@phallic as fuck: I already made a thumbnail for this clip, then RUclips auto-recommended this picture, and his facial expression was just on point so I couldn't bring myself to use my thumbnail :D Also, I already have a Facebook page which you can find here: facebook.com/PhilosophyInsights-1392403627480197/
I think the title's wrong:Haidt is not talking about the left but about the fundamentalist left. I'm sick of extremist SJWs being associated with "the left" and then when people talk about the bad behaviour of some person it's because that person is "a leftist." There are also very reasonable and agreeable people who are left wing, they don't all have to be crazy neomarxists.
Just as a side note the 'Paranormal' and 'New Age' community 'leaders' fb groups etc 99% of them are absolutely Religious fundamentalist pro cancel culture control freaks. They like to dominate and won't look at any new research. Deliberately against any Nicola Tesla like Western progress. The SPR (Society for Psychical Research) fb page had a hidden in plain sight communist praising banner right after Joe was elected as a header for months until I started to say about it on their page. Later that evening they removed the banner as others started to notice what was put there and what they were celebrating.
Anorexia nervosa. You put most any food in front of people who suffer from that and they'll nearly always automatically cancel it! Because they're not well.
The Left persecute critical thinking just like the Roman Catholic church did to scientists like Galileo in the Middle Ages. Leftism is the Wests religion. They even demand that you love your neighbour as yourself (as long as they're Muslim / Brown/ black or LGBTQWERTYUIOP)
the New Left multiculturalism IS a gosh darn Religion! the "original sin" is not The Fall of Adam and Eve it is the sin "racism" The atonement is self hatred of EVERY Indigenous white European society (English, Germany, Sweden, America, Netherlands) have to be deconstructed by this New Left Inquisition at the Universities, which is REAL RACISM against white Europeans if you think about it: one is a racist if one wants Norway to remain Norway - which ever other country of the face of the planet implicitly is set up for their people and don't want foreigners to pour in open borders, really think about it "Diversity" is a form of discrimination and racism to majority populations since the are de facto racist if not diverse - totally racist "Diversity" is. (Nazi is National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, so even a "white Supremacist" like John Wilkes Booth who murdered Lincoln can NOT be or ever be a Nazi. The Left is very ignorant in real history and scholarship ,they don't care about facts most "racism." book movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers was about the Collective of Communism, an is alive today.
Nope, they are sophists and calculators, just as Burke dreaded of the age of the “liberal” middle-class, who produced psychologist doctors of people’s thoughts and behaviour.
Yea such amazing people. I love it when these smart, famous and university educated guys who do all this time consuming research, finally figure out what us little nobodies have been saying all along. It took years of research for them to understand what was obvious to ordinary people who can draw obvious conclusions from common sense observation. I see this over & over & over now that we have internet: professors who become famous for flapping their jaws, then eventually come around to finally saying the obvious, as if no one knew.
Ben Haidt This one: ruclips.net/video/kI1wQswRVaU/видео.html I was an anti-theist who wanted to know why people hold religious beliefs so as better to talk them out of their beliefs out of my naive arrogance that religious beliefs are what is wrong with people. "Why can't people be so super smart like me and not beleive in gods?!" Just the very idea that people's conscious beliefs were strongly motivated by their moral beliefs and that these moral beliefs were shaped by our evolved psychological temperaments/moral intuitions blew apart some of my assumptions about how people arrive at their beliefs. Then, it was just a matter of turning this idea on my own beliefs. What moral intuitions/beliefs were influencing my own seemingly rational beliefs? I don't know how to describe it exactly but something about my assumptions were deeply flawed and I started to realize that I was looking through the wrong end of the telescope. It was almost like learning about Evolution for the first time. My presuppositions were seriously *wrong* and I had to rebuild from the ground up. (This^ isn't written well but I'm on a phone.)
uPsIdEdOwN What presuppositions were you talking about? Hedonistic Nihilism is what killed the left. Is that what you meant? Hedonistic Nihilism is basically "I don't know the meaning of my existence, so I'm just gonna follow my biological programming and pretend they are meaningful so I don't fall into an existential crisis." That's a layman way of explaining the philosophical demon that forms the core belief of post-modernism While religion was still powerful, all reasons for morality finds its roots in the words of God, once that is gone, new reasons justifying morality must be invented. And that has not been well. We've came up with all sorts of shitty explanations that doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. For morality to have a justification, there must be something out there that does not operate by ANY laws of physics, something that's transcendent of this universe. This can be logically deduced, it doesn't require the slightest amount of belief, it doesn't even have anything to do with a religious God, but the post-modernists seem so abhorred by the slightest sign of superstition that they're determined to justify morality through mundane things. Sam Harris made a Ted talk trying to explain morality with science, where he basically assumed that our consciousness is beyond this universe without realizing he did. This is part of the post-modern movement trying to find the reason to making people feel better. And in the end all of them are only true if the human consciousness is not part of this universe. If the human consciousness is just the product of the laws of physics, a women experiencing rape is no more different than a rock rolling down hill.
The point about a sophisticated religious structure being thrown out and being replaced by an unsophisticated religious structure is riveting. If, at a primordial level, we are religiously oriented, then the collapse of those elaborate religious structures which enable refined expression of our nature only leaves us with a lumpen expression of such a potent force. The result being the rabid idiocies of all types of fundamentalism and resultant tribalism, whether systematic like islam, or emotive like cultural marxism.
Jordan demonstrates in this clip that he is not just a fine orator, but a good listener too. He is with someone however, who seems well worth listening to. I'm grateful to have access to the wisdom of men like this.
3:20 Wrong. On the contrary, that would be all the more reason to encourage them to join a master's program at university. If they persist with a level of fundamentalism that precludes learning, thinking, new information, then they fail. But there's a good chance, if they're applying, that you may reach them with a more intelligent cosmology. Thus, you should absolutely admit them if they qualify academically. The admissions process should not be a means of social revenge for this man, or any other.
Dream Logic I agree. If they meet academic qualifications, can do research and are intelligent and hard working, they will benefit your department. If they have a radically different viewpoint, perhaps that will make the rest of the department better by keeping them on their heels about the quality of their evidence. A young earth creationist might be better at identifying blind spots in research. It doesn't follow that someone is a detriment to your department just because they violate your orthodoxy. Now if they're a jerk about it, that might be different.
Yes I had a problem with this statement. We should be encouraging people to expose themselves to different ways of thinking. It was an odd train of thought from him.
I'm young earth creationist, but I agree with you, I think anybody should be encouraged to join in a program whatever there worldview is. and as foolish as people could think my presuppositions are before getting into the program, I should be allowed to get in if I qualify academically. Otherwise we're just filling universities with clones. that is the danger.
I disagree. Master'w Degree programs should not waste their professor's time or space in the classroom for students who do not meet the baseline qualifications or whose mindsets would set them up to fail, such as the dogmas that Dr. Haidt mentioned. I get where you are coming from, but if an at minimum 23 year old student with a Bachelor's degree is still holding on to certain illogical viewpoints, then how would a Master's Degree change them?
Prager is a dipshit. One moment he sounds like an intelligent, rational person. But if you keep listening, he'll start saying some totally crazy whacky shit.
The word "Fundamentalist" comes from the early 1900s essays on the "Fundamentalists" of Christianity - the essays had nothing to do with biological evolution or geology (indeed some of the writers were well known scientists), the meaning of the word "fundamentalist" has somehow been totally changed.
@@rychei5393 What happened was that the meaning of the word got changed - by people who wanted to make it a smear term. Although there are some fools who DESERVE the smear.
LongLostWraith I guess that is supposed to sound like a reasoned and intelligent criticism. It doesn't. It just sounds like you didn't bother to check my reference and replied from a position of ignorance.
This is were you're wrong though, not that you care... After all, when I'm starting to make sense it must mean that the devil is speaking through me, right?
LongLostWraith Your presupposition is incorrect. As I said in my last statement: you're speaking from a place of ignorance. I don't remember saying that the devil is speaking through you. I'm not even sure if that would be sound Christian doctrine. Why don't you read Romans chapter 1 and find out what I'm referring to before arguing with me about something you clearly have no knowledge of.
I agree, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt are brilliant. I'm currently reading Coddling of the American Mind. But the topic of this discussion has nothing to do with Marxism. Or were you just expressing your opinion on an unrelated topic? Can I make a suggestion and recommend reading/listening to the economist Richard Wolff? Not as a whole, but there are tenets of Marxism which are beneficial.
@@ExistentialWill if by ideologue you mean they have a point of view, then yeah. peterson and heidt's point of view are simply better. and getting their opponents out of academia is a cause worth fighting for.
@@mindful3334 it has a lot to do with marxism, because marxism is left wing authoritarianism and what they are discussing is left wing authoritarianism in the universities. 1 in 5 social scientist calls themselves a marxist. we need a red purge of the academies.
