LINKS AND CORRECTIONS If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at josephfolleytutoring@gmail.com. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE. Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
⭕ God told Moses on Mt. Sinai to use Pi 3.14 π as the cornerstone to build the Wilderness Tabernacle in 1440 BC. In 94 AD Josephus the historian wrongly described it as rectangular-shaped. Exodus 25-26-27 blueprints build a circular-shaped hendecagon outer courtyard. What is superior, the bible or confirmed secular/ecumenical history? 330 Exodus 26:8 eleven curtains each 30 cubits long 15 Exodus 26:12 one curtain is folded in half to 15 cubits long - 1 Exodus 26:13 curtain hang over/seams add to 1 cubit long = 314 3.14 = 314 circumference/100 diameter ≈ π ratio (100 cubit court per Exodus 27:9-18) ................. Is this discovery like the Dead Sea Scrolls or even Martin Luther's 95 Theses? How did we miss this for 1900 years and does it even matter anymore? Pi is 3 or 3.14... very small difference. .................. History of finding π: -(1900-1680 BC) Babylonian 3.125 for π -(1650 BC) Egyptians gave the approximate value of π 3.1605 -(1440 BC) Moses recorded Pi in the Exodus blueprints 3.141592653... Exodus 26:13 ≈ Pi -(500 BC) India's Aryabhata approximation was 62,832/20,000, or 3.141 -(429-501 BC) Zu Chongzhi a Chinese mathematician 3.1415926 - 3.1415927 -(250 BC) Archimedes from Syracuse showed between 3.1408 and 3.1429 ................. More than a thousand years removed Josephus did NOT know Exodus 26:13 approximated Pi. He was describing the Temple's structure and NOT, and NOT the Tabernacle from Exodus 25-26-27. See? Pi is coded in your DNA. Consider King Josiah & the Prophetess Huldah rediscovering the forgotten scriptures, right? Will Pharaoh let this go? Almost 3500 years ago "Exodus 26:13 ≈ Pi" was lost on Mt. Nebo when Moses died. How will religious and non-religious acknowledge this systemic seed-changing paradigm shift? We going back in time in real-time to change history to line up the Word as it should've been. Moses recorded Pi 1000 years before Archimedes from Syracuse's Pi. Everyone including myself rejects this text/arithmetic until studied personally. Please use consistent hermeneutics along with the scientific method for our non-religious friends. After confirmation please repent then rejoice. Please remember this is God's big tent. Exodus 26:13 ≈ Pi ⭕ כְּכֹ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֲנִי֙
Read Psalm 14:1 and then do a google search for The Metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas / The 5 Proofs of God's Existence : 1 The argument from Motion 2 The argument from Causation 3 The argument from Contingency 4 The argument from Design 5 The argument from Perfection
Bro I might have something to share. There is a big debate in metaphysics about whether sub-atomical particles exist or not and many people say that debate is useless because we have no way of finding out the truth because of certain scientific technicalities but it doesn't matter. Scientists evolved a system in which they predicted that there are such particles and they laid their theories on that principle. I view the God debate in that light too. I don't get where there is so much attention paid on that because it is useless. Like sub-atomical particles, we have no way of finding out the truth. So why not talk and debate about the utility of religion than to roll out heads around what we can never get around. If you could tell me something of value against what I have said, I would be very pleased.
@@JaydayalCharan Generally speaking, I agree with you. However, being honest about one's foundations is important in order to avoid your presuppositions getting in the way of understanding how your engagement with the facts shapes your belief going forwards. The point in discussing and figuring out what is true in a strictly abstract objectivist sense is about figuring out what we have to contend with when we shape our understanding, and even if the conversation goes in circles and confirms that the answer is "we don't know" we can now hold each other accountable in acting as though we aren't certain, rather than pretending we do.
Bro is probably the most handsome philosopher at the moment Edit: Yes, I am talking about the narrator. Edit 2: More handsome philosopher would perhaps be Kierkegaard
I have not watched this video yet but I would like to express that I perceive myself as an atheist but with a behaviour best described as Judeo-Christian in nature.
I think the philosophers during the ancient times believed that beauty is in the intellect and behaviour of a person I am sure seldom interest in personal appearance
I used to be philosophical when I was a teenager and loved being logical, somewhere along the way. However, I ended up dropping the desire from the age of 17 to until now when I discovered your channel. Your display and cadence and breakdown of philosophy make it very easy for my busy adult mind to understand what's going on while I'm working with my hands. Just wanted to say thank you for making it more accessible for a working man like me again.
And once you’ve made the leap from what’s true to what’s useful, the question becomes the reference: Useful for what? Survival? Freedom? Well-being? Mere acquisition of knowledge?
"Without God, everything is permissible." Basing a pragmatic use of religion, a benevolent lie, on ideas like that demand justification, and I've seen just as much justification - if not more - for the inverse of that proposition. There are people who are more willing to do bad things because they believe they will be ultimately forgiven. There are people who defend putting children to the sword, because they believe God commanded it. What's worse than butchering children? If you can morally put children to the sword "with God" then with God, anything can be permissible. The fears of people like Dostoyevsky did not come to fruition. Our most secular societies are also the most peaceful and have the lowest crime rates, while the ones with high religiosity are mostly 3rd world. I'm not saying the relationship is causal, but it's clearly not the case that lack of religion is either.
Yeah I tend to hold a similar position on that argument. It would be interesting if the premises were true, but I haven’t found any evidence that suggests they are true. I love your animated sketches by the way - they always reminded me of Plato’s Dialogues. I wish I could write something like that one day!
If you relate "peacefulness" solely to the crime rate, you may be right. However, that alone is not a sufficient indication of a contented society that feels committed to a coherent order. Nor should it be the only measure. Christian rules relate to the cohesion of man and woman, of family and kinship, of relationships between the generations. This has meaning for the individual, would you agree? Secular societies have a rate of singles and divorced couples that is extremely high, around 40 per cent singles (if I remember correctly for my country). Secular societies are extremely prone to short-lived relationships, the commodification of the human body, they are on the edge or already below the reproductive rate that ensures self-preservation. Individuals are faced with organisations and contracts that make them extremely vulnerable to isolation in their individual position, for example. Interest groups and tribalistic groups are far too small to offer the same support structure in comparison with religious institutions, official and non official (though I am not a fan of all the institutions myself). In this respect, these could also have been Dostoyevsky's fears, could they not? The fact that they didn't materialise, I would say, is a leap too far.
While I agree with you I would also point out that many secular society's also seem to devolve into liberal self destruction. One thing that most western society's have not done is finding a moral replacement for religion. Many people curtail their bad behaviors because they are worried about "going to hell" and while in many cases religion is a case of using a butter knife as a makeshift screwdriver, you cannot just throw the butterknife away and expect the work to be completed. Just look at what pure abandonment of religious values and morality has done to California and the wanton depravity taking place in their cities (San Francisco for example). Until society finds a way to retain the morality that religion has provided while discarding the smoke and mirrors parts of it, we will continue to oscillate the stability of society.
@@ERH-ph5gb I'm more worried about how many people and children are suffering and how wars, famine and poverty causes death and complex trauma than the existence of God. Humans should fix our own problems and leave God out of our own affairs. Believing in God is good if that faith makes you better, not when people start believing they are superior or god sent. There are far too many psychos and narcissists into religions and far too many wars have been declared in the names of gods.
@@eomoran whilst it is probably a convenient time to reply to comments, if I had just spend hours, drafting, researching, scripting, recording, re recording, editing and then finally uploading, the last thing I’d be doing, is on replying to the comments section
amazing consistency bro and i really love how you are always conscious that what you say is just your own interpretation of the issue and keep some skepticism like a true philosopher
It would be a DECENT point if there was only two groups - the 'believers' and the 'nonbelievers'. But, with so many different religions, belief systems, whatnot, there's no reason to adopt this philosophy. To choose one of them at random is exactly that - to choose one at random. The framing as if it's only the two groups is super dishonest by people who propose this idea. Would it not be better to live through our own observable truths? Because it's NOT just those two groups. You're just as much at risk of hellfire for being a Christian as you are an Atheist in the eyes of most other religions, assuming you're the same person.
I'm just curious, what do you actually mean by cost in this life? Because from my pov religious boundaries are many times good for an individual's well being too, of course if you don't become an extremist only then
@@tintedqualia belief in god makes people less ready to accept the responsibility for their actions (they use "god's will argument to justify things happening to them), it makes them more tolerant to injustice (they believe that god will punish those who is being unjust), etc. If we are talking about the game-theory approach to faith, we have to be fully honest.
@@javlonjuraev6328 I do understand your point of view, but in my opinion in both the cases, i.e saying something was God's will and saying God would punish the wrongdoers, that comes after you have played your part. For example, you tried your best to track down a thief, but you couldn't find him in the end. After doing what you're supposed to do, then you put your trust in God that He will get you justice because you did everything that you could and even then couldn't get it for yourself. Yes, when using "God's will" as a reason to not do what's supposed to be done, that isn't a right approach. But I think we do have to study religion properly so we don't end up falling in such holes
@@javlonjuraev6328 does it or is it just stupid people. A dumb Christian will assign it things to God that are but a dumb atheist will assign the same to the universe.
@@javlonjuraev6328 i cant speak for other secs of christianity but in Catholicism we have purgatory which is like hell but not eternal (could even debate if hell is eternal but thats a whole can of worms) but you go there if you accept God but still didnt live without sin, and sufferer there for all your wrongs until eventually you make it to heaven. For me at and alot of the catholics i know, were not trying to sin cause whatever we get out of it now wont be worth the suffering. Alot of other Christian religions dont believe in purgatory and believe they go straight to heaven as long as they accept God. I definitely see your criticism of Christianity in this regard, i see the same thing.
Loved the video. As a fellow agnostic I was always a bit annoyed at agnostics and atheists casually dismissing Peterson's points, calling it "word salad" and incoherent. His arguments always made sense to me and I found them fascinating.
Thank you! And yeah I felt similarly. I always thought it was a bit presumptive to just dismiss them without consideration, given that they’re certainly substantive and interesting
Atheist here. I listened to Peterson for a long time, since he became a public figure in like 2017. listened to hours and hours of his lectures and podcasts and debates. Mostly I thought it was fun trying to decipher exactly what he's saying because he talks in such a weird way sometimes. And he does come up with unique ideas that get me thinking in different ways. So yeah I understood all his arguments for religion. And didnt casually dismiss them. But I did dismiss them because they're all dumber than a box of rocks
@@Will-xf3qe WOW listening so much hours of lectures, podcasts and debates from a person whose ideas are dumber than a box of rocks? You wasted so much time there... don't worry I understand, I used to do that too while I was on heroin.
I'm not religious but I'll use the bible to argue against Pascal's wager: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast." In other words you are saved through faith and not through your actions and if you don't already believe/have faith in God it won't matter how good a Christian you act or how many prayers you make. The wager is meaningless since it's only posed to someone who doesn't believe in the first place; as someone who believe would not need a wager, if you don't have faith then accepting the wager will not put you in the graces of God anyway.
Great point & proof but imo again if you’re to believe that you can choose to believe, and truly devote yourself to christianity then it works out with the wager. The reason the wager doesn’t hold up in modern day is because so many religions are so popular all with their own beliefs and gods. Many have conflicting beliefs, so which are you to wager on?
@@siddhartramotar8774 It did never hold out, because there is no sign or evidence that a true god must be one believed in, it is equally possible for a god to exist which is entirely opposed to all existing religions, or one that makes decisions in any way possible. Therefore, since the nature of god or similar concepts (essentially anything that cannot be predicted or described empirically) is essentially equivalent to randomness
that might be perceived as kind of a disregard to the atheist and the value that particular atheist has for its life; I can certainly imagine some people who enjoy life without God but still enjoying it. However, at the same time the meaningless of life is a great argument for god, being a complete nihilist kinda seams like a dead end;)
Any claim that short-circuits the mechanism of salvation in Christianity is ipso facto uncompelling - scriptural and other Christian sources vary, contradict, and complicate the issue enormously.
What insights? He is just regurgitating his observation of arguments he has heard or read about. Can you give an example where he shared an insight of any kind?
It's wonderfully refreshing to hear someone being critical of Peterson in a logical way, while giving him the benefit of the doubt. I don't have full confidence in all of JPs conclusions either but I have been fascinated by the perspective of the practical interpretation of "belief" since I heard it from him. BTW I think over repeated interactions with someone it would be pretty easy to figure out why they are reading a book among all of your listed possibilities, obviously people can be deceptive but most are bad at it.
Have you ever thought of doing discussions or debates? You are beautifully well-read and articulate and I'd love to hear a conversation between you and Peterson. Keep up the great work!
If I were to steel man Jordan’s argument about all motivation being transcendent, he would probably say that any pursuit outside of lethargic contentment (stagnation) would be an attempt to get closer to the “ideal”. The ideal would be a level of perfection that transcends the limitations of our reality; however, since we live in reality we simply make due with getting as close to ideal as we can and sometimes that looks as mundane as your example of sitting on a sofa instead of a chair. The ideal would be to sit on a perfectly soft yet supportive cloud watching the greatest form of art unfold in front of you, but the closest thing we can achieve in the mean time is sitting in our favorite groove on our sofa and watching a good movie or show. We wouldn’t be “motivated” to pursue this distinction between the sofa over the chair if we didn’t have a concept and desire of an “ideal”, or that which is closer to perfection than we are now, in both our thoughts and feelings.
