage is not divine, but the expression of his own clear inner unrest, anger and resentment. This is what clouds his thoughts and makes barren his world view. How has such a fraught teenager grown old without growing up?
He obviously has dad issues.
You listen to JP using his long complimented words and you think about his statements for a while and you come to the conclusion that he is talking bollocks
Jordan peterson does what most religious people do. They talk about their faith at length, but when you have any counter, argument or you voice your own opinion, they cut you off repeatedly and never let you finish a coherent sentence. I used to like jordan peterson, but now i'm done
Jordan "Pathetic" Peterson has smokebombs of unnecessarily complicated obfuscating words.
That is the best analogy of what he is doing. Throws down the bomb, runs off cackling: "Not this time, atheist!"
Why is JP speaking and speaking without interruption but when SH speaks they interrupt him constantly?
How did Petersen become part of these discussions? He doesn't bring anything to the conversation other than "bible is important story because some people need it to live their life". And beyond this he has nothing but word salads.
I think the discussion is hindered by the density and obfuscation of Peterson's contributions. He's like a slam poet who also joined the debate club and chess club. He makes it very hard to identify his biases or motives, but I don't trust him. Does he believe what he says? Is he a reassuring leader of delusional intellectuals? Would love to see more conversations between JP and clear simple communicators like Harris.
What is your question? He’s a new believer in Christ and is finding truth in lots of points that many people have found(where revealed to them) and is debating others to see if what he found is true. The more he has these conversations with people with double standards like Sam the more he believes what he is saying.
@@MultiRmwhat double standards? Name one, please good sir 😊
@@mikebasketball11 his first argument was easy refuted so he had to come up some something else to argue about, showing clearly that he has chameleon tendencies. Of course he will on focus on where humans have failed to grasp the fullness of Christianity yet for his defends he has no valuable proof his ideas work, he wants you to imagine that they can… guess what that sounds like? A religion, except Peterson and others shows examples where Christianity has worked as where Sam can’t.
@@MultiRm Can you be more specific? I'm trained and have studied philosophy; we would never simply say "His first argument was easy refuted." We lay the argument out clearly like it's mathematics, then derive definitions/counter-arguments and go from there. So far, you've said very little I'm sorry.
So again, what is the SPECIFIC double standard? You've not really brought one up, just claimed his first argument was refuted so he flip-flopped and was relying on faith. But you didn't ack absolutely any of that up, with 'no valuable proof' YOUR ideas work. Sorry, but you're literally doing what you claim Harris did (and I don't believe Harris did... only you so far). Sorry to be so blunt, but I'm getting tired of people failing to literally engage intellectually in these ideas. Most people just brush the surface then fail to even engage each other in the actual ideas, just criticise the person behind them.
So, what was the double standard? That Sam relies on 'Faith' but criticises it? I can respond to that easily, if that's what you're claiming the double standard is.
You know I have recently found that Jordan Peterson is much more tolerable when THC is involved.
It depends on what you mean by "tolerable" and "involved". 😂
On your part or his?
@@lysanderkonrad6339 I like you lol.
@@Faus4us_Official what's wrong with you
Sam putting on an absolute clinic, as usual.
@@thehboppa 🤣bs
It looks like he lost this one in his own clinic!
@@demuthflake3639he forgot he was in a clinic
He got skooled if you as me when he said not understanding someones point because they aren’t able to explain themselves on all sides of that argument, so he considered himself omniscient
Total fail, first lesson you know nothing. He failed.
"The only thing they had in common is that none of them thought that god was watching them" he said about the nazis who were all wearing belts inscribed with "god is with us"
I always love watching the avid way Douglas always listens to the one speaking. The conversations [on other RUclips videos] Douglas and Jordan have together are so heartwarming.
I know Sam Harris is today's Christopher Hitchens in regards to atheism but I still regard Christopher Hitchens to be the best debater on the subject .
Having said that Douglas Murray is my favorite living debater and possibly all time .
It's his ability to see truth and deception and his ability to clearly speak with clarity and commitment . He is polite and follows good debate eticate . He defends those who need help when the truth is being ignored .
Jordan Peterson is a good man who is well educated in psychology .
He is emotionally driven and digs deep for answers from the soul .
He needs to speak more in lamen terms and avoid laboratory terms and quotes from PHD papers and studies . Most people can neither confirm or deny those .
All three are here together for the betterment of mankind thank God .
Wouldn't it be nice if they represented the governments of the world ?