This is a fabulous post! Although I do not accept that we are 'hard-wired' for religious, but not scientific, thinking. You correctly identify FUNDAMENTALISM as the problem; but this is a mode of thinking: and is not confined to religion (even if the etymology of the word stems from the religious area). The 'fundamentalist' personality should be correlated with the 'authoritarian' personality!
@@scottmerritt9877 I imagine Professor Haidt is relying on the propensity to 'religion' around the globe: which is not the same thing as 'proving' religious precepts: so to that extent his may be correct.
Yes, caring for others, instead of stomping their face on the ladder as you climb over them, is against the newest modern improvement on morality!! Yes! I note you find that troubling for you, as do many criminals!!
3:40 "How do you set up a mechanism to insure that you are not swamped by fundamentalist of any sort, ..., without the structure itself becoming totalitarian" EASY, we already figured that one out, a long time ago: Freedom of Religion! Now we only have to implement it to our political belief system.
Good point. An interesting thing is that the USSR tried to get rid of religion and it kept popping up even when they trained their people to not be religious. A certain percentage of humans seem to find religion by nature.
Exactly, same as with left/right, collectivist/individualist, progressive/conservative, r/K, conformist/non-conformist, ... You can try to get rid of the other group/ideology/religion/predisposition, but it will always pop back up. You can try to force them to conform to the majority or to your group, but this will always lead to resentment, strife and eventually violence and war. Or... We could try a known and well tested solution: the free market principle and let all ideologies exist peacefully side by side.
You should meet Juan Soto Ivars and get his book “la casa del ahorcado” (when translated to english) it talks about the same but instead of religions speaks about “tabú” flourishing when society loses a link…
I really don't see why a fundamentalist creationist should not be allowed to a geology faculty. I do agree any branch of science should use the scientific method to get to conclusions. If they don't, they will be easily debunked by their fellow scientist. Censoring opinions, or beliefs when deciding whether or not to admit a student, will only create the impression that the current scientific theories can't be defended against different views.
I used to think that the greatest possible liberation of the mind in Zen and Daoism would clear the growing miasma. Now I have to say that was clearly too much thinking.
I recently spoke with my scientist brother, with a P.D who has worked for decades in plant breeding, and now instructs at a college. Despite being a Christian, he is a scientist and does believe in climate change. We both have noted that the science and business departments and any other departments at colleges where students are preparing for actual careers, are not really involved in all these protests and demands, etc. It is the humanities and social sciences departments where these students go over-board. I was a Lit major and have a "mere" Masters, but I am disappointed at some of the developments in higher education. What types of careers will students get with majors in social justice, gender studies, etc. ? But I do agree about the religion aspect. Social justice has become like a god. Is this god going to get them a job? Maybe a minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour is a living wage they will be happy to retire with.
When God becomes and over arching idea for morality that others disagree with, the will raise their own counter banner of moral standards. Contrary to many a religious mind, their religions and their gods do not own the concept and guideposts of what is moral. So yes, you are right SJW are raising moral objections to society and want change in kind. Call that god if you like, perhaps it is time to have more that one god pretending to establish moral guidelines in this country.
Those students will take any job that they can get with those degrees while wishing they went to school for a trade or earned a degree that would qualify them for a specific job.
"How can you make sure to exclude those who reduce everything to a fundamental cause?" says Jordan Peterson, right after he explains liberalism as the "unsophisticated religious structure" that you'll get when you throw out a "sophisticated religious structure." Not only does he reduce liberalism to a fundamental cause, he reduces it to THE PROBLEM OF ABANDONING RELIGION... and you can guess which religion he thinks they SHOULD adopt. Why do any skeptics or atheists believe anything this guy says?
I am an Atheist. I am still an Atheist after listening to him for several years now. I got to meet him in person a month and a half ago. He answered my question as his last question during the VIP Q & A. I didn't get offended by some of his past musings about Atheists, or his lackluster talk with Matt Dillahunty. I have learned an incredible amount from him on non theological topics, so I am grateful for that.
there are a couple of dichotomies to consider: - pagan fertility polytheism vs hebraic monotheism - faith-god-driven vs institutional-man-driven looking thru these paradigms there is still very much a case for someone who sees the hebraic scriptures as literal/fundamental, and lining this up with total logical positivism and rationality and science. Why else would we see such a huge and increasing alignment between the worldviews of religion-free, scripture-focused evangelicals and some ardent atheists and classical liberals? "I am the way the truth and the light" vs the church or church leaders are the way, the truth and the light. The complete flip within the past 10 years - that the most dogmatic absolutist fascist moralists are now not amongst the religious right but on the marxist left - is very true and remarkable.
Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. -2 Corinthians 5:16 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. -Acts 16:30-31 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” -John 3:16 And he (Jesus) said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
He cannot see the forest for the trees. He strains the gnats yet swallows the camel. He treats the symptoms but misdiagnoses the illness. He's definitely not part of the solution when he wants to put the deck chairs on the stern of the Titanic because she is taking on water at the bow.
I have 5 university degrees and over 25 years of military service and generally consider myself a center right type of person. I agree with Haidt that universities are and should be losing support. I’m MUCH less supportive of them now because of their ideological biases and illiberal behavior.
Started when Universities refused to teach ID and Creationism as science... cause it is not. The Right began to squelch about cancel culture and not being 'represented'. It hurts when science matter of factly crushes your Adam and Eve literalist world view.
I've always believed hard left wing people, which now includes 'liberals', were always 'religious' in their outlook. Communism has been more of a theology than a political ideology. Politics should include analysis and thought about how to improve situations, communists have never done this and instead think about the feel good factor of bringing equality to all and ignoring all the historical failures by simply stating that they were never implemented properly and next time it will work or that it needs a modern nation for it to work. Pure wishful thinking that one associates with religious fundamentals who do not base their beliefs on rational thought using archaeological, historical, philosophical, etc. evidence
USA Liberals, Democrat Party, are classified as Centre Right. Very low tax rates for high earners, pro Capitalism. Almost no one on the Left in the USA votes Democrat. They vote Green!!
@@miketomlin6040 they are not economic left wingers believing in socialist ifeals. Instead they are cultural marxists supporting identity politics. They are still left wing but believe in the oppression of identities and the evil oppressor instead of the oppression of the proletariat.
@@iain5615 Cultural Marxism is an anti semitic trope, or gibberish. The only Marxists one might find in the USA circa 2021 are a few octogenerian members of the Communist party or Authentic Christians. Jesus being a Left Libertarian Socialist, like Marx, ironically. I'm oppressed daily by half wits unaware how Right Wing USA Democrats are!
@@miketomlin6040 cultural marxists abound, traditional communists are far fewer.. Jesus was not a communist, he believed more in equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome. Not everyone will go to heaven, but those who come to God with love no matter how late they finally repent they are welcome to heaven.
So bad to exclude Young Earthers. Go see creation.com and you will find many scientists who are in the science paradigm as much as evolutionists may be. Also what is the point of debate when you exclude people with differing views?
True, but universities are doomed for another reason: the internet allows mass education of ppl around the world. But universities don't cooperate in mass education because they want to make more money. The education fees are far greater than the cost of transferring the knowledge. Also, so many graduates are unable to get jobs because the quality of education was shlt.
Thanks for the upload. I would rather have a middle of the road understanding of things and move forward than have the extreme quick "fixes" and bring total upheaval. We need more of this kind of dialogue. If only the people that run everything would stop trying to brainwash people to their way of thinking. Lay out the facts. My critical butt can make up my own mind.
Kelby Smith - You know what happens in the middle of the road? You get run over. Moderate drug use is not really a good idea. Moderation is a fine tool, but it cannot be an organization principle.
Your “middle of the road understanding” is the worst kind of brainwashing that doesn’t actually foster the “moving forward” that you want. Kierkegaard’s Two Ages clearly details the bs and absurdity of compromisers, “objective” people, and middle-way types who invent in their heads the idea that all sides can be weighed equally. Existence and decision is a matter of choice and commitment, not this psychologist’s reflection and surveys.
I'm no young earther, but I find it interesting they're willing to deny access to geology program because the student doesn't buy the established science on the earth's age. Hypothetical. What if this was 1066 and the student was telling people there was a continent accross the Atlantic ocean? Admit the student and teach him the truth. Don't deny him that.
I note that J.H. said a "graduate program", not an undergrad program. I agree, one would hope that an undergrad program would take all faiths. But I think grad level students who are aiming to do research, be it social sciences or any science, need to demonstrate a greater capacity to use the scientific method, along with the other analytical tools we have. That's why, yes, baldy, we should screen out folks who are not in the "scientific paradigm" at a grad level. Also, J.H. saying that the lack use of the tools of science (overly personal, non-logical, consistent methods, and too much post-modern analysis etc.) is at the heart of why the social sciences are in such deep trouble, and why some of the research coming from these fields is so addled, and/or useless. The use of half-formed, idiosyncratic examination methods in these fields MUST be curtailed. Defunding them is the right approach if they don't respond to/refuse be open to critique.