I truly do not understand how there is any debate about whether or not you can choose what you believe. I would challenge absolutely anybody to believe something which they know to be false. You may be able to act like you believe, and pretend like you believe, but you would always know that you didn't actually believe
agreed, but ultimately peterson’s response would be that it doesn’t really matter as long as you act like it, wouldn’t it? it’s patronizing and stupid but as far as i understood it, that’s his argument
I don't think it's complicated at all, it's not that you can choose to believe something is false, it's that you can choose to believe something when the answer is uncertain such as it is with the question of religion. When you don't know you CAN make a choice the other option is to try and reason which is most likely or just to not form an option at all.
The problem with this statement to me is nobody knows the real meaning of life, or whether there is one even. No one really knows the origin of creation or its intention. You can only choose to believe one or the other because there isn't enough evidence for anything more. Life is a living mystery. People that believe in god will say they know there is enough evidence to support their claims. People that don't believe will say the same thing. But nobody knows what they're claiming is false or true or they would be able to win their debate at any given time with their proof. Any really honest person knows there is no real way to know what lies beyond our own existence. You have to choose to believe one or the other, depending on how you feel either thought process benefits your own life
@@NeedleknightJ i don’t see how this clashes with the original statement? unless you’re convinced that people arrive at their (moral) convictions (exclusively) rationally, because they most likely don’t in most cases, which is exactly why you can’t really choose. plus, most atheist acknowledge that it’s as impossible to disprove as to prove the existence of something (although i would argue that you’re much more obliged to offer proof if you choose a strict and at times harmful moral code, because some meta existence demands it versus just going about life without such a claim of moral authority). most atheists are agnostic anyways (they acknowledge they can’t ever know/disprove the existence of a god, they are kind of indifferent to it) on the other hand, acknowledge that your belief is potentially wrong is fatal to many religious beliefs, which is why many refrain from doing that
I saw an interview once where he was asked if he believes and his answer was something like "I try to act as if I believe" and I think this sums it up.
@@TomBruhhThis is the solution. As a believer myself, I dislike Pascal’s Wager for two reasons. The first is pragmatic - as you pointed out. The second and more important reason is that it is theologically wrong. The Bible is explicitly clear: you cannot attain salvation yourself. As in, good works are not sufficient. Pascal does not elucidate what he means by belief in this context, but presumably he means living a life in accordance with Christian teachings. Yet his wager is not religiously undertaken. He is merely pretending. This is dangerous, because only a real acceptance of Jesus leads to salvation.
I don’t like the logic of pascals wager since it doesn’t account for other religions. A Christian could be wrong and there be nothing after, or they could be wrong and be reincarnated, it’s not an either or situation. And you’re completely right about the theology
@@TheSpicyLeg I like your reasoning, but doesn't this run into the observation that billions of innocent people are born into the wrong place at the wrong time. Say you're born in a non-Christian country, end up living a very moral life yet because you never had the opportunity to learn/discover god, you're condemned to hell? Or worse you end up dying due to circumstances out of your control before you could find god?
Best video of Peterson's ideas I've ever seen. An actual honest attempt at perceiving his concepts has been seemingly too hard to do without trying to dunk on him. You got a subscriber because you engaged not just intelligently but honestly. Absolutely love the channel name btw.
@@Njordin2010 I'm not "dislicking" him, I'm telling a person to ignore some people and be with the opposite of them instead, OK? OK. Do the same after your reevaluation of your groundless fanboyism.
@@Njordin2010 I'm actually starting to dislick all njordish people on the Internet. It appears like basically all you share is nothing but baseless pretentious discontent that looks even more peterston than peterston. I love scientists from Sweden though.
@@Njordin2010 by the way, you obviously misread "not a smart person", which means "not a smart person". What should I honor about anyone I call "not a smart person"? Please, obtain some IQ points above 20.
Peterson misrepresents Nietzsche almost every time he mentions him. He would have us believe that Nietzsche mourned the “death” of God and the church, whereas Nietzsche positively hated Christianity and rejoiced over the possibility that man might finally be free of its (in his opinion) sickly, weakening, decadent influence.
That's probably because his position is evolving. He has many different. overlapping opinions and he tries to make them congruent. But these are difficult topics.
@@DarkMatter2525 Now yes but before all that controversy's? No way. Who? School board? State? He was amazing back then. Today, aside from jacket I desperately want, he completely lost it.
The irony of Pascal’s/Peterson’s wager, is that it’s profoundly opposed to the ethical current of the New Testament. Phrases like “and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” and “I am the way the truth and the life” come to mind, and suggest that someone like Jesus or St. Paul might have preferred the worldview of Bertram Russell to that William James. 5:57
Just found this channel yesterday and I'm addicted. There's something cathartic about studying philosophy. And this guy tells it in a way that is so easily digestable, while leaving room for the desire to look into these philosophies yourself.
It’s the classic “cart before the horse”. You “believe” you can jump over a gap based on past experience, and update that belief based on current and future experiences. Just follow Bayes rule and remember you can be completely correct for the absolute wrong reason, and vice versa.
Appreciate the evaluation. It would be amazing to see the two of you on an interview or something. I bet we would all get a lot of value out of that conversation.
From my experience religious belief is hardly ever gained through intellectual means. I very much do subscribe to the wager theory being a believer myself, however I understand why atheists take issue with it. I find that religious zealotry is gained through a spiritual experience that shifts your entire perspective. For me it was a fellow believer having passed away and witnessing how he touched the lives of others through his compassion, stemming from his belief in the sovereignty of Christ. I felt compelled to submit to Christ having realized that if his people were blessed with such goodness and love that surely Christ is even greater. I don't think I can ever convince someone to believe but I am compelled however by scripture and command to inform you that Christ bled and died in order to give you a new life just as he gained new life himself. Great job in giving a fair assessment of Jordan Peterson, he truly is a riddle wrapped in a mystery at times.
This is exactly my thought as well as an atheist. Though my much bigger criticism of the wager is that I see equal possibility of the Christian God existing as any other god or deity from any other major or minor religion (or even one that no humans worship and is completely unknown), therefore it's really not a 50/50, where Christianity is the good answer either way.
Now imagine, and just assume for a moment that the claims of Christ are not true.. does your friend’s incentive for being decent disappear and if the answer is no, what point in believing the claims is there now?
@@ezshottah3732 okay but assume that a group of people that are capable of great compassion are telling you where that compassion is sourced from, why would your first instinct be to disbelieve them?
@@gottesurteil3201 I don’t know how to respond to this because I feel like you missed my point. But I’ll say it’s not an instinct but “ upon further review”
@@ezshottah3732If I can interfere, I would say yes someone’s decency (to that extent) may diminish if they didn’t believe. As it is clearly stated by him that his believe in Christ propelled their decency to higher levels. Bottom line is I think belief is important otherwise there is no incentive to be decent And yes incentives matter. Similar to how I would say professional athletes may be motivated by money/fame to be as good as they are
What's interesting is that you don't need to believe in God to believe in a version of moral realism. You can generally observe that life seeks to avoid arbitrary signals in wetware experiments. Arbitrariness can be observed in nature on many levels of complexity. Ergo, the absolute anti-moral realist argument might be that while morality is constructed and dependent on observation, anti-morality is a real phenomenon. It's just not a substance or a person. It's the absence of structure that is realistically and transcendentally true, and the structures we build are not building towards, but away from something. Arbitrariness.
Peterson's teachings helped me a lot back in the day. He's a therapist and psychologist first, he probably doesn't even consider himself a philosopher. He seems to always focus on usefulness of ideas instead of their objective truth.
@@tylere.8436 when people actively try to ruin your life, force you to undergo “retraining seminars” under duress, kick you out of a job, laugh at your dying wife. you will change, you will learn to hate, you will be forced to fight in whatever way you can, you will take a side whether you like it or not. Everything now is politically charged westerner, you just don’t see it yet you will in time.
I like the fluid mechanics analogy. The basic assumptions are so close to the truth, that to add particle theory (non continuity and non infinite divisibility as well as the hilarity of quantum probability theory) to the calculations provides no improvement in results but adds to the cost of the calculations. Ultimately a logician must resort to pragmatism when it comes to beliefs. A distinction without a difference makes no difference.
Why when discussing morals , does noone ever mention evolution. Morals are a product of evolution, it's really not difficult. The morals and values that allow tribes and groups to survive, continued. It's why not everyone in any society is a a psychopath
It's really good!@@unsolicitedadvice9198 I truly think there should be more videos like this, carefully going over what these prominent figures say, which more often than not goes unchecked. Dillahunty's debate was great at putting JP on the spotlight and MD really held him accountable to each point he was making, instead of just letting things like "you're not really an atheist" or "tapestry and fabrics of a societal imaginary" slide. I appreciate this video in the same way I appreciate that debate (:
Well assuming that God exists without believing that God exists is only possible in theory, your believe system is always going to effect your actions.
@8:41 This got me thinking - if someone chooses not to believe in a truth until they see evidence of it, then until the evidence presents itself and they recognize it as evidence, they are living according to an untrue belief. I think that we all accept some beliefs until we challenge them and we also choose beliefs and unbeliefs based on evidence from our remembered experience, and that our subconscious/intuitive creates beliefs and unbeliefs along the way that affect our actions and decisions. Belief/unbelief is an on-going process that helps people to cope and to make decisions. Also, our imagination can help us to cope in some challenging circumstances by pretending something is true, a psuedo-belief; some pseudo-beliefs can also be self-harming perhaps as an effect of a strong ego/identity/responsibility.
I've watched a lot of Jordan Peterson and have come to a conclusion about his views on belief in God. I don't think he suggests that individuals should rationally choose to believe; as you mentioned, once someone recognizes the falsehood of something, it's impossible for them to choose it. Instead, he's addressing religion as an institution that indoctrinates and shapes people's lives through belief in God. He argues that without these religious organizations, people don't automatically become more truth-seeking. Drawing from his understanding of human psychology, he posits that humans have an innate need to believe in something. The idea of pure scientific inquiry feels foreign to the human mind, and in this respect, I think he has a valid point. As an atheist, I've noticed that many atheist groups I've encountered on Facebook and elsewhere have adopted new belief systems, often aligned with woke ideology. Despite evidence pointing to its divisiveness and potential harm to society, many people cling to these beliefs. Only a small number of individuals who leave religion seem able to avoid falling into new cults or ideologies. Peterson, being a Christian, likely views religion as a net positive. I don't share that view, but I acknowledge that there seems to be no alternative to organized religion. Many who reject faith in God often gravitate toward ideologies like communism and can become quite radicalized. If one were to compare Marxism (essentially wokeism) and traditional religions in terms of destructiveness, it's worth noting that marxism is far more destructive
This was actually a really good video. I am glad that I subscribed. The last part specifically about how utility and truth are interlinked, and the quote about "Something tangible and particle [must be] at the root of every real distinction of thought." really articulated something in a concise way that I hadn't yet done, and, at least I think, I had been trying to do. God bless you man.
11:33 that assume that humans are not able to maintain social order without a higher power intervening. That just seems like a ridiculous proposition to me. It’s ultra pessimistic.
The noble lie reminds me of an old polish movie where there's been world nuclear disaster and just a few hundred people survive inside a dome. A man creates this lie that an ark is coming to save them in order to give them hope. Some people don't believe in it but many others developped a kind of religious adoration for the ark and its promise of salvation. The problem is that by giving them this idea they don't actively work on any form of escape or make the life inside the dome any better, they just sit and wait for a lie to rescue them while the dome is slowly collapsing.
Maybe so. But usually people cannot sit still for a prolonged period of time. Especially in danger. Unintentionally, their minds could be trying to find a back up exit or some way to keep the dome from collapsing. He gave that hope as a catalyst to break their paralysing fear in order to rationally think, is what I believe. In that case, that faith expands the potential for possible consequences. Sounds like an interesting movie. What is the name of the movie?
Well, who would like to live in a post-nuclear world? Ark or no ark, many of us would just sit and wait for the merciful death. Apparently there are different kinds of noble lies and different contexts to apply them. And the nature of our reality - as even science comes to understand - is such, that your belief alone can turn a "lie" into reality. See placebo effect for instance.
@@alena-qu9vj Yeah, the nuclear apocalypse is not precisely the most optimistic scenario ...yet, we can still be surprised by our actions and the outcome.
RUclips deleted my comment:// The movie is O-BI, O-BA: the end of civilization. It's on youtube but people in the comments say the subtitles are terrible.
Peterson strikes me as the kind of person who is terrified that you might discover that he’s not as smart as he wants you to believe he is. He comes off as confused because he’s peddling as fast as he can.