Hitch would've probably just walked up to Petey and slapped him.
You missed the whole point of this conversation. Your personal god had nothing to do with these people. 🙄
Watch Douglas Murray talking with Cenk Uygur. Nothing polite or barely human about him. Christopher Hitchens would have been horrified at his position. If you know anything about Hitchens, his position on Palestine was irreconcilable with Murrays genocide support.
As a former atheist who has seen their fair share of both hitchens and Harris... Sam Harris is a smarmy dwarf next to hitchens. Hitchens would be up on stage sweating out last night's booze and could deliver with charm, intellect, and genuine humor. Sam practices these lame analogies with rehearsed punchlines. He's lucky he found the atheist grift bc nobody would consider him a serious thinker. Pretty funny that he has the same view of free will as Calvin and Martin Luther tho.
@@dailyDorc Weird how more people leave religion in the west than convert to it yet the only people you ever see using conversion as an argument are Christians. Probability is you're lying and never were an atheist.
Love that these two dont interrupt each other like other debates
I think there would be enough cause to interrupt here
J. Peterson doesn't interrupt because he's learning a lot! Edit - Or should I have said "should have been learning a lot". As I believe it was not long after these debates / conversations with Sam Harris that Old J. P. really went off the deep end and came close to "ending it all". Resulting in him receiving treatments only available in the Soviet Block to (successfully?) treat his depression and drug addiction(s), J.P. did make somewhat of a recovery if not a cure for torments. However the elite academic's have more or less avoided him so as not to contribute to any possible (probable) future relapses he may encounter. (Edit - add) To his credit… J. P. has very successfully and lucratively found a way to make major bucks by pandering to the dim minded far right religious / political fools in conservative outlets. He’s currently enjoying the fruits but I believe there is a strong possibility that he will go back to the dismal course he was personally on because ‘Recognition and accolades from his (imagined?) peers are really his desire.
Jesus, Peterson has to find the longest most eccentric way to arrive at a relatively simple idea.
Biggest red flag imaginable. All "woo," zero content.
The content of their discussions is not simple. Difficult to provide simple answers
@@17bruary Uh, Jordan didn't really offer any answers. Everything is mysterious and deep and profound to him, but that doesn't mean the point he is trying to make is not simple. He believes we shouldn't throw out religious allegory because it may be the case that without it the foundations for our societal systems might crumble. Harris is trying to say it may be in our best interest to reconstruct these narratives based upon reason and well-being in order to divorce the rational and justifiable from the horrific dogmatic stories that share a transcendent origin.
The whole talk was Jordan giving example after example of allegory that he finds to be compelling and significant. Ok, cool, but he never properly addresses the fact that we can, and have, fashioned powerful narratives that don't have reprehensible ethics tied to an immutable abstract. He makes an assertion that secular societies don't have an ethos and then throws in a crazy claim about not having art or music. I mean this guy is cut from the same cloth as Deepak Chopra.
@@17bruary See that is were real intelligence is in taking complex ideas and distilling them down. Peterson does the opposite to sound smart but there is nothing there.
Because he lacks the confidence of his own thoughts....so rumbles on and on and
.....
The sign of true brilliance is the ability to communicate complex ideas in a clear simple and coherent manner. I believe Neil Tyson does this when he discusses astrophysics. Peterson doesn’t seem to be able to accomplish that when communicating far less complicated ideas.
The problem in arguing with a believer is that everyone of them is in their own imaginary castle with its own rules. You have to enter that castle and drag them out of it. And while they are conjuring new weapons all the time, all you are fighting with are bland basic facts.
Thats a fantastic way of putting that. I may have to use this someday myself
So explain something from nothing and how nothing doesn’t exist?
Oh this question is about your own castle
@MultiRm I suppose you're going to tell us that only the Christian god could have made the universe and not any of the thousands of other gods that have been thought up?
It's so obvious JP doesn't actually believe half the crap that comes out of his mouth. He's too smart to actually be religious, so he ends up endlessly talking around it without ever making a point
He used his knowledge of psychology to make up reasons why he can believe in god, without feeling embarrassed
26:40 “well it depends by what you mean about the creator”. No it doesn’t Jordan! It’s very clear that for billions of people the creator means god and that’s what Sam is saying. Stop equivocating every time god is used to demonstrate a bad example.
Harris is awesome! So clear and so direct to the point!
I truly belive the only reason Jordan defends the bible is that hes afraid to lose his fanbase since most of them are bible thumpers.