I would question Haidt's claim regarding putting scientific thinking in opposition of religious thinking, since scientific thinking is *a particular kind of religious thinking*. Principally, as Nietzsche pointed out, it is the product of Christian thought and belief that there is an objective real world outside of the subjective views of human beings, that things we see in the natural world are real and not an illusion (as many Eastern religions claim), and that the study of nature is a worthwhile endeavor to better understand the Universe and the God who created it. Before Christianity, the Greeks thought nature and natural forces were the product of chaotic, emotional, and unpredictable will of gods. This was the most common view that animist and pantheist religions around the world had at the time. Islam believes that the world only exists in the mind of Allah. All the Eastern religions believe that the true reality is within one's own person, not the external world. As Galileo said, "Mathematics is the alphabet in which God wrote the universe."
GreyWolfLeaderTW ... scientific thinking is not religious thinking. Why do people that are religious keep thinking that science is like their religion? Science is just experiment and then test variables and then repeat and get down to what's really going on in reality. That has nothing to do with gods and culture history and God's chosen people and God telling people things Etc.
@@123lowp Pretty sure they keep thinking science is religious because it directly challenges tightly held religious beliefs they have. If their perceived enemy is equal to them, that is much more tolerable that if the 'enemy' is superior and indifferent. The are creating a false dichotomy to escape a would be traumatic way of thinking for them... That is my guess.
Carla Broderick Higher education is the cause of the fundamentalist thinking. These days students are only exposed to one point of view and take it as fact.
It is! But the problem is that higher education in certain areas is becoming fundamentalist, education is becoming corrupt and thats absolutely disastrous
Multiple factors is the case almost every time. Including in Climate Science. Often many of those factors are not even known or measurable which causes know factors to be overweighed.
Western civilization is in a similar state to Rome in the 4th century. Except instead of Christianity being the new progressive movement we've got a system that's just as hysterical, just as anti-civilization (in the sense of anti-Rome or anti-European culture), but without any real moral high ground. At least ancient Christianity had that.
Jesus Fucking Christ. Here's another video with a thumbnail of Haidt depicting him as if he's having a nervous, histrionic psychological catastrophe; but he's perfectly calm in the video. Why are there so many misleading thumbnails on youtube?
If a young Earth creationist did apply to take a geology course why would you reject them? If they're disruptive and unwilling to listen then by all means kick them out but if the facts are so concrete then they will either change their mind or leave the course. Maybe in the process of changing their mind they'll ask questions that have never been asked before. The problem with say the sociology program is not the students and their initial position. You should expect them to be stupid, naive and biased. If they leave the course as stupid, naive and biased as they entered it then the problem is the teachers and the curriculum for not highlighting the students stupidity, naivety and bias.
A little uncomfortable about the concept of baring students on the grounds of being "fundamentalist" anything. A Christian fundamentalist wanting to attend a geology course, I posit, would be interested in understanding of the scientific explanation of earths creation and a college professor should not try to "safe space" the potential student. If students sign up to courses that they qualify to attend with the intent to disrupt the education of others on ideological grounds is another matter.
The part where he said he wouldn't admit Christian Creationists to a geology program was extremely revealing. It's shocking to me such otherwise bright men don't see the inherent dogmatism present within excluding specific demographics like that. That, itself, is dogmatism. How do they know the Fundamentalists are not correct? Would it not be more appropriate to not pre-emptively exclude specific views from even having a chance of having a voice within mainstream academia? This is common sense... one of the limitations of the scientific method is pre-existing bias exactly like they're doing by excluding specific viewpoints like that. It's a systematic error in the scientific method unless they can *actually verify* that viewpoint is wrong (which they have not done, yet exclude people just for holding that view privately).
OK, I need to look at my tendencies. Still regarding climate change science, which is my #1 issue (because it seems to be an issue of planetary or at least species survival) I ask 1 question.... who is denying what 98% of climate scientists are finding through meticulous and peer-reviewed research?
It's not a binary choice. Except or deny. The scientific process demands that research continues. Look at the polar vortex, which really got going around 2007+. No one saw that coming. The left must keep preaching that damnation is going to happen unless we get a brand new green deal to safe us from ourselves. That's a red flag right there. The more the government and news media tells me what I MUST do, the more cautious I am. For 15 years the anointed have been telling us the sky is falling. After a while you get tone death to it and leave the church. Granted, it would be nice to not subsidize oil, timber, monocrops, cattle and let the free market take over so the wind and solar can really get going. Competition brings down prices. Also when the goverment stops subsizing, you must innovate or risk losing profits.
216trixie - No atheist has anything proper to replace Christianity with. If you know anything of human nature, "let's just all be nice to one another" is a highly comical framework. Atheists like Sam Harris also generally do not understand the underlying principles of Christianity, which is argueably one of the most complex and philosophical religions on the planet. They reject cartoons of Christianity, based on the beliefs of hypocrites, who themselves are rarely educated properly. He can belly ache about how terrible all religious ideology is, but the irony is, that at heart, he aspires to the Christian ideals he supposedly believes are non-sense.
A M We don't need to "replace" Christianity any more than we need to replace a tumor, cancer of boil once removed. Christian ideals? #1. Human Sacrifice. Bloody. #2. Once injured, let aggressor injure you further. #3. Show same affection, devotion and admiration, {Love], to evil people who hurt you , just the same as you do to your wife, mother and friend. #4. Don't save money or plan for the future. You're dissing the one who keeps counting the diminshing hairs on your head. Yep, Christian ideals. Each one, and each nastier than the one before. Wake up.
+216trixie, That's a rather narrow view of Christian ideals. 1. What's wrong with human sacrifice? We send men into war to fight and die for lesser reasons than saving humanity from it's wickedness. 2. Once injured, cease fighting. Practical advice for nullifying further violence. Why escalate a situation? 3. The whole point is that it's easy to love your own family, but difficult to love your neighbour. If you can't love your neighbour for his faults then don't expect people to love you for yours. 4. Planning for the future is good, but you could be dead tomorrow. All that time you wasted in the office could have been spent with your children. There's nothing wrong with Christian ideals, you just don't understand them.
AWResistance Narrow? No, I didn't exclude, I just included several of the most prominent and basic tenets. The basic tenets. 'Narrow"? Lol 1. What's wrong with human sacrifice? Humans that die to save others is one thing. A "god', requiring the smell of burning flesh and the spilling of blood as the only means to "forgive" his "children", by sending his "son" to die as a bloody human sacrifice, to himself , for himself . "Vicarious atonement". Sick shit indeed. No comparison. 2. "Once injured, cease fighting"? Lolololol; The rapist gets to keep rapiing because once bruised, the woman should give in. The child, once his anus has been pierced by the priest, should give in. You're weird and sick. 3. You're an idiot. Jesus taught us to hate our family. Period. And Jeebus taught us not to plan, just trust. So yes, you just quit your job, and sit at home with your kids and see when you and they starve. You are very stupiod and you have made some of the stupidest replies to the absolute fucking insanity of god-belief and Christianity I've ever heard.
1. "Vicarious atonement" Not all Christians believe in this doctrine, and you completely misunderstand it. 2. "once bruised, the woman should give in" Again, completely misunderstanding the point. No one is saying to give in to a rapist or peadophile, Christians use to hang these type of people before secularism came along with: "they're a product of their environment therefore are not responsibile for their crimes and shouldn't be punished". 3. "Jesus taught us to hate our family". No, what Jesus said was that you shouldn't blindly obey and follow your family just because they are your family. For example: an atheist shouldn't believe in God simply because his parents are Christians. "you just quit your job, and sit at home with your kids and see when you and they starve." No Christian does this.
Jonathan gives his own fascism a bit of excersise by barring Christian's from certain parts of the scientific world. Who gets to draw the line at where fundamentalism begins and ends? What is his fear regarding geology and the Christian? Is he worried that the rocks won't survive the interrogation?
Davey Tube I'm also sick of this whole "it's not religion it's fundamentalism." I feel that's an excuse used to portray all religions as equal, but some religions _are_ extremist by nature. Like what is fundamentalism other than taking your religion seriously?
Ihsahn Åkerfeldt Fundamentalism is when your dogma overwhelms thinking. This is different from telling a young earth creationist they would not be a good fit in the geology program. Haidt also said that an equivalent SJW type would not be a good fit in a psych program. Equally, would you want someone who believes in only the laying on of hands or crystal power doing well in medical school?
Davey Tube How is it fascism to point out that a flat earther would be a poor fit figuring out orbital trajectories for satellites for cell phone and TV? Your own narrow view is related to this video. Fortunately, you seem to be able to see that and make decisions that reflect your intellect. I hope that I am also able to do that :)
Mike Gardner Jonathan was referring to someone who believes the earth is a young age. Not flat. The fascism lies in the collectivism. Whether the collectivism is about social justice Warriors not being fit for psychology courses or young Earth creationist not being fit for a geology class, the problem is the same... collectivism. If they are going to fail on account of their belief system, let them fail but don't bother them. That's where the problem lies for me - in barring certain classes of people. Jordan also saw the dilemma and intervened with a comment about who would enforce such a system.