The thing with Peterson's view of "acted out belief" is that it can easily be reversed to challenge believers of the voracity of their own beliefs. For instance, most believers believe that when a person dies their soul goes to heaven. But if it was actually true, then theoretically death would be the best day of a person's life. It would be a time of celebration and happiness, not sadness. The spirit is leaving this tortured state here on earth and it is going to a place of unimaginable goodness and bliss. Being grief-stricken in a moment like this is no different than wearing your bathing suit when you believe it is raining. If Peterson's philosophy is correct, then I think you would almost have to draw the conclusion that most Christians don't actually believe in a literal heaven. They say they believe in a heaven, but they don't act out the belief. The interesting thing about that is that is it strips some of the religious power away from the idea of a transcendental reward / punishment justice system. The issue is that the divine judge is essentially the main draw of the Pascalian wager. It's also contrary to the idea that "our suffering was worthwhile in the end". Our grief is our way of acting out that there is no justice in death.
That's not really true. Your mother might cry when she sees you leave the house to go to college, even though she knows it's good for you she still doesn't want to part with her child. The same way even if I am confident that my close friend or family member is going to Heaven and I will too, I can still be sad that it might take me 60 years to see them again. Personally the hardest death I've ever had to deal with was a friend from Church who killed himself back in high-school, besides the feeling of guilt was a fear about where his soul had gone, if his suicide was forgivable or if he was in eternal torment.
Amazing work. Can’t wait to get your thoughts on more philosophical arguments. Your intellectual honesty really makes you stand out and is a rare thing to find on social media.
I'd also like to make the conjecture that you don't need to believe in god to have 'faith', but as an absolute, if you don't have any faith, you will fail or even die sooner in your life. This is because faith is not owned by the notion of god, faith is not owned or connected to religion; faith is actually a human emotion that allows us to manifest things that would have seemed nearly impossible. Now I want you to imagine a hypothetical scenario of two primordial mystic human tribes at war. Between the two tribes is a wall, and the only thing between the two tribes and the wall is the faith they have in their ability to defend or attack that wall. They have no science to measure the wall and say "We cannot defeat this.", they have no catapults/sappers/tunnelers etc.., they have their faith. And so reality plays out as so, the attacking tribe either has faith that they can defeat the wall and win, and/or the defending tribe has faith in their wall and fight back, but THE ABSOLUTE BOTTOM LINE is that if the defending or attacking tribe had no faith in themselves or the object of battle, the defending or attacking tribe would lose. You cannot overcome a lack of faith with confidence or strength or numbers-- the lack of faith is directly SUBVERTIVE to those higher emotional constructs! (in history, larger armies have been routed by smaller armies. Strength and numbers are secondary to faith.) I guess what i'm saying is, having faith is a basal emotional construct that allows you to achieve your goals of survival. If you don't have faith, you won't believe in your ability to achieve those goals.
Faith as confidence. Lee's Elucidation: A finite number of words must be made to represent an infinite number of things and possibilities. Language Habits in Human Affairs, Irving J. Lee, 1941.
When I was highly religious I was so unhappy and hated my life. Once I've opened my eyes to logic and started living my own life my way, I'm the happiest person I know.
Weird i found blind religiosity and blind worship of logic are equally depressing But thinking life as dance between logic and god somehow make sense to me even tho it dosent make sense if i try to explain it
@@kamikazeblackjackThere's a reason the Catholic Church always had great respect for science and philosphy, they allow us to further grow our faith in God.
Student of Anglo-American analytical philosophy from the 1970s here. Still recovering. This has always been an issue for me. While I reject James and Pierce's philosophy when taken in the round, I've always had a strong intuition that knowledge and belief have to have a strong utilitarian dimension for humanity. To the extent that I have given it headroom among all the other living clutter around me, I've struggled to formulate a way of approaching this. Your vid helps. So thanks for that.
My pragmatic argument: It does not matter what I believe. Whether I believe in God or not will not change my actions and behavior. I want to be a kind and good person who helps others regardless of whether God exists. There are three possible worlds: 1. God does not exist and I will continue to endeavor to be good and noble. 2. God exists and knows my heart and is aware that I will continue to be good and noble. 3. God exists, but it is an evil, selfish God who will punish me for not "believing correctly". If number 3 is the case, I am very comfortable going to hell. After all, in a world with an evil, narcissistic God, I know that my place is not by God's side in heaven. My place is with my people.
I do not think this is his strangest argument by far. Jordan has litterally said that if you enjoy art you have to be religious at your core. I mean what the hell?
Being enraptured by art or beauty is striking similar to having a religious experience, so much so that you could argue the two are basically the same experience with different names.
@HobDavid so, I ate some food one time that was so good, it made me feel a deep sense of pleasure, gratification, and satisfaction. Am I to conclude that this was a religious experience, just with a different name?
@alexf9507 chemical pleasure, induced by taking a substance into your body isn't really analogous to seeing something and having the same level of experience. It's like drugs, without the drugs part.
@HobDavid that makes no sense. The sensations one feels from viewing a painting is activating the same parts of the brain, and thus releasing the same chemical hormones, as eating the food, even if to a lesser extent. Indeed some may actually get more pleasure from viewing something esthetically pleasing than from food.
Pascal's Wager only makes sense in a world where there's only one religion with one god. The minute you add in other religions then it falls apart. What if you're a good Christian and it turns out the Vikings were right all along? Or Islam? Or Buddhism? Pascal fell into the trap of his own belief. Because he believed in the Christian god there was no consideration of other religions being true. But each has as much evidence of truth as the next one and as much moral contradiction to make you doubt its validity. Once you factor in the high probability of choosing the wrong religion it becomes much more sensible to be agnostic on the whole issue: believe or not believe you're more likely to be wrong than right so as religious belief is a bit of a kafka trap the only reasonable option barring a direct revelation from the divine is not to play the game. The closest i ever came to a religious experience was meditating. It felt like i connected with something but it didn't reveal anything to me aside from complete emotional release. There was no voice of god or vision of prophets or divine revelation. Just a profound sense of release. And that could easily have just come from inside me as i let a lifetime of buried feelings out. 🤷♂️
Pascal’s wager may run into issues when choosing between religions, but it makes sense when deciding whether or not to believe in (a) God or not. Speaking broadly, believing and behaving that there is a superior deity is more reasonable than choosing not to believe in a superior deity.
How can you say is more reasonable to believe in a God then not? When in fact, it has negatively impacts our world view severely then to have realistic perception and expectations what our world is. While, any God (s) don't fit anything in our current understanding and the nature of our reality, however, it is only a personal beliefs for an individual. Not to be part of multiple-nature of our world. Yet, you defy this issues and reason your way out, for seek of faith. How can your accusation be true when yourself can't address the major imperfections of your faith? Without having a very bold reasoning and argument, the same as you swear to us. @@During_o7
@@goodmaninthemoonyt4778 You assume that I have faith, which I don’t. You also assumed that the God I was referring to was a theistic deity, which I was not. I am a deist, and don’t believe in a conscious, active deity. Pascal’s Wager, as I stated above, runs into issues when comparing the gods of different religions, however, I believe that has to do with the specifications and characteristics of different gods amongst religions. If instead, we speak more broadly of a supreme deity, with no further attributes or characteristics, Pascal’s wager makes sense. In other words, for an atheist decided whether to believe in a supreme deity or not, Pascal’s wager is perfectly reasonably.
@@During_o7 What I see is that you think you have to suspend rationality or laws of logic when trying to find which religion is true. A true religion wouldn't require you to suspend rational thought.
I don't believe because of Pascals wager. I believe because of direct experiences, historical and scientific evidence, paired with logical reasoning. You're guys' mistake is thinking 1. You have an objective world view of reality, provided by science or athiesm 2. In order to believe a religion you can't think about it logically and base it in evidence. 3. All religions are equally valid, logical, and backed up by evidence. This is 100% incorrect.
I don't think you quite grasp Peterson position. Peterson often say your actions are a far better indicator of what you believe than what you say. So it seems to me he believes a person does not choose their beliefs, rather you can tell what a person believes based on what they do. So to use your example, a person does a somersault therefore they believe they can do a somersault. I would even say Peterson position is that no one can believe in God because the actions required by a person to demonstrate that belief are so difficult to maintain its basically impossible. He give a whole 30 min lecture on this "who dares say they believe in god" I think is the title.
Well yes, that's what I explore in section 3 of the video :). I actually argue in favour of this definition in many ways. And I am alluding to that lecture in particular when I say Peterson recognises the question of seeing what a belief in God implies
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 yep got there, so on the transcendent. I find your examples kind of poor, I don't think reading a book is a good comparison. Who cares what you believe because you read a book. When Peterson makes these arguments he makes them about extreme moral claims, slavery is bad, equity is genocidal, etc etc. I don't think he would hold that all belief that could be inferred from mundane actions lead to something transcendent. Point being I think you need to give examples of a similar sort to demonstrate the issues with his argument.
The point of the more commonplace examples is to bring the theory of belief down to earth - if anything the connection to consequences becomes more difficult to decipher as you get more abstract (as I go on to say using the example of Christian belief). The point of the book example is to demonstrate the pragmatic theory of belief, not the transcendent quality, which I discuss later. The drama inherent in the example isn’t really relevant to its logical role there. It’s just generally seen as good practice to use a down-to-earth example to illustrate a theory as that way you have the fewest unfamiliar elements for the reader/watcher. It’s something you see in philosophy papers quite a lot.
Big admiration for this page. Your arguments are so clear. All insightful synthesis of good thinking, dealing with serious issues critically and without a flavor of self-indulgence. I see in the comments your videos help people to be honest in their views. Best new channel I have found this year.
Excellent job, as usual, breaking down complex arguments into easily understandable terms without dumbing them down! Thank you, also, for your thoughtful and compassionate treatment of Dr. Peterson and his philosophy. He gets a bad rap, I think, from both religious and non-religious folks who misunderstand his arguments or have only listened to a few clips of things he's said. It seems to me that he is working hard to unify atheists, agnostics, and theists in the effort to make our world a better place by doing morally and intellectually uplifting "public philosophy." Unless I misunderstand you, that's pretty much exactly what you're trying to do, as well! By the way, possibly my favorite quote: "Philosophy here is not just accruing truths, but asking what the behavioral and practical consequences of those truths should be." Amen, Brother! Keep seeking the truth and you will keep finding it; keep living out the truth you've found, and your life will become more and more beautiful and good, in the transcendent sense.
Agnostic secular Buddhism with a leaning toward virtue ethics is the way ☺️ At least, for me. I find no point in concerning myself with whether or not a higher power exists. I think it’s most important to just live your life in a way that brings goodness to the world around you and to appreciate each moment as it happens. Secular Buddhism has been a great guide for me to that end. If there is a god and he is upset with me for that, for whatever reason, then I think he is a cruel god that I have no desire to please and I will accept my fate whatever it may be. I aim to die knowing I did whatever I could to be the best version of myself, not just for myself but for those I love and for the greater society in which I participate and rely on and that’s enough for me. Cheers!
I love Pascal's quote: “Fire. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and the scholars. I will not forget thy word. Amen.” (You are being way to nice. Peterson is an absolute charlatan.)
I think Pascal is a really underrated thinker. And to be honest I largely wanted to talk about pragmatic arguments for belief. I was lucky Peterson was there to be "bait" to to speak. If the video was just about Charles Peirce I doubt anyone would watch it haha!
@@fernandogutemberg261 I can and I enjoyed the video. Yet someones context, endgoal, ... is as important to understanding a specific argument that they are trying to make. Sidenote: I have actually made a ton of video's on the types of logical fallacies that JP makes.
Peterson is in the middle of his journey 😊 atheist and agnostic are some of my favorite minds for this reason, usually subconsciously searching for proof and want it to be true more than the latter.
@@michaelmcdoesntexist1459 Except, let's say there's 100 possible gods to believe in. Then believing in one has a 1% chance of avoiding punishment. Not believing in one, has a 0% chance. So Pascals Wager still applies.
@@self_improvement_d First of all: if you don't believe in God, you just don't. You can't force yourself to believe in something. Now, pretending to believe in God out of fear of punishment has a 100% chance to make you live a dishonest and miserable life. And second. By your logic, believing in, let's say, Yahvé the christian god, would have a 99.999% chance of punishment because is only one of thousands of religions and any of them could be the true one. And most of them are kinder to an honest non believer than a worshiper of an evil god like Yahvé. So, yeah... Even under than ridiculous assumption of yours, the stupid wager still works against Christianity
@@michaelmcdoesntexist1459 Did you even watch the video? He literally disproves your exact argument. Since punishment in hell would be infinite, any chance of avoiding it, even a 1/1000 chance, would be worth it. And since we can't know if the true god would be kinder to nonbelievers or believers of other religions, that is irrelevant. I don't agree with Pascals wager but at least I understand it, unlike you.