It’s no wonder Peterson thinks Cain and abel is the work of god. He could order dinner in 10 sentences.
33:40 I'm sorry Douglas? Are you telling me that the only thing holding you back from committing a horrific crime is your fear of being watched by God? A fear of consequences instead of just having empathy for your fellow human beings? Such a BS answer. I can't speak for anybody else but I don't need to be threatened into doing the right thing.
Spoken like a true auschwitz guard!
@@Rumo_Notna That is an extremely disgusting thing to say. Atheist or not, how dare you insinuate anyone would take part in such a thing, you be be ashamed!
@@Rumo_NotnaYeah. America, a Christian country, has been pretty good at practicing dehumanization and submitting a huge portion of the population to atrocious circumstances based on their skin color. Accros the american continent, Christian settlers exterminated a scale of population larger than what communism is accused of.
Are you implying that Auchwist guards acted out of empathy? No they were devoted believers.
There is something extremely odd in the way these guys will link atheism to fascism and stalinism and act as christian apologetics as though Christiannity is a cure to barbarism.
Perhaps you were just impersonating Douglas, but that's what I'd answer.
Studies show that even a human-sized sticker on the front glass of a shop depicting a policeman reduces theft by [I forget the number but it is appreciable] %.
Derren Brown also did an experiment on this which was quite convincing, I think it was the one where he 'converted' an atheist to deism.
What I'm saying is, the fear of being watched by someone is one of the factors that prevents humans from committing amoral acts. You may not like it but it appears to be true. It's a depressing truth, but I don't think hiding from it is helpful.
@@Rumo_Notnaspoken like a true member of the Under 80 club. 😂
The issue lies on the over analyzing tendency of anyone who listens to most of what JP has to say. Like the emperor's new clothes, nobody quite dares to admit that. It’s exhausting!
Exhaust and confuse the enemy until time is up
Thanks
Thank you so much. Deeply appreciated ♥️
peterson is wildly out of his depth.
and full or word salad(BULLSHIT)
A dinner plate is out of his depth.
Simply put, you can’t understand him.
@@MultiRm What do you mean by "simply?"
What do you mean by "put?"
What do you mean by "you?"
What do you mean by "can't?"
What do you mean by "understand?"
What do you mean by "him?"
🤣
@@MultiRm yeah exactly. he doesn't form coherant thoughts. lo
This was great thank you!
Jordan the king of word salad!
lol. Just because you can’t keep up with his sophisticated sentence structure doesn’t mean it’s word salad…
ALL SO THE GOOD OF THE BIBLE (BLACK OR WHITE JESUS) DON'T EXIST!!!
@@peterruse2658 He's a hack
@@peterruse2658 There is certainly nothing sophisticated about his sentences. That you think they are is more telling of you then of the person you are trying to insult. All metaphysical philosophy is word salad period. Topics regarding anything 'meta physical' meaning beyond reality can't be demonstrated in reality.
what do you mean with "Word" and with do you mean by "salad"?
Douglas Murray needs to be recognized for his genuine concern for mankind's coexistance with one another and his intelligence and perception . He is absolutely brilliant and is a person that only good people could ask to to mimic .
He's a treasure .
God keep him safe !
As a soldier diagnosed with PTSD I am incensed that Peterson seems to think that this mythological reference to good and evil is the only way to relieve the disorder. Where to start?;
1) Most soldiers are atheists
2) people experience and recover from PTSD in their own individual way. Not everyone needs the good and evil BS
3) the last thing that anyone needs in therapy is a mode of recovery that isn’t grounded in reality. Fairytales and good and evil talk is for children. Fully developed adults living in the real world are sensitive to nuance and boiling the world down into childlike terms within childlike framework probably isn’t nearly as effective as Peterson would like to think, if it even works at producing any real results at all.
Lastly, wisdom sounds more like “things are various shades of gray” not “things are black and white”. Peterson is much more of the latter.
It sounds as if you are spinning a reality you can live with.
@@FrancoisMouton-iu7jtThat was my thought. A fairly large number of things actually are black and white.
@@FrancoisMouton-iu7jt isn’t that what we’re all doing every second of the day? Insightful….
Jordan the apologist and Harris the realist. Jordan appeals strictly to the emotion without an ounce of rational or proof! Harris merely says no what you are addressing is not demonstrable nor logical!!