Davey Tube it is simple, you are not barring them because they are fundamentalist Christians, you bar them if them if they can not demonstrate a sophisticated knowledge of geology, evolution, and a commitment to scientific truth etc. An ideological social activist is equally unqualified for a psychology program if they can not demonstrate being able to see multiple perspectives and values as well as not having good critical faculties and understandings of health and pathology. No one is perfect we all have shadow qualities but a person qualified would understand what those inferior qualities are (trait analysis). I have met a fundamentalist Christian Science librarian who did not feel conflicted. "My church is my church and science is science." He could compartmentalize contradictory world views quite well. So this too also occurs. But the point is would you really want an ideologue as your therapist when you are in dire need of counseling in any form? A therapist may have their personal belief systems and politics etc, but can they see them in relation to other people's values especially a clients? Is an ideological humanities professor competent in teaching varying critiques. Sure introduce deconstructionism but can they compare it to hermeneutical methods or are they simply stuck in their ideology. Universities should fire ignorant, myopic, useless professors.
Today "fundamentalist" means unthinking dogmatist - but hat was not its original meaning. Its original meaning was someone who held to the basic doctrines of Christianity (the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus, the human soul surviving the death of the body......), against the "Social Gospel" which essentially redefined Christianity (and all religion) as about increasing the size and power of the government to "help the poor". The people who wrote the early 1900s essays on the "fundamentals" of Christianity were NOT anti evolution, and they did NOT believe that world was created in 4004 B.C.
Paul Marks Bishop Usher proved, using the Bible, that the Earth is quite young. Pretty much everyone in the early 19th century believed that the Earth was only 6000 years old. Lord Kelvin using large body cooling put the Earth's age in the millions of years (radioactive heat was unknown at the time). This was quite a blow to the common religious understanding of the era. More understanding of the world has brought that number to the billions of years. Christianity was also quite keen on the geo centrist view of the solar system to the point that Christianity put heliocentric proponents to death. Christianity like all religions is a human invention. Usually man made which is why women are second rate characters in the so called holy books. Religion evolves and changes and eventually Christianity and Islam will be replaced by something else just like we don't believe in the Norse, Roman, Greek, Babylonian, Sumerian, Mayan religions, our current ones will also be irrelevant.
What you are saying has nothing whatever to do with the early 1900s essays on the "fundamentals" of Christianity (from which the word "fundamentalist" comes). Your "reply" has nothing to do with my comment. If you really want to reply a quick glace at the essays and a check on who wrote them would be in order. The target was NOT science - the target was the collectivism of the "Social Gospel".
Making you demoralized is the goal of the Left, so you won't resist their seizure of power and your enslavement to their system. Stand up and fight for your Liberty and the Freedom of others !
Does anyone see the irony in that he talks about NOT admitting 'fundamentalists' who believe in young earth creation into a geology program because they are 'close-minded'. Now who is close-minded? lol. He is basically doing the same thing as 'leftist fundamentalists' only not realizing it.
You won't admit a fundamentalist young earth creationist into your Geology program because your Geology program is a religion as well...... it is simply under the guise of science. You need to take a long hard look at your assumptions in your dating techniques. It's pretty sad.
222ableVelo I've talked to smart religious folks that have raised some very valid doubts about dating methods... so the numbers could be off but I still see far... far... far more evidence for an old earth... and there's pretty much zero evidence for 6000 years old specifically.
222ableVelo So we need to admit to the astronomy department a fundamentalist geo centrist. Science is not a religion. It is, like religion, a human invention and humans can and do hang on to their ideas longer than the evidence allows. As to how the technology of dating works, it keeps being refined and made more accurate as others test the claims and methods. This moves the process forward and the results are more precise and reliable. Results that are replicated move forward and those that fail get put into the garbage can except for the failed concepts drawn from religion or philosophy or stupidity
Yes I have read articles where they call themselves a new religion, “Progressive Fundementalism”. In those same articles they speak of “witnessing” and “converting”. Also that Hollywood is doing everything that it can right now to spread “PF”, and that it is just a matter of time... (in their mind). I found this article (basically a letter of encouragement to the believers) that I speak of as pretty scary. Although the just handing us a name like “Progessive Fundamentalism” (which seems like it would poll very negatively) was a good thing. Search up progressive fundementalism you will find these articles. Ok here is the link: www.vox.com/platform/amp/culture/2016/11/14/13526406/progressive-fundamentalism-make-america-great-again
If you become woke to the true reality of the USA, then you are born again. If you don't become woke you are cast into hell. A ultraconservative, a racist. They've become what they were always against because of junk leadership. The adults didn't tell the kids to sit down and shut up.
That’s why, we libertarians play an important role in our societies… we do mark when one group oversteps freedom of others… so we can balance out the game
Like he said in the beginning. He is seeing a sudden change from the left. They have basically becomed what they always complained about with the right. The moderates who once voted left are disgusting by them. But, you are right. The right wing guys are just as bad. It would have been nice if they touched on that.
Lol, what u know to be the case? Science isn't suppose to "know" any theory that is untestable by its nature is the correct way of thinking. That was silly.
David Gifford most tenants of evolution and relativity are untestable tripe. darwinian Evolution has been disproved time and time again. It's just ignored because it doesn't fit the godless narrative
Sigh. Science built the modern world. Was the computer/device you're currently using prayed into existence? THIS is why I fight fundies right here. You just proved my point there, Rabbi Schmooley.
The religious thinkers project their way of thinking on to those that prefer science. Science is not a belief system. Science is experimenting and then change of variables and then continue in that process in a loop until you get to the closest approximation of reality. That has nothing to do with a belief system or moral system. Religious people are delusional.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
I can highly recommend watching the full interview, which you can find on Jordan Peterson´s channel, here: ruclips.net/video/4IBegL_V6AA/видео.html
PhilosophyInsights it's grrrrrreat!
@phallic as fuck: I already made a thumbnail for this clip, then RUclips auto-recommended this picture, and his facial expression was just on point so I couldn't bring myself to use my thumbnail :D
Also, I already have a Facebook page which you can find here: facebook.com/PhilosophyInsights-1392403627480197/
I think the title's wrong:Haidt is not talking about the left but about the fundamentalist left. I'm sick of extremist SJWs being associated with "the left" and then when people talk about the bad behaviour of some person it's because that person is "a leftist." There are also very reasonable and agreeable people who are left wing, they don't all have to be crazy neomarxists.
Just as a side note the 'Paranormal' and 'New Age' community 'leaders' fb groups etc 99% of them are absolutely Religious fundamentalist pro cancel culture control freaks.
They like to dominate and won't look at any new research. Deliberately against any Nicola Tesla like Western progress.
The SPR (Society for Psychical Research) fb page had a hidden in plain sight communist praising banner right after Joe was elected as a header for months until I started to say about it on their page. Later that evening they removed the banner as others started to notice what was put there and what they were celebrating.
Anorexia nervosa. You put most any food in front of people who suffer from that and they'll nearly always automatically cancel it! Because they're not well.
I can't even have this conversation with anyone in my life, only online... How did this happen?
I’m with you on this. You’re not alone
As a liberal minded person, I am ecstatic about the work these men are doing to gut out bad ideas in the mainstream right now.
The red pill is waiting... why not see things as they really are... before its too late.
This was 5 years ago... it's only gotten worse. Liberal academics like Haidt and Pinker are cast as unacceptably right-wing by the cult.
"The Righteous Mind" gives interesting break down what makes us liberal vs conservative.
Exactly what I've been saying..these people demonize you just because you don't believe in those doctrines of theirs
The Left persecute critical thinking just like the Roman Catholic church did to scientists like Galileo in the Middle Ages.
Leftism is the Wests religion. They even demand that you love your neighbour as yourself (as long as they're Muslim
/ Brown/ black or LGBTQWERTYUIOP)
the New Left multiculturalism IS a gosh darn Religion! the "original sin" is not The Fall of Adam and Eve it is the sin "racism" The atonement is self hatred of EVERY Indigenous white European society (English, Germany, Sweden, America, Netherlands) have to be deconstructed by this New Left Inquisition at the Universities, which is REAL RACISM against white Europeans if you think about it: one is a racist if one wants Norway to remain Norway - which ever other country of the face of the planet implicitly is set up for their people and don't want foreigners to pour in open borders, really think about it "Diversity" is a form of discrimination and racism to majority populations since the are de facto racist if not diverse - totally racist "Diversity" is. (Nazi is National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, so even a "white Supremacist" like John Wilkes Booth who murdered Lincoln can NOT be or ever be a Nazi. The Left is very ignorant in real history and scholarship ,they don't care about facts most "racism." book movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers was about the Collective of Communism, an is alive today.
The left shames people for not following along with ideas. That is precisely how bad ideas grow and spread. See: religion.
J Steiner4791 oh wow you must read a lot
But the right does the same thing.
I wish I had professors like these two men.
Haidt is dead on. Two amazing thinkers here.