First off, I commend you on your excellent handling of the material. Well done. Having said that, I find Peterson’s “involuntarist argument” rather weak, at least as he frames it. For instance, in the debate with Matt Dillahunty, Peterson asks Matt something like, “If you don’t believe in God, then in your talk with Sam Harris, why didn’t you just throw him off the stage?”-implying that a true atheist would, without fail, behave in a violent, sociopathic manner, whether provoked or unprovoked. That is a ludicrous assumption that, in my mind, doesn’t even require a counterargument to refute. Granted, as you’ve already mentioned, Peterson shifts the goalposts and redefines “God” as something like “the highest good you can imagine”; but I still think it makes for a weak argument and was particularly transparent in the debate with Dillahunty. Anyhow, just my two cents. Great video.
I agree that Peterson wasn't prepared for Matt's disingenuous discourse. However, it was hilarious when that random dude was prepared and sent Matt running with his tail between his legs. 😂
@@CrazyLinguiniLegs I don't know his name, but if you search "Matt Dillahunty rage quits" you'll find some vids. Preferably, watch one that shows the entire exchange.
I think that the idea is no matter how you look at it, every human on Earth has a subconscious moral law that’s natural law and God given. As the Bible describes the idea of three things that make mankind's consciousness are, good, evil, and the freedom of choice. And the fact that we abide by any rules whatsoever, is a reflection of the idea that you're using/appropriating the benefits of being holy and having good will when it suits you, but not as much as you would be thankful to a God for it, or that you'd just as likely act in a wilfully sinful way when it suits you either.
It's kind of uncanny how quickly you can release such high quality videos. I am Christian for multiple reasons not the least of which is Jesus's historicity and the fact that His resurrection is a more cogent argument (to me) for the fact that twelve dudes chose to abandon everything they knew and die gruesome deaths to convert people to the Gospel.
Being honest here, there are so many cases of group self-unaliving/sacrifice with faith in a higher being involved. This is what leaves me unsurprised for the specific sacrifice these twelve apostles chose
@@aahhhhhhhhhhhhh this is not the same thing though. Typically this would happen under some leader, the death is quick (in most cases u have seen) and it's in a context where people are unwell mentally. As far as I am aware the context of the apostles does not match that, they actively chose to go around the world telling the world that a dead guy rose again abandoning everything they knew for no benefits, and make themselves pariahs to their communities (Jews) and the Romans.Btw it's not an argument for God, perse. It's just one thing that doesn't really make sense if it didn't happen.
@@kamikamen_official But then the only difference is that they had a will to live through the hardships before their eventual passing to the better place. I mean I guess this makes Christianity more moral than these shady sacrificial cults (I probably did not need this conversation to conclude this lol, my bad)
Muhammad pbuh, when he started to spread the message of monotheism to the pagan Arabs of Mekka was persecuted for over a decade and had to go through many hardships. They plotted many assassinations against him but God protects his messengers. They tortured and killed many of his family and friends. Him and his followers were expelled to the desert where they lived on bread, dates and water. When they fled to Medina the pagans weren't satisfied and waged war against them and would do so multiple times. His followers went to war with both the Roman AND the Persian empire at the same time and won. Something which historians can't fathom actually happened. So my question is, if your pre-requisite is that the followers spread the message eyeing certain death, then how come you're not Muslim? 😄
I've also tried to figure out what Peterson means by God exactly. And he doesn't mean that he is person and either heaven or hell is waiting for us in the afterlife, but (as he put it) "God is the sum total of all good things in some transcendent sense", or an ideal. In other videos he talks that people used the see and evaluate the world in the form of drama, before the scientific, rational approach. In all those old religious texts and mythologies they considered God to be that kind of ideal I previously described, however though thousands of years, the religions fell prey to fundamentalism and started to interpret those text literally and only literally, thus loosing the real essence of what they symbolised.
Have you read the God is Love passage? Or God is Truth, Life, and the Way. Peterson is referring to God as a being that is beyond of scope of this reality and is more real than this reality.
@@oggolbat7932 More real than reality itself, as he said. Witnesses of heaven and hell mention that these realms of eternity are more real than this world.
The problem I see with this is why not just call this the highest ideal instead of god because then it introduces a religious element to the conversation that not everyone agrees with, it’d make more sense to say god is a type of highest ideal people pursue
Most of this is answered in basic presuppositionalist arguments and epistemology. If we continue to grant empiricism access to metaphysical concepts without justification we'll keep going in these stupid circles.
It always baffles me when people say religious morality is necessary to stop society from moral collapse. It’s insulting! What sort of monster does this belief make of a human? Are we truly so monstrous that only the threat of hell and the promise of heaven can contain our cruelty? Does the pain in the eyes of our fellow man not suffice? And when has the threat of hell ever stopped a believer from committing a crime? Hasn’t there been enough criminals believing they were doing it all on the name of their god?
You missunderstand the argument. Morality needs a basis. Otherwise it's worthless and can be changed at any time. Your morality comes from what your parents taught you or what your culture taught you or what you experienced and decide. The former two are always religious in nature. The whole mystical fluff is only the carrier for pretty basic statements that keep society functional while we don't understand why exactly. This "not knowing" is the basis for all religions. We can make guesses why specific rules are important but in the end we just need to accept that things like lying are wrong and harmful in the long term even when they benefit us. Otherwise our society would collapse. Do you need religion for that? Not necessarily. But I assure you that being religious is the easy way. The other ways are pretty dangerous and painful. If I could be religious I'd be without hesitation. But many if us can't. God is dead after all.
I highly appreciated the ease at which speaking objectively and without bias you carried yourself in that video. Being an Orthodox Christian, I certainly have a differing set of beliefs from that of an agnostic, but that's a real treasure you've been able to acquire to speak with little to no accusations but rather humble curiosity I hope you continue looking for the truth and help people to untangle themselves from whatever lies that feed off of and limit their intellectual freedom
I personally find myself to now be in an agnostic spiritism of sorts. I feel it's a much better way to go about your own personal faith. I believe whatever government that is in charge should always be secular. The people themselves should always be free to practice their own agnostic spiritism.
@@The-Doubters-Diary People are supposed to be their own spiritual authority. Like personally I think God is real. God is just the collective unconscious of all of humanity.
If J.P. thought clearly, he would speak clearly. Given that he evidently puts no store in having people understand him, why do we bother with him at all?!
That's what makes J.P. so memeable, I could imagine a world where J.P. was so well spoken he never got any attention. It's his word salads get others to attempt to understand his arguments. Or maybe he tries to attract people that listens to arguments rather than a theatrical show
It's like Nietzsche, say a bunch of bullishit but in a very esoteric way and everyone will see whatever they want in it. And on top add a bit of misogyny
Although I don’t understand some of his statements and disagree with others, I do find value in his 2018 Biblical series lectures. They are insightful and by far the most informative lectures I have ever heard. 10/10 would recommend
Jordan’s superpower is word salad. You can read everything into his sentences because they make no sense. They are constantly changing and contradictory. But they sound smart because he knows long words and can make references.
I like that zoomers are trying to rehash early 2000s debates, but there is a serious aspect to Peterson you seem to be missing. Just starting at Pasquel's Wager, this is NOT Peterson's argument. Peterson's argument is more like: So we can all see the logical flaws in Pasquel's Wager, for example the simple fact that there could be any number of 5000+ gods, so it's really not a binary choice. What you're missing is that Peterson steps ahead of this argument to say that it's not even about whether god exists or doesn't, or your reward/damnation in the afterlife. It's about your life now, and the lives of all human beings. How does adopting something like Pascal's Wager impact people's actual lives? His claim is that it is for the good. So it doesn't even matter whether god exists or doesn't - it's more of a utilitarian argument.
Well yes. That's what I end up saying :). I just used Pascal's wager as an example of a historical pragmatic theological argument I figured more people would have heard of.
The 20th century practice of Chaos Magick heavily emphasized the importance of being able to fully adopt a belief when it is useful, and discard it once it is no longer needed, to achieve a given aim. This is actually very useful for many even everyday purposes.
Many great philosophers who we copy were the forefront of most modern day religions. It's a dangerous path to tred on when rejecting cultural significance like the idea of God when several cultures around the world use that as the basis of why their society should exist. It's either you choose to live in a morally objective world or you don't.
The single most profound thing I've ever heard anyone say was when I heard Jordan Peterson say that he lives his life as if God exists. I 💯 agree. I think the worst thing that's ever happened to society has been the decline in religion. And I'm not religious, and never have been.
Hi, im advocating on behalf of the devil, and wanted to ask if you would be OK with all the nones, atheists and agnostics being Muslim all of a sudden?
Perhaps it’s better to live as if you have one life, and you’re responsible for living to the fullest. Seems wiser than pretend that daddy upstairs is watching and judging.
Jordan Peterson is extremely misunderstood on this topic and often ends up being mocked by philosophically shallow "intellectuals" like Matt Dillahunty and memed by 16 year olds who just wanna see someone win or destroy the opponent. Great video
The end of your video reminded me of this quote "The Great Being saith: The learned of the day must direct the people to acquire those branches of knowledge which are of use, that both the learned themselves and the generality of mankind may derive benefits therefrom. Such academic pursuits as begin and end in words alone have never been and will never be of any worth. "
LINKS AND CORRECTIONS
If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at josephfolleytutoring@gmail.com. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE.
Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link&
Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
⭕ God told Moses on Mt. Sinai to use Pi 3.14 π as the cornerstone to build the Wilderness Tabernacle in 1440 BC. In 94 AD Josephus the historian wrongly described it as rectangular-shaped. Exodus 25-26-27 blueprints build a circular-shaped hendecagon outer courtyard. What is superior, the bible or confirmed secular/ecumenical history?
330 Exodus 26:8 eleven curtains each 30 cubits long
15 Exodus 26:12 one curtain is folded in half to 15 cubits long
- 1 Exodus 26:13 curtain hang over/seams add to 1 cubit long
= 314
3.14 = 314 circumference/100 diameter ≈ π ratio (100 cubit court per Exodus 27:9-18)
.................
Is this discovery like the Dead Sea Scrolls or even Martin Luther's 95 Theses? How did we miss this for 1900 years and does it even matter anymore? Pi is 3 or 3.14... very small difference.
..................
History of finding π:
-(1900-1680 BC) Babylonian 3.125 for π
-(1650 BC) Egyptians gave the approximate value of π 3.1605
-(1440 BC) Moses recorded Pi in the Exodus blueprints 3.141592653... Exodus 26:13 ≈ Pi
-(500 BC) India's Aryabhata approximation was 62,832/20,000, or 3.141
-(429-501 BC) Zu Chongzhi a Chinese mathematician 3.1415926 - 3.1415927
-(250 BC) Archimedes from Syracuse showed between 3.1408 and 3.1429
.................
More than a thousand years removed Josephus did NOT know Exodus 26:13 approximated Pi. He was describing the Temple's structure and NOT, and NOT the Tabernacle from Exodus 25-26-27. See?
Pi is coded in your DNA.
Consider King Josiah & the Prophetess Huldah rediscovering the forgotten scriptures, right? Will Pharaoh let this go? Almost 3500 years ago "Exodus 26:13 ≈ Pi" was lost on Mt. Nebo when Moses died. How will religious and non-religious acknowledge this systemic seed-changing paradigm shift? We going back in time in real-time to change history to line up the Word as it should've been.
Moses recorded Pi 1000 years before Archimedes from Syracuse's Pi. Everyone including myself rejects this text/arithmetic until studied personally. Please use consistent hermeneutics along with the scientific method for our non-religious friends. After confirmation please repent then rejoice. Please remember this is God's big tent.
Exodus 26:13 ≈ Pi ⭕ כְּכֹ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֲנִי֙
Peterson is a scam artist that tries to cater to as much people as possible, he needs money for his family and do not care about anything else
Read Psalm 14:1 and then do a google search for The Metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas / The 5 Proofs of God's Existence :
1 The argument from Motion
2 The argument from Causation
3 The argument from Contingency
4 The argument from Design
5 The argument from Perfection
Bro I might have something to share. There is a big debate in metaphysics about whether sub-atomical particles exist or not and many people say that debate is useless because we have no way of finding out the truth because of certain scientific technicalities but it doesn't matter. Scientists evolved a system in which they predicted that there are such particles and they laid their theories on that principle. I view the God debate in that light too. I don't get where there is so much attention paid on that because it is useless. Like sub-atomical particles, we have no way of finding out the truth. So why not talk and debate about the utility of religion than to roll out heads around what we can never get around. If you could tell me something of value against what I have said, I would be very pleased.
@@JaydayalCharan Generally speaking, I agree with you. However, being honest about one's foundations is important in order to avoid your presuppositions getting in the way of understanding how your engagement with the facts shapes your belief going forwards. The point in discussing and figuring out what is true in a strictly abstract objectivist sense is about figuring out what we have to contend with when we shape our understanding, and even if the conversation goes in circles and confirms that the answer is "we don't know" we can now hold each other accountable in acting as though we aren't certain, rather than pretending we do.
"Recovering logician student" new fav phrase
Bro is probably the most handsome philosopher at the moment
Edit: Yes, I am talking about the narrator.
Edit 2: More handsome philosopher would perhaps be Kierkegaard
Haha! That is very kind (provided you are talking about me and not Peterson, one of my female friends once described him as a "silver fox")
At the moment, nice to see you are keeping your opinion open.
I have not watched this video yet but I would like to express that I perceive myself as an atheist but with a behaviour best described as Judeo-Christian in nature.