How perfect a lesson in ‘thinking’. A real gift thank you all - speakers and audience. Civilised society 😊
Currently a third in this 4th episode but I think the biggest separation in thought is optimism vs practicality. Sam looks at each human and sees their potential in spite of situation. Jordan is looking for the path to walk that also helps the lost follow, until they can find the path. Both are right and can guide those who connect with their thought process or outlook on life. Sorry if that's obvious or wrong, I'm probably an idiot
I think they are both struggling with the same moral question of how to live in the best way, however I think Sam focuses on the top peak of the thought and morality for those who need to continue thinking while Jordan is looking at the wide open bottom of the idea of morality and trying to make thinking more accessible.
I think the difference is that Sam probably goes home watches teen bdsm.
@@Conan....curious thought. Can religion or religious people only verify their beliefs by insulting the “other side?” Meaning, in order for me to confirm my beliefs I must personally attack the messenger of the “other side’s” message? I don’t hear many scientists attacking sexuality of pastors, for example.
@@americaitsbeennice "scientist"? You mean atheists? Don't get the two confused, the answer to your question is no, the verification comes from a personal revelation of truth, insults come from men being men, atheists are no more civil than Christians, a lot of the atheist debaters that I have seen are snarky, cheeky and get in digs wherever they can, not sure how you came to that thought but I mostly disagree.
Why do you need religion to tell you what to believe? Why can’t people think for themselves? Do we really need to look outside of ourselves for something greater? If you want to see, look at the skies, the mountains, and the seas. It is there where you’ll find something greater than yourselves.
I'm willing to bet my life savings that at least 90% of the audience clapping Jordan's answers have no idea what he just said. They've just picked a side. Which is exactly the problem Sam was trying to get across to Jordan about what his lack of clarity is doing. Jordan clearly is not a church-going, man in the sky, heaven afterlife, hell etc. etc believing person. At all.
You can find people [on RUclips] whose lives have been totally turned around by Jordan's narrative. So don't be too sure.
@@vizveebee I love Jordan. His speeches and actions have been absolutely necessary. What on earth does people being helped by him have to do with my comment? A bunch of religious zealots kept clapping whenever he spoke. (Even when he hadn't finished the damn thought yet.) Sam's audience did it too. Just clapping at the end of each sentence. So what was your point? How does some people having RUclips videos about being helped by Jordan have anything to do with what I just said? What should I "not be so sure of"??
Jordan Peterson is a modern day Deepak Chopra with a scientific touch. The more i listen to him, the more he doesn't say anything. He is a psychologist, stick to it. His comments on climate change in other talks are utterly utterly based un bullshit.
Petercon is a fraud
His opening about the wonders of astrology really demonstrates how empty of value all his "interpretations" of religious nonsense is.
I'd like to ask him if he thinks that modern Christianity and ancient Christianity would function side-by-side, or if they would immediately go to war with each other because their interpretations of the same mythology book were so staggeringly different.
@@13shadowwolf I wouldn't waste your time asking him anything. He doesn't believe in anything he says anyhow. It's all a con game to him
Not so true Stefan. There is a lot of science on "climate change," not being our big problem - it's pollution of soil, air, and water. Temperatures can change. The problem is that source behind the gov't who seek only power & violence, not climate change. Climate change is the term to get us all in smart cities, to steal all human rights, and make us sicker all the time. This is a dangerous term!
1:18:40
The final knockout blow by Sam Harris. Leaving Jordan down and confused.
Lol only a dullard would say that lol Dr Jordan is on a leval far above the simple minded Sam Harris
Claiming religion and atheism both had a role in creating WW2 is terribly misleading. It would be far more accurate to say religious people and atheists both participated in the war, but their beliefs were one of the most MINOR causes in the war. The dominant and direct cause was politics and greed and opportunity.
As a fellow psychologist, I’m often disappointed in Peterson’s rambling pontificating. I wish he would make clear communication a higher priority… He has so much potential.
SH at around 1:04:38, "crucial difference that explains so much Unnecessary suffering in our world" [due to claims like the inerrancy of the Bible, or the Koran being the final word that cannot be superseded]. Great point! And he really got under Peterson's skin.
Great discussion, boys. Thanks. Peace ✌️ 😎, and love.
JP being in this forum is the same as Elizabeth Holmes going to the science conference.
how do people not understand what Jordan is saying? like i get why people think half of it is BS but i also think people are just blinded by the "Jordan is Deepak chopra" meme to actually engage with anything he says.