I am amazed, gobsmaked,
Nope, they are sophists and calculators, just as Burke dreaded of the age of the “liberal” middle-class, who produced psychologist doctors of people’s thoughts and behaviour.
Yea such amazing people. I love it when these smart, famous and university educated guys who do all this time consuming research, finally figure out what us little nobodies have been saying all along. It took years of research for them to understand what was obvious to ordinary people who can draw obvious conclusions from common sense observation. I see this over & over & over now that we have internet: professors who become famous for flapping their jaws, then eventually come around to finally saying the obvious, as if no one knew.
A Jonathan Haidt lecture was my "red pill" moment.
Which lecture was it?
Ben Haidt
This one:
ruclips.net/video/kI1wQswRVaU/видео.html
I was an anti-theist who wanted to know why people hold religious beliefs so as better to talk them out of their beliefs out of my naive arrogance that religious beliefs are what is wrong with people. "Why can't people be so super smart like me and not beleive in gods?!"
Just the very idea that people's conscious beliefs were strongly motivated by their moral beliefs and that these moral beliefs were shaped by our evolved psychological temperaments/moral intuitions blew apart some of my assumptions about how people arrive at their beliefs. Then, it was just a matter of turning this idea on my own beliefs. What moral intuitions/beliefs were influencing my own seemingly rational beliefs? I don't know how to describe it exactly but something about my assumptions were deeply flawed and I started to realize that I was looking through the wrong end of the telescope. It was almost like learning about Evolution for the first time. My presuppositions were seriously *wrong* and I had to rebuild from the ground up.
(This^ isn't written well but I'm on a phone.)
uPsIdEdOwN What presuppositions were you talking about? Hedonistic Nihilism is what killed the left. Is that what you meant?
Hedonistic Nihilism is basically "I don't know the meaning of my existence, so I'm just gonna follow my biological programming and pretend they are meaningful so I don't fall into an existential crisis."
That's a layman way of explaining the philosophical demon that forms the core belief of post-modernism While religion was still powerful, all reasons for morality finds its roots in the words of God, once that is gone, new reasons justifying morality must be invented. And that has not been well. We've came up with all sorts of shitty explanations that doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. For morality to have a justification, there must be something out there that does not operate by ANY laws of physics, something that's transcendent of this universe.
This can be logically deduced, it doesn't require the slightest amount of belief, it doesn't even have anything to do with a religious God, but the post-modernists seem so abhorred by the slightest sign of superstition that they're determined to justify morality through mundane things. Sam Harris made a Ted talk trying to explain morality with science, where he basically assumed that our consciousness is beyond this universe without realizing he did. This is part of the post-modern movement trying to find the reason to making people feel better. And in the end all of them are only true if the human consciousness is not part of this universe. If the human consciousness is just the product of the laws of physics, a women experiencing rape is no more different than a rock rolling down hill.
Awakened2Truth - Disciple of Jesus the Christ
You're a very odd person. Good luck.
@@TomFranklinX I think you are forgetting our experience of morality is based on biological pathways to promote connections with other primates.
If only this video could get viral...
The point about a sophisticated religious structure being thrown out and being replaced by an unsophisticated religious structure is riveting. If, at a primordial level, we are religiously oriented, then the collapse of those elaborate religious structures which enable refined expression of our nature only leaves us with a lumpen expression of such a potent force. The result being the rabid idiocies of all types of fundamentalism and resultant tribalism, whether systematic like islam, or emotive like cultural marxism.
Jordan demonstrates in this clip that he is not just a fine orator, but a good listener too. He is with someone however, who seems well worth listening to. I'm grateful to have access to the wisdom of men like this.
De-fund nonsense courses. Bring back Classical Liberal Education.
Allan 11235Q: What is GOPe? Can you please explain more for those who aren't from the states
l love Jonathan Haidt
I've always wanted to hear these two together. I think I need to shower now
can i join you :D
nobody should cut Haidt !!! .... not even Peterson
Thank you!
that point about the military was spot on.
Wishing I could like this video more than once
3:20 Wrong. On the contrary, that would be all the more reason to encourage them to join a master's program at university. If they persist with a level of fundamentalism that precludes learning, thinking, new information, then they fail. But there's a good chance, if they're applying, that you may reach them with a more intelligent cosmology. Thus, you should absolutely admit them if they qualify academically. The admissions process should not be a means of social revenge for this man, or any other.
Dream Logic I agree. If they meet academic qualifications, can do research and are intelligent and hard working, they will benefit your department. If they have a radically different viewpoint, perhaps that will make the rest of the department better by keeping them on their heels about the quality of their evidence. A young earth creationist might be better at identifying blind spots in research. It doesn't follow that someone is a detriment to your department just because they violate your orthodoxy. Now if they're a jerk about it, that might be different.
Yes I had a problem with this statement. We should be encouraging people to expose themselves to different ways of thinking. It was an odd train of thought from him.
I'm young earth creationist, but I agree with you, I think anybody should be encouraged to join in a program whatever there worldview is. and as foolish as people could think my presuppositions are before getting into the program, I should be allowed to get in if I qualify academically. Otherwise we're just filling universities with clones. that is the danger.
Exactly. Isn't it closed minded to exclude those types and not offer them a chance to hear the other side and learn from it.
I disagree. Master'w Degree programs should not waste their professor's time or space in the classroom for students who do not meet the baseline qualifications or whose mindsets would set them up to fail, such as the dogmas that Dr. Haidt mentioned. I get where you are coming from, but if an at minimum 23 year old student with a Bachelor's degree is still holding on to certain illogical viewpoints, then how would a Master's Degree change them?
"Leftism is the most dynamic religion of the last 100 years." -Dennis Prager
Dennis Prager IS A SOCIOPATH
Prager is a dipshit. One moment he sounds like an intelligent, rational person. But if you keep listening, he'll start saying some totally crazy whacky shit.
Far-right Nationalism (Prager's religion) is earning that title now.
Haidt and Peterson, together at last!
Excellent excerpt.
The word "Fundamentalist" comes from the early 1900s essays on the "Fundamentalists" of Christianity - the essays had nothing to do with biological evolution or geology (indeed some of the writers were well known scientists), the meaning of the word "fundamentalist" has somehow been totally changed.
You can do that when you make an argument. Change the meaning of the word, shift the goal post.. sounds fair minded. /s
@@rychei5393 What happened was that the meaning of the word got changed - by people who wanted to make it a smear term. Although there are some fools who DESERVE the smear.
Did you know that Johnathan was interviewed by Jordan when Johnathan was applying for a job at Harvard? Nice get-together.
It’s OK, even necessary, to “have a religion.” It’s actually BELIEVING the tenets of that religion that creates a problem.
Joel Gehrke lmao what the hell then does than it even mean to _have a religion_ if you didn't believe in its tenets?
Exactly.
Joel Gehrke
👍
Romans chapter 1 explains all of this very clearly
With enough imagination, the bible can explain anything you can imagine! Even if it doesn't...
LongLostWraith I guess that is supposed to sound like a reasoned and intelligent criticism.
It doesn't. It just sounds like you didn't bother to check my reference and replied from a position of ignorance.
This is were you're wrong though, not that you care... After all, when I'm starting to make sense it must mean that the devil is speaking through me, right?
LongLostWraith Your presupposition is incorrect. As I said in my last statement: you're speaking from a place of ignorance. I don't remember saying that the devil is speaking through you. I'm not even sure if that would be sound Christian doctrine.
Why don't you read Romans chapter 1 and find out what I'm referring to before arguing with me about something you clearly have no knowledge of.
Enjoyed this. I love your channel.
We need more of these guys in universities and schools in general, none of those cancerous marxists ideologues
I agree, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt are brilliant. I'm currently reading Coddling of the American Mind. But the topic of this discussion has nothing to do with Marxism. Or were you just expressing your opinion on an unrelated topic? Can I make a suggestion and recommend reading/listening to the economist Richard Wolff? Not as a whole, but there are tenets of Marxism which are beneficial.
Weird how hatred of ideologues only demonstrates your own ideological blinders to Peterson and Haidt as ideologues….
@@ExistentialWill if by ideologue you mean they have a point of view, then yeah. peterson and heidt's point of view are simply better. and getting their opponents out of academia is a cause worth fighting for.
@@mindful3334 it has a lot to do with marxism, because marxism is left wing authoritarianism and what they are discussing is left wing authoritarianism in the universities. 1 in 5 social scientist calls themselves a marxist. we need a red purge of the academies.
I don’t agree with the idea that university’s should exclude young earth Christians. That sound wrong to me.
Ha! Haidt pointing out the benefits of exclusion and prejudice!
Haidt's book is great. Highly recommend!
2020 says 'Hi there...'
The point of this interview is not to add to the cultural war, but to reach a new consencus.
This is a fabulous post! Although I do not accept that we are 'hard-wired' for religious, but not scientific, thinking. You correctly identify FUNDAMENTALISM as the problem; but this is a mode of thinking: and is not confined to religion (even if the etymology of the word stems from the religious area). The 'fundamentalist' personality should be correlated with the 'authoritarian' personality!