I think the philosophers during the ancient times believed that beauty is in the intellect and behaviour of a person I am sure seldom interest in personal appearance
But Jordan takes care of his health
I used to be philosophical when I was a teenager and loved being logical, somewhere along the way. However, I ended up dropping the desire from the age of 17 to until now when I discovered your channel.
Your display and cadence and breakdown of philosophy make it very easy for my busy adult mind to understand what's going on while I'm working with my hands.
Just wanted to say thank you for making it more accessible for a working man like me again.
for some reason I kind of doubt your were philosophical at 16 but I guess it depends on your definition
He's like Rationality Rules but not insufferable.
@@kyleschaffrick3845define how you would use and interpret the word
@@kyleschaffrick3845youd be surprise how coping works
@@kyleschaffrick3845What is it about this person's comment that is suggesting they weren't philosophical when they stated they were?
And once you’ve made the leap from what’s true to what’s useful, the question becomes the reference: Useful for what? Survival? Freedom? Well-being? Mere acquisition of knowledge?
"Without God, everything is permissible." Basing a pragmatic use of religion, a benevolent lie, on ideas like that demand justification, and I've seen just as much justification - if not more - for the inverse of that proposition. There are people who are more willing to do bad things because they believe they will be ultimately forgiven. There are people who defend putting children to the sword, because they believe God commanded it. What's worse than butchering children? If you can morally put children to the sword "with God" then with God, anything can be permissible. The fears of people like Dostoyevsky did not come to fruition. Our most secular societies are also the most peaceful and have the lowest crime rates, while the ones with high religiosity are mostly 3rd world. I'm not saying the relationship is causal, but it's clearly not the case that lack of religion is either.
Yeah I tend to hold a similar position on that argument. It would be interesting if the premises were true, but I haven’t found any evidence that suggests they are true. I love your animated sketches by the way - they always reminded me of Plato’s Dialogues. I wish I could write something like that one day!
If you relate "peacefulness" solely to the crime rate, you may be right. However, that alone is not a sufficient indication of a contented society that feels committed to a coherent order. Nor should it be the only measure. Christian rules relate to the cohesion of man and woman, of family and kinship, of relationships between the generations. This has meaning for the individual, would you agree?
Secular societies have a rate of singles and divorced couples that is extremely high, around 40 per cent singles (if I remember correctly for my country). Secular societies are extremely prone to short-lived relationships, the commodification of the human body, they are on the edge or already below the reproductive rate that ensures self-preservation. Individuals are faced with organisations and contracts that make them extremely vulnerable to isolation in their individual position, for example. Interest groups and tribalistic groups are far too small to offer the same support structure in comparison with religious institutions, official and non official (though I am not a fan of all the institutions myself).
In this respect, these could also have been Dostoyevsky's fears, could they not? The fact that they didn't materialise, I would say, is a leap too far.
That was impressive sir. @@ERH-ph5gb
While I agree with you I would also point out that many secular society's also seem to devolve into liberal self destruction. One thing that most western society's have not done is finding a moral replacement for religion. Many people curtail their bad behaviors because they are worried about "going to hell" and while in many cases religion is a case of using a butter knife as a makeshift screwdriver, you cannot just throw the butterknife away and expect the work to be completed. Just look at what pure abandonment of religious values and morality has done to California and the wanton depravity taking place in their cities (San Francisco for example). Until society finds a way to retain the morality that religion has provided while discarding the smoke and mirrors parts of it, we will continue to oscillate the stability of society.
@@ERH-ph5gb
I'm more worried about how many people and children are suffering and how wars, famine and poverty causes death and complex trauma than the existence of God.
Humans should fix our own problems and leave God out of our own affairs. Believing in God is good if that faith makes you better, not when people start believing they are superior or god sent.
There are far too many psychos and narcissists into religions and far too many wars have been declared in the names of gods.
vids been uploaded for 5 mins and he’s already replying, W creator
Ah thank you! Well I figure since I'm already at my desk I try to hang around for a little bit once it's up
Name of the video?
That’s literally the most common time for a RUclipsr to reply to comments.
@@eomoran whilst it is probably a convenient time to reply to comments, if I had just spend hours, drafting, researching, scripting, recording, re recording, editing and then finally uploading, the last thing I’d be doing, is on replying to the comments section
@calculated-_-9464 youtubers don't usually do all of that in one go. They pick a good time to upload even after its fully edited and ready
amazing consistency bro and i really love how you are always conscious that what you say is just your own interpretation of the issue and keep some skepticism like a true philosopher
Ah thank you! I try to be wary of my own epistemic limitations!
1:52 - This is the reason I believe in Santa. I don't want to disbelieve and risk missing out on free presents 🎅
Lmao actually insanely good comparison
Absolute classic, I thought the same thing
You made me laugh. Great point!
Redditor spotted.
It would be a DECENT point if there was only two groups - the 'believers' and the 'nonbelievers'. But, with so many different religions, belief systems, whatnot, there's no reason to adopt this philosophy. To choose one of them at random is exactly that - to choose one at random. The framing as if it's only the two groups is super dishonest by people who propose this idea. Would it not be better to live through our own observable truths? Because it's NOT just those two groups. You're just as much at risk of hellfire for being a Christian as you are an Atheist in the eyes of most other religions, assuming you're the same person.
The problem with the "at least you don't lose anything" argument is that it assumes believing in god does not have cost in this life - yet it does.
I'm just curious, what do you actually mean by cost in this life? Because from my pov religious boundaries are many times good for an individual's well being too, of course if you don't become an extremist only then
@@tintedqualia belief in god makes people less ready to accept the responsibility for their actions (they use "god's will argument to justify things happening to them), it makes them more tolerant to injustice (they believe that god will punish those who is being unjust), etc. If we are talking about the game-theory approach to faith, we have to be fully honest.
@@javlonjuraev6328 I do understand your point of view, but in my opinion in both the cases, i.e saying something was God's will and saying God would punish the wrongdoers, that comes after you have played your part. For example, you tried your best to track down a thief, but you couldn't find him in the end. After doing what you're supposed to do, then you put your trust in God that He will get you justice because you did everything that you could and even then couldn't get it for yourself.
Yes, when using "God's will" as a reason to not do what's supposed to be done, that isn't a right approach. But I think we do have to study religion properly so we don't end up falling in such holes
@@javlonjuraev6328 does it or is it just stupid people. A dumb Christian will assign it things to God that are but a dumb atheist will assign the same to the universe.
@@javlonjuraev6328 i cant speak for other secs of christianity but in Catholicism we have purgatory which is like hell but not eternal (could even debate if hell is eternal but thats a whole can of worms) but you go there if you accept God but still didnt live without sin, and sufferer there for all your wrongs until eventually you make it to heaven. For me at and alot of the catholics i know, were not trying to sin cause whatever we get out of it now wont be worth the suffering. Alot of other Christian religions dont believe in purgatory and believe they go straight to heaven as long as they accept God. I definitely see your criticism of Christianity in this regard, i see the same thing.
This is far far better than anything I thought it would be, love your enthusiasm to delve deeper and yet keep it accessible.
You are the best dude, you make the most consistently amazing and fascinating essays out there
Ah thank you! That is very kind!
But you are more than a "dude." What is your name? What is your background? etc.
I've never seen anyone break down Petersons believe, non believe question so thoroughly. Well done 👏
And he does it so quickly and concisely, far preferable to having to listen to Petersens rambling word salads for an hour.
I must give it to you. Your description and analyses about / of JP is / was spot on. I enjoy listening to you. Keep it up.
Loved the video. As a fellow agnostic I was always a bit annoyed at agnostics and atheists casually dismissing Peterson's points, calling it "word salad" and incoherent. His arguments always made sense to me and I found them fascinating.
Thank you! And yeah I felt similarly. I always thought it was a bit presumptive to just dismiss them without consideration, given that they’re certainly substantive and interesting
Atheist here. I listened to Peterson for a long time, since he became a public figure in like 2017. listened to hours and hours of his lectures and podcasts and debates. Mostly I thought it was fun trying to decipher exactly what he's saying because he talks in such a weird way sometimes. And he does come up with unique ideas that get me thinking in different ways. So yeah I understood all his arguments for religion. And didnt casually dismiss them. But I did dismiss them because they're all dumber than a box of rocks
@@Will-xf3qe WOW listening so much hours of lectures, podcasts and debates from a person whose ideas are dumber than a box of rocks? You wasted so much time there... don't worry I understand, I used to do that too while I was on heroin.
@@Will-xf3qelet me thoughtfullly and analytically reject your comment in a non casual way.
It is dumber than rock.
There you go, enjoy my refutation.
@@DartNoobo i could explain but it takes longer than a RUclips comment
I'm not religious but I'll use the bible to argue against Pascal's wager: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast." In other words you are saved through faith and not through your actions and if you don't already believe/have faith in God it won't matter how good a Christian you act or how many prayers you make. The wager is meaningless since it's only posed to someone who doesn't believe in the first place; as someone who believe would not need a wager, if you don't have faith then accepting the wager will not put you in the graces of God anyway.
Great point & proof but imo again if you’re to believe that you can choose to believe, and truly devote yourself to christianity then it works out with the wager. The reason the wager doesn’t hold up in modern day is because so many religions are so popular all with their own beliefs and gods. Many have conflicting beliefs, so which are you to wager on?
@@siddhartramotar8774 It did never hold out, because there is no sign or evidence that a true god must be one believed in, it is equally possible for a god to exist which is entirely opposed to all existing religions, or one that makes decisions in any way possible. Therefore, since the nature of god or similar concepts (essentially anything that cannot be predicted or described empirically) is essentially equivalent to randomness
The wager is only meaningless if you wager nothing at all or in other words if you wager atheism is absolutely meaningless
that might be perceived as kind of a disregard to the atheist and the value that particular atheist has for its life; I can certainly imagine some people who enjoy life without God but still enjoying it. However, at the same time the meaningless of life is a great argument for god, being a complete nihilist kinda seams like a dead end;)
Any claim that short-circuits the mechanism of salvation in Christianity is ipso facto uncompelling - scriptural and other Christian sources vary, contradict, and complicate the issue enormously.
Great insights....Love all the way from Kenya... Always love your insights
Ah thank you! I am glad you are enjoying the videos!
Where from specifically 😅
No pazuri kuona wakenya wengine hapa internet yetu, mimi nili ishi tz na Kenya Kwa miaka kumi lakini sasa naishi uzungu. Nimefurahi kukuona kaka
@@invisible__710 NBI
What insights? He is just regurgitating his observation of arguments he has heard or read about. Can you give an example where he shared an insight of any kind?
It's wonderfully refreshing to hear someone being critical of Peterson in a logical way, while giving him the benefit of the doubt. I don't have full confidence in all of JPs conclusions either but I have been fascinated by the perspective of the practical interpretation of "belief" since I heard it from him. BTW I think over repeated interactions with someone it would be pretty easy to figure out why they are reading a book among all of your listed possibilities, obviously people can be deceptive but most are bad at it.
Have you ever thought of doing discussions or debates? You are beautifully well-read and articulate and I'd love to hear a conversation between you and Peterson. Keep up the great work!
If I were to steel man Jordan’s argument about all motivation being transcendent, he would probably say that any pursuit outside of lethargic contentment (stagnation) would be an attempt to get closer to the “ideal”. The ideal would be a level of perfection that transcends the limitations of our reality; however, since we live in reality we simply make due with getting as close to ideal as we can and sometimes that looks as mundane as your example of sitting on a sofa instead of a chair. The ideal would be to sit on a perfectly soft yet supportive cloud watching the greatest form of art unfold in front of you, but the closest thing we can achieve in the mean time is sitting in our favorite groove on our sofa and watching a good movie or show. We wouldn’t be “motivated” to pursue this distinction between the sofa over the chair if we didn’t have a concept and desire of an “ideal”, or that which is closer to perfection than we are now, in both our thoughts and feelings.
I truly do not understand how there is any debate about whether or not you can choose what you believe. I would challenge absolutely anybody to believe something which they know to be false. You may be able to act like you believe, and pretend like you believe, but you would always know that you didn't actually believe
agreed, but ultimately peterson’s response would be that it doesn’t really matter as long as you act like it, wouldn’t it? it’s patronizing and stupid but as far as i understood it, that’s his argument
I don't think it's complicated at all, it's not that you can choose to believe something is false, it's that you can choose to believe something when the answer is uncertain such as it is with the question of religion. When you don't know you CAN make a choice the other option is to try and reason which is most likely or just to not form an option at all.
You're looking at this all too one dimensionally. You can walk yourself into a belief you don't yet believe in. Its a timely thing.