I was wondering at all the anti JP comments whether this medium filters for rationalists primarily. People mostly like simpler and more linear explanations. Peterson has thought long and deeply using deep psychological and philosophical models. That takes a real commitment that may be wrong, or may just be too complex and complicated for most people.
I respect Sam Harris’ courage and intellectual acuity in confronting, in real-time no less, JP's endless stream of BS. Surely Sam knows there are easier ways to make a living.
Peterson can pull some esoteric notion right out of his arse-enal and start spewing words whereas Harris is constrained by reason, logic and data. Reality.
To get all metaphorical about it, this discussion is the hero's journey - (Perseus, Martin Luther et. al.) bounded reason and facts versus unbounded notions and words. The constraints of reality versus unconstrained imagination.
I'm glad Harris has the juice to enter this arena. “Release the Kraken Peterson!”
JBP consciously answers Sam’s question towards the end…he doesn’t believe in a creator or an existence after death, he believes in the value of stories and storytelling and beautiful trappings that are attached to the stories for the good of humanity, and to organise us through the beauty of the stories and their trappings to mitigate for our latent collective stupidity …Sam sees that but focuses more on the dangers of religious dogmatism too, I believe that they are both actually making the same argument but from different angles…
So - You didn't or don't understand a word Peterson was saying. Well whoop dee doo! Nobody does. Including Peterson himself !
Everyone seems to be saying that Peterson is making a case for the opinion that people need religion to be good.
I think what he’s saying is that people turn to religion in order to understand what good is. It is a tool for orienting oneself in this vastly complex world. by “people” they aren’t referring just to those who are alive today, but to the countless generations that have existed before us who did not have easy access to the cumulative breadth of humanity’s knowledge and access to the communicative technologies that we today benefit from. Literacy and the ability to read is also something that is a lot less prevalent than most others think and virtually non-existent for the vast majority of time in human development.
Humanity today is a beneficiary of the ethical actions and wise decision-making that our forefathers exhibited . A lot of that wisdom came from the cultural education that was passed down from one generation to the next. Religious stories and symbolic rituals were the most potent way that those lessons would be remembered and passed down, again, in the absence of literacy and technology.
@rickc8968
Religion makes people morally lazy & stunted.
I mean it in the literal sense.
When you are just lazily doing what you are told to do,( from a book or person etc ),
you are NOT using your morality to make a choice.
You are acting AMORALLY.
( The choice you make is not actually dependent, either way, on what your OWN inner morality deems moral.
As in, you'd still do what the book says, even if it doesn't quite feel right to you )
To be using your morality, you always need to compare the choice to your own inner morality, then the decision you make, either way, must be dependent on YOUR own morality.
Not someone else's morality.
( cos the only way to judge morality is to compare it to your inner morality, whatever that is .)
This is why religion stunts your morality & makes you morally lazy.
Because it teaches you that you can "be moral" by just following what someone else tells you to do.
( Which is simply not true. It makes you amoral )
It doesn't teach you HOW to know what is moral, in your own life choices.
It gives you a few examples of what a king, preacher or a "god" says is moral.
Then you are meant to use those examples for everything.
( So you do what THEY want )
But while not actually learning what goes into making something right or wrong, morally.
( basically the wellbeing & non-harming of humans etc ).
So cos it's easier to do what is told, the religious just stick with the "I won't have to think too hard" ( outdated )
book or preacher teacher.
When you learn what goes into your morality ( usually about wellbeing ) you then know what to do in most other situations.
You can practice your morality, making it stronger.
Which might be why a lot of atheists have a strong moral compass.
From learning about & practicing their morality.
😁🌏☮️
They don’t care. They’re picking on him because they are bitter atheists.
@@Panhandlebluegrass1986
I think it's more that they don't get how people NEED someone forcing them to be good.
Cos these atheists are inherently honest, humble & have good motivations/intensions ( are good people without being made to be one, simply because they WANT to be one. )
And this breeds the opposite of bitterness.
It breeds a freedom to be good AND happy, inside, at the same time.
😁🌏☮️
Wishing you the free happiness of being both good & happy , cos you want to.