It’s hilarious that he asserts we are hardwired for religion without supplying proof. Not much for rigor.
@@scottmerritt9877 I imagine Professor Haidt is relying on the propensity to 'religion' around the globe: which is not the same thing as 'proving' religious precepts: so to that extent his may be correct.
Haidt deserves to be recognised up there with Peterson, Shapiro etc.
Would ruin his career.
Yes, caring for others, instead of stomping their face on the ladder as you climb over them, is against the newest modern improvement on morality!! Yes! I note you find that troubling for you, as do many criminals!!
great video
2 of my favorite people in the world. Religion is not the problem... sense at last, thank you!
3:40 "How do you set up a mechanism to insure that you are not swamped by fundamentalist of any sort, ..., without the structure itself becoming totalitarian" EASY, we already figured that one out, a long time ago: Freedom of Religion!
Now we only have to implement it to our political belief system.
Good point.
An interesting thing is that the USSR tried to get rid of religion and it kept popping up even when they trained their people to not be religious. A certain percentage of humans seem to find religion by nature.
Exactly, same as with left/right, collectivist/individualist, progressive/conservative, r/K, conformist/non-conformist, ... You can try to get rid of the other group/ideology/religion/predisposition, but it will always pop back up. You can try to force them to conform to the majority or to your group, but this will always lead to resentment, strife and eventually violence and war. Or... We could try a known and well tested solution: the free market principle and let all ideologies exist peacefully side by side.
Fascinating with his simplicity of rational reasoning at other's waste and times...
You should meet Juan Soto Ivars and get his book “la casa del ahorcado” (when translated to english) it talks about the same but instead of religions speaks about “tabú” flourishing when society loses a link…
September 7, 2020: ... smh... sigh. They knew...
I really don't see why a fundamentalist creationist should not be allowed to a geology faculty. I do agree any branch of science should use the scientific method to get to conclusions. If they don't, they will be easily debunked by their fellow scientist. Censoring opinions, or beliefs when deciding whether or not to admit a student, will only create the impression that the current scientific theories can't be defended against different views.
I used to think that the greatest possible liberation of the mind in Zen and Daoism would clear the growing miasma. Now I have to say that was clearly too much thinking.
I recently spoke with my scientist brother, with a P.D who has worked for decades in plant breeding, and now instructs at a college. Despite being a Christian, he is a scientist and does believe in climate change. We both have noted that the science and business departments and any other departments at colleges where students are preparing for actual careers, are not really involved in all these protests and demands, etc. It is the humanities and social sciences departments where these students go over-board. I was a Lit major and have a "mere" Masters, but I am disappointed at some of the developments in higher education. What types of careers will students get with majors in social justice, gender studies, etc. ?
But I do agree about the religion aspect. Social justice has become like a god. Is this god going to get them a job? Maybe a minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour is a living wage they will be happy to retire with.
When God becomes and over arching idea for morality that others disagree with, the will raise their own counter banner of moral standards. Contrary to many a religious mind, their religions and their gods do not own the concept and guideposts of what is moral. So yes, you are right SJW are raising moral objections to society and want change in kind. Call that god if you like, perhaps it is time to have more that one god pretending to establish moral guidelines in this country.
Those students will take any job that they can get with those degrees while wishing they went to school for a trade or earned a degree that would qualify them for a specific job.
"How can you make sure to exclude those who reduce everything to a fundamental cause?" says Jordan Peterson, right after he explains liberalism as the "unsophisticated religious structure" that you'll get when you throw out a "sophisticated religious structure." Not only does he reduce liberalism to a fundamental cause, he reduces it to THE PROBLEM OF ABANDONING RELIGION... and you can guess which religion he thinks they SHOULD adopt. Why do any skeptics or atheists believe anything this guy says?
Yep
I am an Atheist. I am still an Atheist after listening to him for several years now. I got to meet him in person a month and a half ago. He answered my question as his last question during the VIP Q & A. I didn't get offended by some of his past musings about Atheists, or his lackluster talk with Matt Dillahunty. I have learned an incredible amount from him on non theological topics, so I am grateful for that.
I like JP, but Haidt is a more careful thinker. Very clear and precise. JP has what appear to me to be "Deepak Chopra" tendencies.
there are a couple of dichotomies to consider:
- pagan fertility polytheism vs hebraic monotheism
- faith-god-driven vs institutional-man-driven
looking thru these paradigms there is still very much a case for someone who sees the hebraic scriptures as literal/fundamental, and lining this up with total logical positivism and rationality and science. Why else would we see such a huge and increasing alignment between the worldviews of religion-free, scripture-focused evangelicals and some ardent atheists and classical liberals?
"I am the way the truth and the light" vs the church or church leaders are the way, the truth and the light.
The complete flip within the past 10 years - that the most dogmatic absolutist fascist moralists are now not amongst the religious right but on the marxist left - is very true and remarkable.
Statistics, or you got nothing but conjecture an opinion to coat your ego.
Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
-2 Corinthians 5:16
And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
-Acts 16:30-31
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
-John 3:16
And he (Jesus) said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
J Whitton .... brainwashed and delusional. Does it feel good?
Is the non-aggression principle "fundamentalist", and therefore invalid?
Audio is unlistenable
He cannot see the forest for the trees. He strains the gnats yet swallows the camel. He treats the symptoms but misdiagnoses the illness. He's definitely not part of the solution when he wants to put the deck chairs on the stern of the Titanic because she is taking on water at the bow.
What? Do you mean Dr. Haidt or Dr. Peterson? How are they "not part of the solution?"
I have 5 university degrees and over 25 years of military service and generally consider myself a center right type of person. I agree with Haidt that universities are and should be losing support. I’m MUCH less supportive of them now because of their ideological biases and illiberal behavior.
Support for the universities should never become a partisan issue. If it is, something is very wrong
Started when Universities refused to teach ID and Creationism as science... cause it is not. The Right began to squelch about cancel culture and not being 'represented'. It hurts when science matter of factly crushes your Adam and Eve literalist world view.
It's amazing how people will make excuses for their own slavery; for tyranny.
1.5 years later... only gotten worse.
I've always believed hard left wing people, which now includes 'liberals', were always 'religious' in their outlook. Communism has been more of a theology than a political ideology. Politics should include analysis and thought about how to improve situations, communists have never done this and instead think about the feel good factor of bringing equality to all and ignoring all the historical failures by simply stating that they were never implemented properly and next time it will work or that it needs a modern nation for it to work. Pure wishful thinking that one associates with religious fundamentals who do not base their beliefs on rational thought using archaeological, historical, philosophical, etc. evidence
USA Liberals, Democrat Party, are classified as Centre Right. Very low tax rates for high earners, pro Capitalism. Almost no one on the Left in the USA votes Democrat. They vote Green!!
@@miketomlin6040 they are not economic left wingers believing in socialist ifeals. Instead they are cultural marxists supporting identity politics. They are still left wing but believe in the oppression of identities and the evil oppressor instead of the oppression of the proletariat.
@@iain5615 Cultural Marxism is an anti semitic trope, or gibberish. The only Marxists one might find in the USA circa 2021 are a few octogenerian members of the Communist party or Authentic Christians. Jesus being a Left Libertarian Socialist, like Marx, ironically. I'm oppressed daily by half wits unaware how Right Wing USA Democrats are!
@@miketomlin6040 cultural marxists abound, traditional communists are far fewer.. Jesus was not a communist, he believed more in equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome. Not everyone will go to heaven, but those who come to God with love no matter how late they finally repent they are welcome to heaven.
It seems like Peterson has more of a following than Haidt, however Haidt, seems to have contributed more new ideas to psychology. I love him
So bad to exclude Young Earthers. Go see creation.com and you will find many scientists who are in the science paradigm as much as evolutionists may be. Also what is the point of debate when you exclude people with differing views?
True, but universities are doomed for another reason: the internet allows mass education of ppl around the world. But universities don't cooperate in mass education because they want to make more money. The education fees are far greater than the cost of transferring the knowledge. Also, so many graduates are unable to get jobs because the quality of education was shlt.
The new religion - exactly!
Interview someone who isn’t from a big city we have different views as to alot of things
it's not the students coming into the programme who are fundamentalists, it's the university programming that is breading fundamentalism...
I think this is true.
Thanks for the upload. I would rather have a middle of the road understanding of things and move forward than have the extreme quick "fixes" and bring total upheaval. We need more of this kind of dialogue. If only the people that run everything would stop trying to brainwash people to their way of thinking. Lay out the facts. My critical butt can make up my own mind.
Kelby Smith - You know what happens in the middle of the road? You get run over. Moderate drug use is not really a good idea. Moderation is a fine tool, but it cannot be an organization principle.
Moderate drug use is an excellent idea. In fact it’s the only good usage of drugs. Too far and you’re an addict
Your “middle of the road understanding” is the worst kind of brainwashing that doesn’t actually foster the “moving forward” that you want. Kierkegaard’s Two Ages clearly details the bs and absurdity of compromisers, “objective” people, and middle-way types who invent in their heads the idea that all sides can be weighed equally. Existence and decision is a matter of choice and commitment, not this psychologist’s reflection and surveys.