The problem with this statement to me is nobody knows the real meaning of life, or whether there is one even. No one really knows the origin of creation or its intention. You can only choose to believe one or the other because there isn't enough evidence for anything more. Life is a living mystery. People that believe in god will say they know there is enough evidence to support their claims. People that don't believe will say the same thing. But nobody knows what they're claiming is false or true or they would be able to win their debate at any given time with their proof. Any really honest person knows there is no real way to know what lies beyond our own existence. You have to choose to believe one or the other, depending on how you feel either thought process benefits your own life
@@NeedleknightJ i don’t see how this clashes with the original statement? unless you’re convinced that people arrive at their (moral) convictions (exclusively) rationally, because they most likely don’t in most cases, which is exactly why you can’t really choose.
plus, most atheist acknowledge that it’s as impossible to disprove as to prove the existence of something (although i would argue that you’re much more obliged to offer proof if you choose a strict and at times harmful moral code, because some meta existence demands it versus just going about life without such a claim of moral authority). most atheists are agnostic anyways (they acknowledge they can’t ever know/disprove the existence of a god, they are kind of indifferent to it) on the other hand, acknowledge that your belief is potentially wrong is fatal to many religious beliefs, which is why many refrain from doing that
greetings from the Czech Republic
I saw an interview once where he was asked if he believes and his answer was something like "I try to act as if I believe"
and I think this sums it up.
I never bought into Pascal's wager because it's like basing love on fear.
And that an omniscient God would know that you didn't actually believe but only lived as if you believed.
@@TomBruhhThis is the solution. As a believer myself, I dislike Pascal’s Wager for two reasons. The first is pragmatic - as you pointed out. The second and more important reason is that it is theologically wrong. The Bible is explicitly clear: you cannot attain salvation yourself. As in, good works are not sufficient. Pascal does not elucidate what he means by belief in this context, but presumably he means living a life in accordance with Christian teachings. Yet his wager is not religiously undertaken. He is merely pretending. This is dangerous, because only a real acceptance of Jesus leads to salvation.
@@TheSpicyLegMy thoughts exactly
I don’t like the logic of pascals wager since it doesn’t account for other religions. A Christian could be wrong and there be nothing after, or they could be wrong and be reincarnated, it’s not an either or situation. And you’re completely right about the theology
@@TheSpicyLeg I like your reasoning, but doesn't this run into the observation that billions of innocent people are born into the wrong place at the wrong time. Say you're born in a non-Christian country, end up living a very moral life yet because you never had the opportunity to learn/discover god, you're condemned to hell? Or worse you end up dying due to circumstances out of your control before you could find god?
So well spoken. I’m impressed with your thoughts and conclusions.
Best video of Peterson's ideas I've ever seen. An actual honest attempt at perceiving his concepts has been seemingly too hard to do without trying to dunk on him. You got a subscriber because you engaged not just intelligently but honestly. Absolutely love the channel name btw.
Don't bother much. Petersburg is not a smart person. He's a total show-off.
@@GEMSofGOD_com thats more telling about you. try to learn how to dislike a person and still honoring his intellect.
@@Njordin2010 I'm not "dislicking" him, I'm telling a person to ignore some people and be with the opposite of them instead, OK? OK. Do the same after your reevaluation of your groundless fanboyism.
@@Njordin2010 I'm actually starting to dislick all njordish people on the Internet. It appears like basically all you share is nothing but baseless pretentious discontent that looks even more peterston than peterston. I love scientists from Sweden though.
@@Njordin2010 by the way, you obviously misread "not a smart person", which means "not a smart person". What should I honor about anyone I call "not a smart person"? Please, obtain some IQ points above 20.
Would love to see you and Jordan Peterson discuss Nietzsche together
and Dostoevsky
Peterson misrepresents Nietzsche almost every time he mentions him. He would have us believe that Nietzsche mourned the “death” of God and the church, whereas Nietzsche positively hated Christianity and rejoiced over the possibility that man might finally be free of its (in his opinion) sickly, weakening, decadent influence.
@@CrazyLinguiniLegsPeterson gazed into the abyss and the Benzos stared back at him.
@@CrazyLinguiniLegsWhat is your definition of decadence?
@@HiddenBlade156when an organism prefers what is unhealthy for it
It's a pleasure to listen to you/your thoughts. Thank you
Not even Peterson understands Peterson's position on religion.
That's probably because his position is evolving. He has many different. overlapping opinions and he tries to make them congruent. But these are difficult topics.
According to his close friend, Jonathan Pageau, Peterson is still figuring it out.
I think that’s fairly
Normal for a lot of people
@@jrd33 I've noticed that his positions tend to "evolve" toward agreement with those who pay his bills.
@@DarkMatter2525 Now yes but before all that controversy's? No way. Who? School board? State? He was amazing back then. Today, aside from jacket I desperately want, he completely lost it.
The irony of Pascal’s/Peterson’s wager, is that it’s profoundly opposed to the ethical current of the New Testament. Phrases like “and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” and “I am the way the truth and the life” come to mind, and suggest that someone like Jesus or St. Paul might have preferred the worldview of Bertram Russell to that William James. 5:57
That’s hilarious 😭 so Christianity demands a genuine believe in God, not a pragmatic one?
Just found this channel yesterday and I'm addicted. There's something cathartic about studying philosophy. And this guy tells it in a way that is so easily digestable, while leaving room for the desire to look into these philosophies yourself.
What a consistency, you are making videos on such a speed, i am having difficulty to catch up with it. Great content ❤️
It’s the classic “cart before the horse”. You “believe” you can jump over a gap based on past experience, and update that belief based on current and future experiences.
Just follow Bayes rule and remember you can be completely correct for the absolute wrong reason, and vice versa.
Thanks!
I swear i love your videos. Just an African guy in STEM watching from Ghana.
Appreciate the evaluation. It would be amazing to see the two of you on an interview or something. I bet we would all get a lot of value out of that conversation.
Doubt it. Have you watched this video. Trying to get an honest or straight answer out of Peterson is a Sisyphean task.
I like butter
facts
Margarine fans are shaking in their boots!!!
This deserves more likes
I like turtles!
😮
From my experience religious belief is hardly ever gained through intellectual means. I very much do subscribe to the wager theory being a believer myself, however I understand why atheists take issue with it. I find that religious zealotry is gained through a spiritual experience that shifts your entire perspective. For me it was a fellow believer having passed away and witnessing how he touched the lives of others through his compassion, stemming from his belief in the sovereignty of Christ. I felt compelled to submit to Christ having realized that if his people were blessed with such goodness and love that surely Christ is even greater. I don't think I can ever convince someone to believe but I am compelled however by scripture and command to inform you that Christ bled and died in order to give you a new life just as he gained new life himself. Great job in giving a fair assessment of Jordan Peterson, he truly is a riddle wrapped in a mystery at times.
This is exactly my thought as well as an atheist. Though my much bigger criticism of the wager is that I see equal possibility of the Christian God existing as any other god or deity from any other major or minor religion (or even one that no humans worship and is completely unknown), therefore it's really not a 50/50, where Christianity is the good answer either way.
Now imagine, and just assume for a moment that the claims of Christ are not true.. does your friend’s incentive for being decent disappear and if the answer is no, what point in believing the claims is there now?
@@ezshottah3732 okay but assume that a group of people that are capable of great compassion are telling you where that compassion is sourced from, why would your first instinct be to disbelieve them?
@@gottesurteil3201 I don’t know how to respond to this because I feel like you missed my point. But I’ll say it’s not an instinct but “ upon further review”
@@ezshottah3732If I can interfere, I would say yes someone’s decency (to that extent) may diminish if they didn’t believe. As it is clearly stated by him that his believe in Christ propelled their decency to higher levels. Bottom line is I think belief is important otherwise there is no incentive to be decent
And yes incentives matter. Similar to how I would say professional athletes may be motivated by money/fame to be as good as they are
This was very charitable to some of the worst apologetics out there. Also charitable to J Peterson.
this is shockingly unbiased i am impressed
Thank you!
What's interesting is that you don't need to believe in God to believe in a version of moral realism. You can generally observe that life seeks to avoid arbitrary signals in wetware experiments. Arbitrariness can be observed in nature on many levels of complexity.
Ergo, the absolute anti-moral realist argument might be that while morality is constructed and dependent on observation, anti-morality is a real phenomenon. It's just not a substance or a person. It's the absence of structure that is realistically and transcendentally true, and the structures we build are not building towards, but away from something. Arbitrariness.
Súper fan, love ur choice of topics. And am very grateful for your shares/ channel ☺️
Peterson's teachings helped me a lot back in the day. He's a therapist and psychologist first, he probably doesn't even consider himself a philosopher. He seems to always focus on usefulness of ideas instead of their objective truth.
Facts.
He was really good years ago - these days, too politically charged.
@@tylere.8436 when people actively try to ruin your life, force you to undergo “retraining seminars” under duress, kick you out of a job, laugh at your dying wife. you will change, you will learn to hate, you will be forced to fight in whatever way you can, you will take a side whether you like it or not. Everything now is politically charged westerner, you just don’t see it yet you will in time.
Thank you for the wonderful subtitles. It is very helpful for keeping up and learning how to be better at english.
love how clearly and concisely you present these topics! not a single word wasted wow
Unlike Peterson 😊
The effort you put into these videos is incredible man!
I like the fluid mechanics analogy. The basic assumptions are so close to the truth, that to add particle theory (non continuity and non infinite divisibility as well as the hilarity of quantum probability theory) to the calculations provides no improvement in results but adds to the cost of the calculations. Ultimately a logician must resort to pragmatism when it comes to beliefs. A distinction without a difference makes no difference.
Why when discussing morals , does noone ever mention evolution. Morals are a product of evolution, it's really not difficult. The morals and values that allow tribes and groups to survive, continued. It's why not everyone in any society is a a psychopath
@@thebobman69Because it's pointless, you could ask again "why should we follow evolution?"
@@oggolbat7932You don't have a choice, just like you don't get to choose if gravity effects you, or your genetic matter
@@thebobman69
If you don't have a choice, what's the utility of taking it into account (and thus taking on the extra cost of accounting for it)?
@@seancooper5140 The same reason you continue to talk utter tripe whilst under the illusion you sound intelligent.
I'd never clicked this fast on a video 😂
Haha! Thank you! I hope you like it!
It's really good!@@unsolicitedadvice9198 I truly think there should be more videos like this, carefully going over what these prominent figures say, which more often than not goes unchecked. Dillahunty's debate was great at putting JP on the spotlight and MD really held him accountable to each point he was making, instead of just letting things like "you're not really an atheist" or "tapestry and fabrics of a societal imaginary" slide. I appreciate this video in the same way I appreciate that debate (:
Well assuming that God exists without believing that God exists is only possible in theory, your believe system is always going to effect your actions.
@8:41 This got me thinking - if someone chooses not to believe in a truth until they see evidence of it, then until the evidence presents itself and they recognize it as evidence, they are living according to an untrue belief. I think that we all accept some beliefs until we challenge them and we also choose beliefs and unbeliefs based on evidence from our remembered experience, and that our subconscious/intuitive creates beliefs and unbeliefs along the way that affect our actions and decisions. Belief/unbelief is an on-going process that helps people to cope and to make decisions. Also, our imagination can help us to cope in some challenging circumstances by pretending something is true, a psuedo-belief; some pseudo-beliefs can also be self-harming perhaps as an effect of a strong ego/identity/responsibility.
I've watched a lot of Jordan Peterson and have come to a conclusion about his views on belief in God. I don't think he suggests that individuals should rationally choose to believe; as you mentioned, once someone recognizes the falsehood of something, it's impossible for them to choose it. Instead, he's addressing religion as an institution that indoctrinates and shapes people's lives through belief in God. He argues that without these religious organizations, people don't automatically become more truth-seeking. Drawing from his understanding of human psychology, he posits that humans have an innate need to believe in something. The idea of pure scientific inquiry feels foreign to the human mind, and in this respect, I think he has a valid point.
As an atheist, I've noticed that many atheist groups I've encountered on Facebook and elsewhere have adopted new belief systems, often aligned with woke ideology. Despite evidence pointing to its divisiveness and potential harm to society, many people cling to these beliefs. Only a small number of individuals who leave religion seem able to avoid falling into new cults or ideologies.
Peterson, being a Christian, likely views religion as a net positive. I don't share that view, but I acknowledge that there seems to be no alternative to organized religion. Many who reject faith in God often gravitate toward ideologies like communism and can become quite radicalized. If one were to compare Marxism (essentially wokeism) and traditional religions in terms of destructiveness, it's worth noting that marxism is far more destructive
This was actually a really good video. I am glad that I subscribed. The last part specifically about how utility and truth are interlinked, and the quote about "Something tangible and particle [must be] at the root of every real distinction of thought." really articulated something in a concise way that I hadn't yet done, and, at least I think, I had been trying to do. God bless you man.
I searched Young Handsome Philosopher and this is what I got (great video btw, glad I found this)
Lol a rare combination of traits, props to the search on that one
Try Grindr, sounds more your speed.
11:33 that assume that humans are not able to maintain social order without a higher power intervening. That just seems like a ridiculous proposition to me. It’s ultra pessimistic.
‘Recovering logic student’ that got me 😂
I absolutely love the point made on usefulness vs truth. Well done.