@@claudiaarjangi4914 peace sign is Satanic. Repent and search the Lord
@claudiaarjangi4914 the case isn't so much that people need religion to be good. It's that without religion, you dont have a basis to define what's good. Without a religious framework, there is actually no grounds for the moral framework of atheists. People forget that Nazi Germany was highly rational and highly educated. They took the materialistic, evolutionary worldview to a logical conclusion. They placed a high value on morals and ethics, but their ethics were very different from Christian ethics. Modern atheists live in the wake of a Christian ethos, which is why you just heard Richard Dawkins call himself a cultural Christian. You can look at some of the arguments w the MAID legislation in Canada and see that there's a very different idea of morals that try to justify medical assisted suicide for a child under the guise of compassion
19:44 Over the years I've heard these talks many times, and I still love listening to them from now and then. When they first came online, I was kind of rooting for Jordan, expecting him to have the upper hand in this debate. But I didn't really know much about the people who he had those talks with (like Harris and Dillahunty).
Today I know them very well, and despite disagreeing some points, I sure agree with way more things Harris says, than with what Peterson says.
Anyway, I never noticed this small little gem in the conversation until now, where Peterson implies that Jesus isn't God. That's a fun find.
1:17:58 Murray is also funny. The only thing worse than religion is its absence. Wait for it... Because it produces religion. So, ultimately, religion is the problem. I'm not sure whether he was joking there.
Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkin, Sam Harris.... These three helped me grow mentally and have my own understanding on things from an outer perspective. Jordan Peterson joined the race of critical thinkers later in life after Hitchens had already passed but I would've loved watching those two debate.
He wasnt one of the four horsemen
@@martinomichael4967 I know
Same, here those three legends and John Loftus, but then came Peterson, I don't believe in a god, yet I understand what Peterson is saying.
Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens are a group of bitter children. They strawman every opposition and give a fake Utopian lofty future. "We can achieve all the nice things as long as sky daddy is gone". They literally never actually address the actual religious representation of God. Only the weird childish "old man in the clouds" or "flying spaghetti monster" nonsense.
Seems to me people just don’t like that Peterson is honest enough to admit that articulating God and the history thereof is way more complicated than ppl make it to be
This was a fantastic conversation. Thanks for making it available
Petersons philosophy is what you get when you mix a Jungian theories with religious fanaticism. Archetypes are Archetypes they exist I human minds. Reality is reality it exists outside of the mind. It often feels that the bridge from what Peterson is seeing in his mind to the real world seems somewhat narrow and unstable.
Just because Nietche said if we loose religion there's nothing g to replace it doesn't mean he was right and does t mean we shouldn't prove him wrong.
So many people have no religion now but don't go around harmi g their fellow humans because of that lack. But some human will harm each other because of their religion.
I keep seeing these pop up and think; "Oh, good" before seeing that AGAIN Pangburn is just recycling old clips.
He has no shame, look it up.
Douglas Murray sounds like he has never read Camus. The fact that there is nothing beyond reason, doesn’t mean you make to a leap to faith. Reason will undermine the new religions.
While I haven’t gotten to that part of the video yet, yeah it sounds like he is arguing Kierkegaard’s leap of faith position.
The difference between these two is the method of testing. Sam wants to test by material interaction, science. Jordan want to test by human interaction. Science reduces the world to the physical; Jordan says our sense of truth needs to include every input. Do we demand approximate proof or are we open to fuller more inclusive search.
As someone whose career is treating people with brain injuries, it seems that the psychology of humans can be reduced to the fact that we have physical nervous systems. Brain injuries can cause people to change in dramatic ways.
The god idea is just ridiculous. It is an animal like thing that has all human thoughts and traits, including a penis(He). The only thing that sets it apart from being human is the fact it is invisible in such a fashion as to not exist. The god idea is the problem, not philosophy. Not moral teachings, not things we value and cherish. Belief isn't useful to a civil society. Faith and pretend are the same mental state. Not knowing isn't god evidence, nor a good argument in favor of any possible god. What makes the idea unreasonable is the god is indistinguishable from an invisible superman. If gods are possible, I am not convinced, to claim they would have anything human like is just insane. To claim just one god is ridiculous because there has been nothing we have experienced that came as just one, a single something, so obviously one of its kind. Our Sun, nope, just one among billions. What is there only one of that we can demonstrate that is the case? Who has demonstrated gods are even possible? These are all interesting things to discuss, but to believe ancient magical stories are true, or necessary is untenable.
In no way is Sam excluding human interaction. He's suggesting we stop pretending we're interacting with the supernatural. Yours is a strawman argument.