I'm no young earther, but I find it interesting they're willing to deny access to geology program because the student doesn't buy the established science on the earth's age. Hypothetical. What if this was 1066 and the student was telling people there was a continent accross the Atlantic ocean? Admit the student and teach him the truth. Don't deny him that.
I think your missing his point that followed that comment
I note that J.H. said a "graduate program", not an undergrad program. I agree, one would hope that an undergrad program would take all faiths.
But I think grad level students who are aiming to do research, be it social sciences or any science, need to demonstrate a greater capacity to use the scientific method, along with the other analytical tools we have. That's why, yes, baldy, we should screen out folks who are not in the "scientific paradigm" at a grad level.
Also, J.H. saying that the lack use of the tools of science (overly personal, non-logical, consistent methods, and too much post-modern analysis etc.) is at the heart of why the social sciences are in such deep trouble, and why some of the research coming from these fields is so addled, and/or useless. The use of half-formed, idiosyncratic examination methods in these fields MUST be curtailed. Defunding them is the right approach if they don't respond to/refuse be open to critique.
Don't let someone into education because of their beliefs?
Do these people not believe in free speech?
Have you tried having a conversation with a creationists? It’s like banging your head against the wall.
A.G.I Will be man's last invention
I would question Haidt's claim regarding putting scientific thinking in opposition of religious thinking, since scientific thinking is *a particular kind of religious thinking*. Principally, as Nietzsche pointed out, it is the product of Christian thought and belief that there is an objective real world outside of the subjective views of human beings, that things we see in the natural world are real and not an illusion (as many Eastern religions claim), and that the study of nature is a worthwhile endeavor to better understand the Universe and the God who created it.
Before Christianity, the Greeks thought nature and natural forces were the product of chaotic, emotional, and unpredictable will of gods. This was the most common view that animist and pantheist religions around the world had at the time.
Islam believes that the world only exists in the mind of Allah.
All the Eastern religions believe that the true reality is within one's own person, not the external world.
As Galileo said, "Mathematics is the alphabet in which God wrote the universe."
GreyWolfLeaderTW ... scientific thinking is not religious thinking. Why do people that are religious keep thinking that science is like their religion? Science is just experiment and then test variables and then repeat and get down to what's really going on in reality. That has nothing to do with gods and culture history and God's chosen people and God telling people things Etc.
@@123lowp Pretty sure they keep thinking science is religious because it directly challenges tightly held religious beliefs they have. If their perceived enemy is equal to them, that is much more tolerable that if the 'enemy' is superior and indifferent. The are creating a false dichotomy to escape a would be traumatic way of thinking for them... That is my guess.
subbed
Nothing more tribal than xenophobia.
Concerned that Haidt is so sure fundamentalist thinking isn’t improved by higher education. I think it should be.
Carla Broderick Higher education is the cause of the fundamentalist thinking. These days students are only exposed to one point of view and take it as fact.
It is! But the problem is that higher education in certain areas is becoming fundamentalist, education is becoming corrupt and thats absolutely disastrous
The far right and the far left are problematic. Religious zeal, no matter what side, is always problematic.
Multiple factors is the case almost every time. Including in Climate Science. Often many of those factors are not even known or measurable which causes know factors to be overweighed.
Western civilization is in a similar state to Rome in the 4th century. Except instead of Christianity being the new progressive movement we've got a system that's just as hysterical, just as anti-civilization (in the sense of anti-Rome or anti-European culture), but without any real moral high ground. At least ancient Christianity had that.
Jesus Fucking Christ. Here's another video with a thumbnail of Haidt depicting him as if he's having a nervous, histrionic psychological catastrophe; but he's perfectly calm in the video. Why are there so many misleading thumbnails on youtube?
If a young Earth creationist did apply to take a geology course why would you reject them? If they're disruptive and unwilling to listen then by all means kick them out but if the facts are so concrete then they will either change their mind or leave the course. Maybe in the process of changing their mind they'll ask questions that have never been asked before.
The problem with say the sociology program is not the students and their initial position. You should expect them to be stupid, naive and biased. If they leave the course as stupid, naive and biased as they entered it then the problem is the teachers and the curriculum for not highlighting the students stupidity, naivety and bias.
A little uncomfortable about the concept of baring students on the grounds of being "fundamentalist" anything. A Christian fundamentalist wanting to attend a geology course, I posit, would be interested in understanding of the scientific explanation of earths creation and a college professor should not try to "safe space" the potential student. If students sign up to courses that they qualify to attend with the intent to disrupt the education of others on ideological grounds is another matter.
"Diversity is our strength" 🤣
😂
Yes becouse otherwise there will be no concept of right and wrong we need diversity
If all agree on same opinion jow will growths opinion
The part where he said he wouldn't admit Christian Creationists to a geology program was extremely revealing. It's shocking to me such otherwise bright men don't see the inherent dogmatism present within excluding specific demographics like that. That, itself, is dogmatism. How do they know the Fundamentalists are not correct? Would it not be more appropriate to not pre-emptively exclude specific views from even having a chance of having a voice within mainstream academia? This is common sense... one of the limitations of the scientific method is pre-existing bias exactly like they're doing by excluding specific viewpoints like that. It's a systematic error in the scientific method unless they can *actually verify* that viewpoint is wrong (which they have not done, yet exclude people just for holding that view privately).
good
OK, I need to look at my tendencies. Still regarding climate change science, which is my #1 issue (because it seems to be an issue of planetary or at least species survival) I ask 1 question.... who is denying what 98% of climate scientists are finding through meticulous and peer-reviewed research?
It's not a binary choice.
Except or deny.
The scientific process demands that research continues.
Look at the polar vortex, which really got going around 2007+. No one saw that coming.
The left must keep preaching that damnation is going to happen unless we get a brand new green deal to safe us from ourselves.
That's a red flag right there.
The more the government and news media tells me what I MUST do, the more cautious I am.
For 15 years the anointed have been telling us the sky is falling.
After a while you get tone death to it and leave the church.
Granted, it would be nice to not subsidize oil, timber, monocrops, cattle and let the free market take over so the wind and solar can really get going.
Competition brings down prices.
Also when the goverment stops subsizing, you must innovate or risk losing profits.
What did the military say / do that was overtly right wing? I’ve never heard about it.
I think Haidt was just giving a hypothetical reverse analogy. Universities vs Military.
Where are the atheists on this one?
worshiping the government
Jonathon Haidt is a Jewish atheist prof who teaches at NYU.
yeha makes perfect sense.
I don't think fundamentalists are the problem. To borrow from Sam Harris; it's the fundamentals of the religion/ideology that are the problem.
216trixie - No atheist has anything proper to replace Christianity with. If you know anything of human nature, "let's just all be nice to one another" is a highly comical framework.
Atheists like Sam Harris also generally do not understand the underlying principles of Christianity, which is argueably one of the most complex and philosophical religions on the planet. They reject cartoons of Christianity, based on the beliefs of hypocrites, who themselves are rarely educated properly. He can belly ache about how terrible all religious ideology is, but the irony is, that at heart, he aspires to the Christian ideals he supposedly believes are non-sense.
A M We don't need to "replace" Christianity any more than we need to replace a tumor, cancer of boil once removed.
Christian ideals?
#1. Human Sacrifice. Bloody.
#2. Once injured, let aggressor injure you further.
#3. Show same affection, devotion and admiration, {Love], to evil people who hurt you , just the same as you do to your wife, mother and friend.
#4. Don't save money or plan for the future. You're dissing the one who keeps counting the diminshing hairs on your head.
Yep, Christian ideals. Each one, and each nastier than the one before.
Wake up.
+216trixie, That's a rather narrow view of Christian ideals.
1. What's wrong with human sacrifice? We send men into war to fight and die for lesser reasons than saving humanity from it's wickedness.
2. Once injured, cease fighting. Practical advice for nullifying further violence. Why escalate a situation?
3. The whole point is that it's easy to love your own family, but difficult to love your neighbour. If you can't love your neighbour for his faults then don't expect people to love you for yours.
4. Planning for the future is good, but you could be dead tomorrow. All that time you wasted in the office could have been spent with your children.
There's nothing wrong with Christian ideals, you just don't understand them.
AWResistance Narrow? No, I didn't exclude, I just included several of the most prominent and basic tenets. The basic tenets. 'Narrow"? Lol
1. What's wrong with human sacrifice? Humans that die to save others is one thing. A "god', requiring the smell of burning flesh and the spilling of blood as the only means to "forgive" his "children", by sending his "son" to die as a bloody human sacrifice, to himself , for himself . "Vicarious atonement". Sick shit indeed. No comparison.
2. "Once injured, cease fighting"? Lolololol; The rapist gets to keep rapiing because once bruised, the woman should give in. The child, once his anus has been pierced by the priest, should give in. You're weird and sick.