The noble lie reminds me of an old polish movie where there's been world nuclear disaster and just a few hundred people survive inside a dome. A man creates this lie that an ark is coming to save them in order to give them hope. Some people don't believe in it but many others developped a kind of religious adoration for the ark and its promise of salvation. The problem is that by giving them this idea they don't actively work on any form of escape or make the life inside the dome any better, they just sit and wait for a lie to rescue them while the dome is slowly collapsing.
Maybe so. But usually people cannot sit still for a prolonged period of time. Especially in danger. Unintentionally, their minds could be trying to find a back up exit or some way to keep the dome from collapsing. He gave that hope as a catalyst to break their paralysing fear in order to rationally think, is what I believe. In that case, that faith expands the potential for possible consequences. Sounds like an interesting movie. What is the name of the movie?
Do you have the name? also you should read/watch the silo
Well, who would like to live in a post-nuclear world? Ark or no ark, many of us would just sit and wait for the merciful death.
Apparently there are different kinds of noble lies and different contexts to apply them.
And the nature of our reality - as even science comes to understand - is such, that your belief alone can turn a "lie" into reality. See placebo effect for instance.
@@alena-qu9vj Yeah, the nuclear apocalypse is not precisely the most optimistic scenario ...yet, we can still be surprised by our actions and the outcome.
RUclips deleted my comment:// The movie is O-BI, O-BA: the end of civilization.
It's on youtube but people in the comments say the subtitles are terrible.
Peterson strikes me as the kind of person who is terrified that you might discover that he’s not as smart as he wants you to believe he is. He comes off as confused because he’s peddling as fast as he can.
I feel that way about myself. I love philosophy and science but feel i am ever the toddler on the tricycle trying to be lance armstrong.
The thing with Peterson's view of "acted out belief" is that it can easily be reversed to challenge believers of the voracity of their own beliefs. For instance, most believers believe that when a person dies their soul goes to heaven. But if it was actually true, then theoretically death would be the best day of a person's life. It would be a time of celebration and happiness, not sadness. The spirit is leaving this tortured state here on earth and it is going to a place of unimaginable goodness and bliss. Being grief-stricken in a moment like this is no different than wearing your bathing suit when you believe it is raining.
If Peterson's philosophy is correct, then I think you would almost have to draw the conclusion that most Christians don't actually believe in a literal heaven. They say they believe in a heaven, but they don't act out the belief. The interesting thing about that is that is it strips some of the religious power away from the idea of a transcendental reward / punishment justice system. The issue is that the divine judge is essentially the main draw of the Pascalian wager. It's also contrary to the idea that "our suffering was worthwhile in the end". Our grief is our way of acting out that there is no justice in death.
That's not really true. Your mother might cry when she sees you leave the house to go to college, even though she knows it's good for you she still doesn't want to part with her child. The same way even if I am confident that my close friend or family member is going to Heaven and I will too, I can still be sad that it might take me 60 years to see them again.
Personally the hardest death I've ever had to deal with was a friend from Church who killed himself back in high-school, besides the feeling of guilt was a fear about where his soul had gone, if his suicide was forgivable or if he was in eternal torment.
Veracity*
Amazing work. Can’t wait to get your thoughts on more philosophical arguments. Your intellectual honesty really makes you stand out and is a rare thing to find on social media.
Just discovered this channel, keep up good work man! 😊
I'd also like to make the conjecture that you don't need to believe in god to have 'faith', but as an absolute, if you don't have any faith, you will fail or even die sooner in your life. This is because faith is not owned by the notion of god, faith is not owned or connected to religion; faith is actually a human emotion that allows us to manifest things that would have seemed nearly impossible.
Now I want you to imagine a hypothetical scenario of two primordial mystic human tribes at war. Between the two tribes is a wall, and the only thing between the two tribes and the wall is the faith they have in their ability to defend or attack that wall. They have no science to measure the wall and say "We cannot defeat this.", they have no catapults/sappers/tunnelers etc.., they have their faith. And so reality plays out as so, the attacking tribe either has faith that they can defeat the wall and win, and/or the defending tribe has faith in their wall and fight back, but THE ABSOLUTE BOTTOM LINE is that if the defending or attacking tribe had no faith in themselves or the object of battle, the defending or attacking tribe would lose. You cannot overcome a lack of faith with confidence or strength or numbers-- the lack of faith is directly SUBVERTIVE to those higher emotional constructs! (in history, larger armies have been routed by smaller armies. Strength and numbers are secondary to faith.) I guess what i'm saying is, having faith is a basal emotional construct that allows you to achieve your goals of survival. If you don't have faith, you won't believe in your ability to achieve those goals.
Faith as confidence.
Lee's Elucidation: A finite number of words must be made to represent an infinite number of things and possibilities. Language Habits in Human Affairs, Irving J. Lee, 1941.
It's worth noting that Peterson's assertions about psylocibin and spirituality are almost completely made up.
When I was highly religious I was so unhappy and hated my life.
Once I've opened my eyes to logic and started living my own life my way, I'm the happiest person I know.
Weird i found blind religiosity and blind worship of logic are equally depressing
But thinking life as dance between logic and god somehow make sense to me even tho it dosent make sense if i try to explain it
@@kamikazeblackjackThere's a reason the Catholic Church always had great respect for science and philosphy, they allow us to further grow our faith in God.
Student of Anglo-American analytical philosophy from the 1970s here. Still recovering.
This has always been an issue for me. While I reject James and Pierce's philosophy when taken in the round, I've always had a strong intuition that knowledge and belief have to have a strong utilitarian dimension for humanity. To the extent that I have given it headroom among all the other living clutter around me, I've struggled to formulate a way of approaching this. Your vid helps. So thanks for that.
My pragmatic argument:
It does not matter what I believe. Whether I believe in God or not will not change my actions and behavior. I want to be a kind and good person who helps others regardless of whether God exists.
There are three possible worlds:
1. God does not exist and I will continue to endeavor to be good and noble.
2. God exists and knows my heart and is aware that I will continue to be good and noble.
3. God exists, but it is an evil, selfish God who will punish me for not "believing correctly".
If number 3 is the case, I am very comfortable going to hell. After all, in a world with an evil, narcissistic God, I know that my place is not by God's side in heaven. My place is with my people.
I do not think this is his strangest argument by far. Jordan has litterally said that if you enjoy art you have to be religious at your core. I mean what the hell?
He probably said something wild like that because religious people and people who really enjoy art share similar traits and ways of thinking
Being enraptured by art or beauty is striking similar to having a religious experience, so much so that you could argue the two are basically the same experience with different names.
@HobDavid so, I ate some food one time that was so good, it made me feel a deep sense of pleasure, gratification, and satisfaction. Am I to conclude that this was a religious experience, just with a different name?
@alexf9507 chemical pleasure, induced by taking a substance into your body isn't really analogous to seeing something and having the same level of experience.
It's like drugs, without the drugs part.
@HobDavid that makes no sense. The sensations one feels from viewing a painting is activating the same parts of the brain, and thus releasing the same chemical hormones, as eating the food, even if to a lesser extent. Indeed some may actually get more pleasure from viewing something esthetically pleasing than from food.
Pascal's Wager only makes sense in a world where there's only one religion with one god.
The minute you add in other religions then it falls apart. What if you're a good Christian and it turns out the Vikings were right all along? Or Islam? Or Buddhism?
Pascal fell into the trap of his own belief. Because he believed in the Christian god there was no consideration of other religions being true. But each has as much evidence of truth as the next one and as much moral contradiction to make you doubt its validity.
Once you factor in the high probability of choosing the wrong religion it becomes much more sensible to be agnostic on the whole issue: believe or not believe you're more likely to be wrong than right so as religious belief is a bit of a kafka trap the only reasonable option barring a direct revelation from the divine is not to play the game.
The closest i ever came to a religious experience was meditating. It felt like i connected with something but it didn't reveal anything to me aside from complete emotional release. There was no voice of god or vision of prophets or divine revelation. Just a profound sense of release. And that could easily have just come from inside me as i let a lifetime of buried feelings out. 🤷♂️
Pascal’s wager may run into issues when choosing between religions, but it makes sense when deciding whether or not to believe in (a) God or not.
Speaking broadly, believing and behaving that there is a superior deity is more reasonable than choosing not to believe in a superior deity.
How can you say is more reasonable to believe in a God then not? When in fact, it has negatively impacts our world view severely then to have realistic perception and expectations what our world is. While, any God (s) don't fit anything in our current understanding and the nature of our reality, however, it is only a personal beliefs for an individual. Not to be part of multiple-nature of our world.
Yet, you defy this issues and reason your way out, for seek of faith. How can your accusation be true when yourself can't address the major imperfections of your faith? Without having a very bold reasoning and argument, the same as you swear to us. @@During_o7
@@goodmaninthemoonyt4778 You assume that I have faith, which I don’t. You also assumed that the God I was referring to was a theistic deity, which I was not.
I am a deist, and don’t believe in a conscious, active deity.
Pascal’s Wager, as I stated above, runs into issues when comparing the gods of different religions, however, I believe that has to do with the specifications and characteristics of different gods amongst religions. If instead, we speak more broadly of a supreme deity, with no further attributes or characteristics, Pascal’s wager makes sense.
In other words, for an atheist decided whether to believe in a supreme deity or not, Pascal’s wager is perfectly reasonably.
@@During_o7 What I see is that you think you have to suspend rationality or laws of logic when trying to find which religion is true.
A true religion wouldn't require you to suspend rational thought.
I don't believe because of Pascals wager. I believe because of direct experiences, historical and scientific evidence, paired with logical reasoning.
You're guys' mistake is thinking
1. You have an objective world view of reality, provided by science or athiesm
2. In order to believe a religion you can't think about it logically and base it in evidence.
3. All religions are equally valid, logical, and backed up by evidence. This is 100% incorrect.
I don't think you quite grasp Peterson position. Peterson often say your actions are a far better indicator of what you believe than what you say. So it seems to me he believes a person does not choose their beliefs, rather you can tell what a person believes based on what they do. So to use your example, a person does a somersault therefore they believe they can do a somersault. I would even say Peterson position is that no one can believe in God because the actions required by a person to demonstrate that belief are so difficult to maintain its basically impossible. He give a whole 30 min lecture on this "who dares say they believe in god" I think is the title.
Well yes, that's what I explore in section 3 of the video :). I actually argue in favour of this definition in many ways. And I am alluding to that lecture in particular when I say Peterson recognises the question of seeing what a belief in God implies
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 yep got there, so on the transcendent. I find your examples kind of poor, I don't think reading a book is a good comparison. Who cares what you believe because you read a book. When Peterson makes these arguments he makes them about extreme moral claims, slavery is bad, equity is genocidal, etc etc. I don't think he would hold that all belief that could be inferred from mundane actions lead to something transcendent. Point being I think you need to give examples of a similar sort to demonstrate the issues with his argument.
The point of the more commonplace examples is to bring the theory of belief down to earth - if anything the connection to consequences becomes more difficult to decipher as you get more abstract (as I go on to say using the example of Christian belief). The point of the book example is to demonstrate the pragmatic theory of belief, not the transcendent quality, which I discuss later. The drama inherent in the example isn’t really relevant to its logical role there. It’s just generally seen as good practice to use a down-to-earth example to illustrate a theory as that way you have the fewest unfamiliar elements for the reader/watcher. It’s something you see in philosophy papers quite a lot.
Big admiration for this page. Your arguments are so clear. All insightful synthesis of good thinking, dealing with serious issues critically and without a flavor of self-indulgence. I see in the comments your videos help people to be honest in their views. Best new channel I have found this year.
Excellent job, as usual, breaking down complex arguments into easily understandable terms without dumbing them down! Thank you, also, for your thoughtful and compassionate treatment of Dr. Peterson and his philosophy. He gets a bad rap, I think, from both religious and non-religious folks who misunderstand his arguments or have only listened to a few clips of things he's said. It seems to me that he is working hard to unify atheists, agnostics, and theists in the effort to make our world a better place by doing morally and intellectually uplifting "public philosophy." Unless I misunderstand you, that's pretty much exactly what you're trying to do, as well!
By the way, possibly my favorite quote: "Philosophy here is not just accruing truths, but asking what the behavioral and practical consequences of those truths should be." Amen, Brother! Keep seeking the truth and you will keep finding it; keep living out the truth you've found, and your life will become more and more beautiful and good, in the transcendent sense.
Agnostic secular Buddhism with a leaning toward virtue ethics is the way ☺️
At least, for me. I find no point in concerning myself with whether or not a higher power exists. I think it’s most important to just live your life in a way that brings goodness to the world around you and to appreciate each moment as it happens. Secular Buddhism has been a great guide for me to that end. If there is a god and he is upset with me for that, for whatever reason, then I think he is a cruel god that I have no desire to please and I will accept my fate whatever it may be. I aim to die knowing I did whatever I could to be the best version of myself, not just for myself but for those I love and for the greater society in which I participate and rely on and that’s enough for me.
Cheers!
@@NalesnikZdrzemem lol heard. I’ll try harder to entertain you next time. Don’t want ya gettin all sweepy on me
Good. At least you texted that if there is a God, then you will accept your fate, whatever it may be
Good.
I love Pascal's quote: “Fire. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and the scholars. I will not forget thy word. Amen.” (You are being way to nice. Peterson is an absolute charlatan.)