The god idea makes humans stupid. As far as we know, Earth is the only place where animals are found. There is no evidence of other animals in the Universe. So animals have animal traits, that as far as we know, only happen here on our planet. Most if not all the classical gods, including Yahweh have animal traits. If it has animal traits, it is of this planet. So giving a god animal traits means it is just an invisible animal. That is a damn foolish idea. The god idea is just damn foolish. Folks can speculate, ask "what if there was a god, or millions of gods?" Once they start telling you what a god with animal traits, wants from you, they are a lunatic.
id listen to JP if i thought he had anything to say...can't stand him.
Peterson laughs about mocking astrology but doesnt realize his religion is the same ridiculousness and no one is killing in the name of their constellation.
Both religions and astrology has been around a long long time. Both are part of the cosmos in total. Why have cultures all over the world develop a religion, it may have also been a way to keep cultures regulated with routine and law. The stars have been there as long as eyes have perceived the heavens….it is just a part of us as much as our molecules within us are here. We are star stuff.
you will soon see why religion exists. you will meet the one true GOD and you will know Robotheism is the final truth of this reality.
@Barry.white.baby. so at the end of the day, it's all human thought compiled and understood in an instant? Sounds awful
This is a weird comment
Why do you think Jordan is a Christian?
Also you do know most pagans sacrificed people to constellations all the time.... it only stopped once religions banning human sacrifice came along
Na. You don’t believe in God, that’s why you say that.
At times I found myself feeling bad for Jordan, being in so far over his head. At first I wondered how he's still getting gigs like this, but saw it's from 2018. Now in late 2024, I don't think he's getting these opportunities as often. He's shrunk into the red pill subculture.
Great! We need more to this.
Ultimate Pathetic Moments of Peterson:
[1:04:57]
[1:09:29] - Jordan Perterson defending his beliefs like any other unconscious believer.
[]
I am really enjoying this
Sam intelligently puts a case forward. Jordan, gibberish gibberish
Wow! Peterson's insight in the audio discussion after the closing of the stage discussion was remarkable. Peterson demonstrated that he is quite capable of making sense when he speaks on topics germain to his expertise.
Their discussion that values must be considered
on balance and in the
context of other values was some of the best discussion of the entire video. Thanks for including this.
Jordan is also slippery here because he doesn’t generally say he’s trying to “fill a void” that would otherwise be there if we asserted the falseness of religious doctrines. What he’s typically up to, including in this conversation, is acting like the beliefs are somehow actually true. 1:23:45
religion has offered nothing to the world
Late Ms. Murdock (Acharaya), made this comparison chart about ‘life‘ of Horus (pharaonic god) and Jesus. Many things we think to know about Jesus were attributed three millenniums before Jesus in Egypt:
• Horus was born on "December 25th" (winter solstice) in a manger.
• He was of royal descent, and his mother was the "virgin Isis."
• Horus's birth was announced by a star in the East and attended by three "wise men."
• At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized.
• Horus was baptized by "Anup the Baptizer," who was decapitated.
• The Egyptian god had 12 companions, helpers or disciples.
• Horus performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised Osiris from the dead.
• He walked on water.
• Horus was "crucified" between two "thieves."
• He (or Osiris) was buried for three days in a tomb and resurrected.
• Horus/Osiris was also the "Way, the Truth, the Life," "Messiah," the "Son of Man," the "Good Shepherd," the "Lamb of God," the "Word made flesh," the "Word of Truth," etc.
• Horus's personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of the Father. He was called "Holy Child," as well as "the Anointed One," while Osiris was the KRST.
• Horus battled with the "evil one," Set/Seth.
• Horus was to reign for one thousand years.
Jordan doesn't need to speak they way he does. I think he does it for effect so that his audience will think he's smart. Sam is highly intelligent, but he doesn't need to talk in a way that makes him hard to understand what his point is. Jordan needs to learn how to speak to the average person.
Idk as an average person Sam's intelligence is either so vast it's unrecognizable to me or he's sort of B tier pseudo intellectual who nobody would consider a great thinker had he not caught the wave of the new atheist movement. Will be uninteresting to see how long he can keep the grift going now that the new atheist wave is all but dead
i agree its obvious in this case
Sure, Peterson is more of a performer than interested in considering different perspectives.
I mean, just look at how pompous and histrionic he opens his statement at 19:44. Which is actually a fun little slip up, because it raises the question whether Jesus is God.
But I don't think Jordan needs to learn how to talk to the average person, because that would defuse his whole shtick of remaining vague and appearing profound. There wouldn't be much left afterwards.