3. You're an idiot. Jesus taught us to hate our family. Period. And Jeebus taught us not to plan, just trust. So yes, you just quit your job, and sit at home with your kids and see when you and they starve.
You are very stupiod and you have made some of the stupidest replies to the absolute fucking insanity of god-belief and Christianity I've ever heard.
1. "Vicarious atonement" Not all Christians believe in this doctrine, and you completely misunderstand it.
2. "once bruised, the woman should give in" Again, completely misunderstanding the point. No one is saying to give in to a rapist or peadophile, Christians use to hang these type of people before secularism came along with: "they're a product of their environment therefore are not responsibile for their crimes and shouldn't be punished".
3. "Jesus taught us to hate our family". No, what Jesus said was that you shouldn't blindly obey and follow your family just because they are your family. For example: an atheist shouldn't believe in God simply because his parents are Christians.
"you just quit your job, and sit at home with your kids and see when you and they starve." No Christian does this.
New?
Jonathan gives his own fascism a bit of excersise by barring Christian's from certain parts of the scientific world. Who gets to draw the line at where fundamentalism begins and ends? What is his fear regarding geology and the Christian? Is he worried that the rocks won't survive the interrogation?
Davey Tube I'm also sick of this whole "it's not religion it's fundamentalism." I feel that's an excuse used to portray all religions as equal, but some religions _are_ extremist by nature. Like what is fundamentalism other than taking your religion seriously?
Ihsahn Åkerfeldt
Fundamentalism is when your dogma overwhelms thinking. This is different from telling a young earth creationist they would not be a good fit in the geology program. Haidt also said that an equivalent SJW type would not be a good fit in a psych program. Equally, would you want someone who believes in only the laying on of hands or crystal power doing well in medical school?
Davey Tube
How is it fascism to point out that a flat earther would be a poor fit figuring out orbital trajectories for satellites for cell phone and TV? Your own narrow view is related to this video. Fortunately, you seem to be able to see that and make decisions that reflect your intellect. I hope that I am also able to do that :)
Mike Gardner Jonathan was referring to someone who believes the earth is a young age. Not flat. The fascism lies in the collectivism. Whether the collectivism is about social justice Warriors not being fit for psychology courses or young Earth creationist not being fit for a geology class, the problem is the same... collectivism. If they are going to fail on account of their belief system, let them fail but don't bother them. That's where the problem lies for me - in barring certain classes of people. Jordan also saw the dilemma and intervened with a comment about who would enforce such a system.
Davey Tube it is simple, you are not barring them because they are fundamentalist Christians, you bar them if them if they can not demonstrate a sophisticated knowledge of geology, evolution, and a commitment to scientific truth etc.
An ideological social activist is equally unqualified for a psychology program if they can not demonstrate being able to see multiple perspectives and values as well as not having good critical faculties and understandings of health and pathology. No one is perfect we all have shadow qualities but a person qualified would understand what those inferior qualities are (trait analysis).
I have met a fundamentalist Christian Science librarian who did not feel conflicted. "My church is my church and science is science." He could compartmentalize contradictory world views quite well. So this too also occurs.
But the point is would you really want an ideologue as your therapist when you are in dire need of counseling in any form? A therapist may have their personal belief systems and politics etc, but can they see them in relation to other people's values especially a clients?
Is an ideological humanities professor competent in teaching varying critiques. Sure introduce deconstructionism but can they compare it to hermeneutical methods or are they simply stuck in their ideology.
Universities should fire ignorant, myopic, useless professors.
Today "fundamentalist" means unthinking dogmatist - but hat was not its original meaning. Its original meaning was someone who held to the basic doctrines of Christianity (the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus, the human soul surviving the death of the body......), against the "Social Gospel" which essentially redefined Christianity (and all religion) as about increasing the size and power of the government to "help the poor". The people who wrote the early 1900s essays on the "fundamentals" of Christianity were NOT anti evolution, and they did NOT believe that world was created in 4004 B.C.
Paul Marks
Bishop Usher proved, using the Bible, that the Earth is quite young. Pretty much everyone in the early 19th century believed that the Earth was only 6000 years old. Lord Kelvin using large body cooling put the Earth's age in the millions of years (radioactive heat was unknown at the time). This was quite a blow to the common religious understanding of the era. More understanding of the world has brought that number to the billions of years. Christianity was also quite keen on the geo centrist view of the solar system to the point that Christianity put heliocentric proponents to death. Christianity like all religions is a human invention. Usually man made which is why women are second rate characters in the so called holy books. Religion evolves and changes and eventually Christianity and Islam will be replaced by something else just like we don't believe in the Norse, Roman, Greek, Babylonian, Sumerian, Mayan religions, our current ones will also be irrelevant.
What you are saying has nothing whatever to do with the early 1900s essays on the "fundamentals" of Christianity (from which the word "fundamentalist" comes). Your "reply" has nothing to do with my comment. If you really want to reply a quick glace at the essays and a check on who wrote them would be in order. The target was NOT science - the target was the collectivism of the "Social Gospel".
so sick of humanity...
Making you demoralized is the goal of the Left, so you won't resist their seizure of power and your enslavement to their system. Stand up and fight for your Liberty and the Freedom of others !
Does anyone see the irony in that he talks about NOT admitting 'fundamentalists' who believe in young earth creation into a geology program because they are 'close-minded'. Now who is close-minded? lol. He is basically doing the same thing as 'leftist fundamentalists' only not realizing it.
I’m still trying to figure out what they mean by leftist fundamentalist.
54 orthodox leftists listened to this, thought "alt right", and hit the dislike button.
You won't admit a fundamentalist young earth creationist into your Geology program because your Geology program is a religion as well...... it is simply under the guise of science. You need to take a long hard look at your assumptions in your dating techniques. It's pretty sad.
222ableVelo I've talked to smart religious folks that have raised some very valid doubts about dating methods... so the numbers could be off but I still see far... far... far more evidence for an old earth... and there's pretty much zero evidence for 6000 years old specifically.
No. When ideology seeps into a system of unbiased, rationalist observance, the system is corrupted.
222ableVelo
So we need to admit to the astronomy department a fundamentalist geo centrist. Science is not a religion. It is, like religion, a human invention and humans can and do hang on to their ideas longer than the evidence allows. As to how the technology of dating works, it keeps being refined and made more accurate as others test the claims and methods. This moves the process forward and the results are more precise and reliable. Results that are replicated move forward and those that fail get put into the garbage can except for the failed concepts drawn from religion or philosophy or stupidity
Yes I have read articles where they call themselves a new religion, “Progressive Fundementalism”. In those same articles they speak of “witnessing” and “converting”. Also that Hollywood is doing everything that it can right now to spread “PF”, and that it is just a matter of time... (in their mind). I found this article (basically a letter of encouragement to the believers) that I speak of as pretty scary. Although the just handing us a name like “Progessive Fundamentalism” (which seems like it would poll very negatively) was a good thing. Search up progressive fundementalism you will find these articles. Ok here is the link: www.vox.com/platform/amp/culture/2016/11/14/13526406/progressive-fundamentalism-make-america-great-again
If you become woke to the true reality of the USA, then you are born again.
If you don't become woke you are cast into hell. A ultraconservative, a racist.
They've become what they were always against because of junk leadership.
The adults didn't tell the kids to sit down and shut up.
[Golf clapping]
BaronVonBlair You're fucking a white male!
Seriously man you're so gloriously Scandinavian looking you'd rustle a lot of SJW jimmies just by being
Lmfao wait till more robots take low wage jobs. This should make for a more even more glorious shit show as world crumbles.
That’s why, we libertarians play an important role in our societies… we do mark when one group oversteps freedom of others… so we can balance out the game
So right wing conservative fascists are not fundamentalists in any way. OK great analysis here. Where did this guy get his degree, Trump University?.
Like he said in the beginning.
He is seeing a sudden change from the left.
They have basically becomed what they always complained about with the right.
The moderates who once voted left are disgusting by them.
But, you are right. The right wing guys are just as bad.
It would have been nice if they touched on that.
*yeathatsright*
Lol, what u know to be the case? Science isn't suppose to "know" any theory that is untestable by its nature is the correct way of thinking. That was silly.
kandysman86 Wrong, any theory of value is testable (relativity, evolution) an untestable theory is little more than a thought experiment
David Gifford most tenants of evolution and relativity are untestable tripe. darwinian Evolution has been disproved time and time again. It's just ignored because it doesn't fit the godless narrative
This video and 99% of these comments are pure absurdity. Is this really what passes for a well-constructed argument to the Right?
19thfallenpoet no
science is just another belief system
Sigh. Science built the modern world. Was the computer/device you're currently using prayed into existence? THIS is why I fight fundies right here. You just proved my point there, Rabbi Schmooley.
The religious thinkers project their way of thinking on to those that prefer science. Science is not a belief system. Science is experimenting and then change of variables and then continue in that process in a loop until you get to the closest approximation of reality. That has nothing to do with a belief system or moral system. Religious people are delusional.