I think Pascal is a really underrated thinker. And to be honest I largely wanted to talk about pragmatic arguments for belief. I was lucky Peterson was there to be "bait" to to speak. If the video was just about Charles Peirce I doubt anyone would watch it haha!
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 I'm sure everyone would still watch. You are incredibly talented and a joy to listen to!
You're absolutely right, we would still listen, he's an absolute gem of RUclips @@TwoDudesPhilosophy
Someone can't separate the argument from The profet. That says more about you then abou JP.
@@fernandogutemberg261
I can and I enjoyed the video. Yet someones context, endgoal, ... is as important to understanding a specific argument that they are trying to make.
Sidenote: I have actually made a ton of video's on the types of logical fallacies that JP makes.
Amazing video brother.
Thank you!
Finally some hearty content on RUclips ❤ I love your videos I just found them and I’m on a binge!
Peterson is in the middle of his journey 😊 atheist and agnostic are some of my favorite minds for this reason, usually subconsciously searching for proof and want it to be true more than the latter.
I have no idea how Pascal's Wager blew minds. I was able to poke holes in it when I was a child.
"But what if you're praying to the wrong god?" "But what if God punish you anyway for your dishonest beliefs?" Yeah, very easy.
Just what holes do you think you poked in Pascal's Wager?
@@michaelmcdoesntexist1459 Except, let's say there's 100 possible gods to believe in. Then believing in one has a 1% chance of avoiding punishment. Not believing in one, has a 0% chance. So Pascals Wager still applies.
@@self_improvement_d First of all: if you don't believe in God, you just don't. You can't force yourself to believe in something. Now, pretending to believe in God out of fear of punishment has a 100% chance to make you live a dishonest and miserable life. And second. By your logic, believing in, let's say, Yahvé the christian god, would have a 99.999% chance of punishment because is only one of thousands of religions and any of them could be the true one. And most of them are kinder to an honest non believer than a worshiper of an evil god like Yahvé.
So, yeah... Even under than ridiculous assumption of yours, the stupid wager still works against Christianity
@@michaelmcdoesntexist1459 Did you even watch the video? He literally disproves your exact argument. Since punishment in hell would be infinite, any chance of avoiding it, even a 1/1000 chance, would be worth it.
And since we can't know if the true god would be kinder to nonbelievers or believers of other religions, that is irrelevant.
I don't agree with Pascals wager but at least I understand it, unlike you.
First off, I commend you on your excellent handling of the material. Well done.
Having said that, I find Peterson’s “involuntarist argument” rather weak, at least as he frames it. For instance, in the debate with Matt Dillahunty, Peterson asks Matt something like, “If you don’t believe in God, then in your talk with Sam Harris, why didn’t you just throw him off the stage?”-implying that a true atheist would, without fail, behave in a violent, sociopathic manner, whether provoked or unprovoked. That is a ludicrous assumption that, in my mind, doesn’t even require a counterargument to refute.
Granted, as you’ve already mentioned, Peterson shifts the goalposts and redefines “God” as something like “the highest good you can imagine”; but I still think it makes for a weak argument and was particularly transparent in the debate with Dillahunty.
Anyhow, just my two cents. Great video.
Agree 100%. Peterson was a fool in that debate.
I agree that Peterson wasn't prepared for Matt's disingenuous discourse. However, it was hilarious when that random dude was prepared and sent Matt running with his tail between his legs. 😂
@@jrfii-yt what random dude?
@@CrazyLinguiniLegs I don't know his name, but if you search "Matt Dillahunty rage quits" you'll find some vids. Preferably, watch one that shows the entire exchange.
I think that the idea is no matter how you look at it, every human on Earth has a subconscious moral law that’s natural law and God given. As the Bible describes the idea of three things that make mankind's consciousness are, good, evil, and the freedom of choice. And the fact that we abide by any rules whatsoever, is a reflection of the idea that you're using/appropriating the benefits of being holy and having good will when it suits you, but not as much as you would be thankful to a God for it, or that you'd just as likely act in a wilfully sinful way when it suits you either.
It's kind of uncanny how quickly you can release such high quality videos.
I am Christian for multiple reasons not the least of which is Jesus's historicity and the fact that His resurrection is a more cogent argument (to me) for the fact that twelve dudes chose to abandon everything they knew and die gruesome deaths to convert people to the Gospel.
Being honest here, there are so many cases of group self-unaliving/sacrifice with faith in a higher being involved. This is what leaves me unsurprised for the specific sacrifice these twelve apostles chose
@@aahhhhhhhhhhhhh this is not the same thing though. Typically this would happen under some leader, the death is quick (in most cases u have seen) and it's in a context where people are unwell mentally. As far as I am aware the context of the apostles does not match that, they actively chose to go around the world telling the world that a dead guy rose again abandoning everything they knew for no benefits, and make themselves pariahs to their communities (Jews) and the Romans.Btw it's not an argument for God, perse. It's just one thing that doesn't really make sense if it didn't happen.
@@kamikamen_official But then the only difference is that they had a will to live through the hardships before their eventual passing to the better place. I mean I guess this makes Christianity more moral than these shady sacrificial cults (I probably did not need this conversation to conclude this lol, my bad)
Muhammad pbuh, when he started to spread the message of monotheism to the pagan Arabs of Mekka was persecuted for over a decade and had to go through many hardships. They plotted many assassinations against him but God protects his messengers. They tortured and killed many of his family and friends. Him and his followers were expelled to the desert where they lived on bread, dates and water. When they fled to Medina the pagans weren't satisfied and waged war against them and would do so multiple times. His followers went to war with both the Roman AND the Persian empire at the same time and won. Something which historians can't fathom actually happened. So my question is, if your pre-requisite is that the followers spread the message eyeing certain death, then how come you're not Muslim? 😄
@@aahhhhhhhhhhhhh that will. Why did they have that wil. It's either they were brainwashed or they were Right.
What a fair, deep and respectful assessment of Petersons concepts. Well done!
This is deeply helpful. Thank you.
I've also tried to figure out what Peterson means by God exactly. And he doesn't mean that he is person and either heaven or hell is waiting for us in the afterlife, but (as he put it) "God is the sum total of all good things in some transcendent sense", or an ideal.
In other videos he talks that people used the see and evaluate the world in the form of drama, before the scientific, rational approach. In all those old religious texts and mythologies they considered God to be that kind of ideal I previously described, however though thousands of years, the religions fell prey to fundamentalism and started to interpret those text literally and only literally, thus loosing the real essence of what they symbolised.
Have you read the God is Love passage? Or God is Truth, Life, and the Way.
Peterson is referring to God as a being that is beyond of scope of this reality and is more real than this reality.
As I understand it, he talks about God in a philosophical way, which means it's the metaphysical and causal origin of everything.
@@oggolbat7932 More real than reality itself, as he said. Witnesses of heaven and hell mention that these realms of eternity are more real than this world.
The problem I see with this is why not just call this the highest ideal instead of god because then it introduces a religious element to the conversation that not everyone agrees with, it’d make more sense to say god is a type of highest ideal people pursue
@@enzoarayamorales7220 Because God is the highest ordeal. Christ is the highest ordeal human. You cannot replace him with a creation.
Most of this is answered in basic presuppositionalist arguments and epistemology. If we continue to grant empiricism access to metaphysical concepts without justification we'll keep going in these stupid circles.
It always baffles me when people say religious morality is necessary to stop society from moral collapse. It’s insulting! What sort of monster does this belief make of a human? Are we truly so monstrous that only the threat of hell and the promise of heaven can contain our cruelty? Does the pain in the eyes of our fellow man not suffice? And when has the threat of hell ever stopped a believer from committing a crime? Hasn’t there been enough criminals believing they were doing it all on the name of their god?
You missunderstand the argument. Morality needs a basis. Otherwise it's worthless and can be changed at any time. Your morality comes from what your parents taught you or what your culture taught you or what you experienced and decide. The former two are always religious in nature. The whole mystical fluff is only the carrier for pretty basic statements that keep society functional while we don't understand why exactly. This "not knowing" is the basis for all religions. We can make guesses why specific rules are important but in the end we just need to accept that things like lying are wrong and harmful in the long term even when they benefit us. Otherwise our society would collapse.
Do you need religion for that? Not necessarily. But I assure you that being religious is the easy way. The other ways are pretty dangerous and painful. If I could be religious I'd be without hesitation. But many if us can't. God is dead after all.
Jordan is a monster even with his silly religious beliefs. In fact he seems to get worse every day.
I highly appreciated the ease at which speaking objectively and without bias you carried yourself in that video.
Being an Orthodox Christian, I certainly have a differing set of beliefs from that of an agnostic, but that's a real treasure you've been able to acquire to speak with little to no accusations but rather humble curiosity
I hope you continue looking for the truth and help people to untangle themselves from whatever lies that feed off of and limit their intellectual freedom
this is the second video of yours I've seen. the first was the one immediately previous. I've never subscribed so fast to anyone. love your work!
I personally find myself to now be in an agnostic spiritism of sorts. I feel it's a much better way to go about your own personal faith. I believe whatever government that is in charge should always be secular. The people themselves should always be free to practice their own agnostic spiritism.
Me too. Almost exactly this.
@@The-Doubters-Diary People are supposed to be their own spiritual authority. Like personally I think God is real. God is just the collective unconscious of all of humanity.
@@nothomelessonyoutube”just” 😅
If J.P. thought clearly, he would speak clearly. Given that he evidently puts no store in having people understand him, why do we bother with him at all?!
That's what makes J.P. so memeable, I could imagine a world where J.P. was so well spoken he never got any attention. It's his word salads get others to attempt to understand his arguments. Or maybe he tries to attract people that listens to arguments rather than a theatrical show
It's like Nietzsche, say a bunch of bullishit but in a very esoteric way and everyone will see whatever they want in it. And on top add a bit of misogyny
Jordan: Fake it until you make it.😂
Stupid. He literally expound against it. You're speaking out your ass
Although I don’t understand some of his statements and disagree with others, I do find value in his 2018 Biblical series lectures. They are insightful and by far the most informative lectures I have ever heard. 10/10 would recommend
Jordan’s superpower is word salad. You can read everything into his sentences because they make no sense. They are constantly changing and contradictory. But they sound smart because he knows long words and can make references.
Peterson has realized that there is money to be made catering to the religious right.
you're doing God's work here heh
Which one?
@@TheAGNOSTIC_who_YT_CENSORSthe real one
@@Hærryß Ah, so Izanami no Mikoto then, got it. Thx.
I like that zoomers are trying to rehash early 2000s debates, but there is a serious aspect to Peterson you seem to be missing.
Just starting at Pasquel's Wager, this is NOT Peterson's argument.
Peterson's argument is more like: So we can all see the logical flaws in Pasquel's Wager, for example the simple fact that there could be any number of 5000+ gods, so it's really not a binary choice.
What you're missing is that Peterson steps ahead of this argument to say that it's not even about whether god exists or doesn't, or your reward/damnation in the afterlife. It's about your life now, and the lives of all human beings. How does adopting something like Pascal's Wager impact people's actual lives? His claim is that it is for the good.
So it doesn't even matter whether god exists or doesn't - it's more of a utilitarian argument.
Well yes. That's what I end up saying :). I just used Pascal's wager as an example of a historical pragmatic theological argument I figured more people would have heard of.
He desperately wants reality to not be a material one.
The 20th century practice of Chaos Magick heavily emphasized the importance of being able to fully adopt a belief when it is useful, and discard it once it is no longer needed, to achieve a given aim. This is actually very useful for many even everyday purposes.
Damn, this channel is just like one year and the videos kept getting better and better
Many great philosophers who we copy were the forefront of most modern day religions. It's a dangerous path to tred on when rejecting cultural significance like the idea of God when several cultures around the world use that as the basis of why their society should exist. It's either you choose to live in a morally objective world or you don't.
The single most profound thing I've ever heard anyone say was when I heard Jordan Peterson say that he lives his life as if God exists. I 💯 agree. I think the worst thing that's ever happened to society has been the decline in religion. And I'm not religious, and never have been.
Hi, im advocating on behalf of the devil, and wanted to ask if you would be OK with all the nones, atheists and agnostics being Muslim all of a sudden?
Perhaps it’s better to live as if you have one life, and you’re responsible for living to the fullest. Seems wiser than pretend that daddy upstairs is watching and judging.
@@NemoNemoNemo. he is though
@@celeste8157 Must be hiding while watching. Kinky.
" I think the worst thing that's ever happened to society has been the decline in religion."
1 Timothy 2:12 means you should delete your comment.
Jordan Peterson is extremely misunderstood on this topic and often ends up being mocked by philosophically shallow "intellectuals" like Matt Dillahunty and memed by 16 year olds who just wanna see someone win or destroy the opponent.
Great video
The end of your video reminded me of this quote
"The Great Being saith: The learned of the day must direct the people to acquire those
branches of knowledge which are of use, that both the learned themselves and the generality of
mankind may derive benefits therefrom. Such academic pursuits as begin and end in words alone
have never been and will never be of any worth. "