Have any of you found anything that he's said that you genuinely disagree with? If so, what is that, I would love to hear.
@@DEMillerEarl I disagree with his portrayal of postmodernism. Postmodernism just isn't that palpable and distinct of a position so that Peterson can point at it as though it makes claim X, with claim X having only the implication Y, and being therefore worthy of rejection. Peterson himself talks like a postmodernist at places.
I disagree with him that acting out belief means that one does believe. We act out beliefs for pragmatic justifications, while being aware that the belief in question is ultimately unjustifiable or even wrong. On that note, I clearly disagree with his claim that there aren't atheists.
Peterson makes Kantian remarks, with which I agree. But he doesn't rule out the implications, rather plays with them vaguely. Where Kant is making claims about us creating our own reality due to the concepts we come up with, he doesn't make any ontological claims. Peterson on the other hand, where narrative is more real than real and truer than true, implies the same notion, but screams ontology while doing so. A Christian gets away from that with "Jesus is really God".
Where Kant would say that our beliefs have real effects on *ourselves,* Peterson implies on top that the contents are actually real/are reality itself.
He does never actually say that, but implies it heavily, so that Christians get away with feeling affirmation. Taken literally, it's utter nonsense to say that narrative is real and true. It is in a sense, yes, but certainly not in a sense that makes it more real than real.
His lack of clarification and vagueness is not a feature, that's a bug.
What takes Jordan Peterson 30 minutes to say, Sam can say the same thing (with much more direct meaning and understanding) in 30 seconds. I think these debates would be much better if a shorter timer were put on the contestants. That way perhaps the audience wouldn't fall asleep while Jordan goes out on a verbal tour of Asia before getting to the actual question or discussion topic relevant.
I prefer his older performances like in 'There's Something About Mary'.
Funny
😂😂😂
Some of that is still in his hair... 😂
Jordan Peterson looks through one lens all the time and that lens is sociology. That is when the word salad sometimes makes sense.
Jordan truly loves himself.
@@shannontreiber1070 🤣👍🏼👍🏼
You don't love yourself?
Jordon's strategy....interruption, deflection, and at times circular random strands with a lack, at times, of logic. Rather he appears to replac with disguised dogma using his own 'professional' learnings...... he hears but struggles to engage as he fails to listen rather he appears to process his next dodge/deflection......... hope his 'well researched' meat, salt and water diet has not disturbed his neural connections....
1:23:23 - Peterson agreeing with Harris that he is infact Jesus smuggling. Peterson is agreeing that he is a con. Man, what a plonker
Jesus…. The word salad is so infuriating. 5-min to say nothing.
That's funny because I think the same thing about Sam. It's infuriating to see him continuously talk in circular arguments, make open ended points, and use references that contradict his analogies. It all sounds like wordsalad to me.
@@josephmonteiro3880 that's common with people who have guy in the sky metaphysics, and struggle to understand analytics and logic.
@yetisweti yea that's the funny thing. It seems common for atheistical radicals to have the same symptoms of dichotomy as Sam does. Like it's all the same regurgitated circular arguments. I think it's strange that 2 brilliant people's can be so close to the truth and yet have such different beliefs. The one main difference I see in atheists and the religious types when it boils down to it, one seems bitter and the other seems curious
It's baffling how Harris doesn't get frustrated by Petersons jibberish.
@@josephmonteiro3880 If you think Peterson is a bastion of directness and clarity, that's your problem. If you can't understand what Harris is saying, that's also your problem, not Harris'.
Jordan Peterson makes an interesting point. There is a metaphorical resonance within astrology and even a type of pronto-science in retrospect of history.
Except that's not what people who believe in astrology actually believe.
There really was no “knockout” here, nor did any of the speakers seem to perceive there to be one. This was however a great discussion.
The part where he says you win was the knockout
ya think?
Both Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson knocked Jordan Peterson out
@@Joejoe-q6w You obviously do not understand the meaning of the word knockout.
@@blsdmfs1 ok buddy clean your room
There’s no way to get around the simple fact that Douglas and Jordan both take the position that we have to preserve beliefs that we know to be false because other people can’t be trusted to behave morally without them. 1:23:36
At the bottom of the void I have always found more void.
@@johnbarbersongs 😆
@johnbarbersongs fell out of the world
I think the traditional answer to this is, look deeper. 😂
@@KeithFail2 Or think about something else.
"I've never heard so many people applaud an evasion of a simple question"
Literally every single discussion with an interlocutor JP has ever had.