I had to rewatch this series of debates and listen to Peterson's lectures on Maps and Meaning and his biblical series before I could even attempt to comment, but here goes: I think the main point that Peterson was trying to convey to Harris was that religion appears to have developed organically over the course of human history as a way to preserve and communicate abstract ideas and concepts that can reduce suffering and promote success in life in those who act them out. He tends to define these ideas and concepts as values (e.g. fairplay, honesty, etc), which we use in our daily lives as a moral compass for our actions. As a personal example, I train jiu jitsu every morning at 6 AM because I value physical fitness, fairplay, and strategy, which I hope will ultimately help me in my endeavor to live a meaningful life. The act of doing something we value is in Peterson's definition, religious. Therefore, he assets that even atheists tend to live a religious life because they act on values that they hold dear to their person. Harris seems to assert that we as humans, have the ability to extract the same values that Peterson defined without the need for interpretation of the stories in religious texts like the bible. On top of that, he cites that dogmatic and literal interpretation of some stories has shown to be disastrous throughout history-responsible for war and death. There are plenty of examples such as the Inquisition, the anabaptist revolt in Muenster, the Buddhist/Hindu civil war in Sri Lanka, and ISIS. Therefore, I believe Harris concludes that if we can assume that humans can synthesize the "good" values in life without the need for religion, we should- the risk is otherwise too great. Peterson's counter claim is that it is likely impossible for humans to be able to do away with religion and synthesize our own values. He's cited Nietzsche and post modernists like Derrida or Foucault often, claiming that social systems such as communism fail to address human impulsive tendencies and propensities for evil, which are not values, per se, but are addressed as vital and fundamental parts of most ( I say most because I'm not qualified to assert all) of the world's religions. Therefore, Peterson concludes that there remains significant value in respecting and acting out religious logos because they also help to recognize and reduce acts of malice. So they're talking past each other, in some sense. I think the real question is: Assuming Peterson and Harris are correct, how can we implement religions without devolving into literal interpretations? I think they found the answer when they agreed to it at the beginning- free and frank speech. I wonder if anyone will read this....
What's funny to me is that Peterson heavily reference Mircea Eliade, who was a fascist and anti-semite and whose work was later proven to be biased, because among other things it lacked any empirical evidence. Also I'm just being curious have you read Foucault's Les Mots et les Choses ? Because the way Peterson's use Foucault to prove this point is quite a twist. Also to claim that religion help recognize and reduce acts of malice is the same thing as claiming that north korea's regime does.
Great summary, I tend agree with Harris more than Peterson. Religion, while it may be beneficial in some situations, poses a much larger threat to humanity as we move forward. It lays foundation for tribalism, asserts outdated moral truths, and allows humans to disregard the importance of this life in preference for the afterlife. I see no reason as to why we must derive a solid moral foundation from a belief system with an all powerful deity at the center.
After carefully analysing both perspectives and most of the axioms upon which the ramifications of their arguments were constructed, I can accurately conclude that they were trying to call each other gay.
Well, that would make him the loser since the true winner would be anybody who did not need their mind sharpening from this almost completely pointless debate (due to Jordan refusing to answer questions). If your mind was equally sharp before and after this video, then you are the real winner. Yes, it means you didn't learn anything from it... but, there is nothing to learn from this that you shouldn't have already known, in essence.
I think the tendency to pick sides between these two is a mistake. Harris is correct that religious fundamentalism carries the potential for serious danger and must be kept in check. Peterson is right that pure, unadulterated logic is not a sufficient ground for establishing universal ethics. The proper takeaway isn't to choose a side here, in my opinion. The proper takeaway is to be grateful that these two men are able to discuss these things in a rational, intelligent manner and that we are all lucky enough to learn from it. The world needs both of these men.
Doctor Bringus - It's a bad way to approach any learning endeavour. If you take sides it's as though you are working from a preconceived conceptual framework that is rigid and dogmatic and it becomes difficult to allow new information in. It's quite ironic because it's the very thing both of them warn against.
I don't necessarily think it's bad to pick sides-after all, Jordan and Sam are on different sides, themselves-problems arise when either side is denied the right to speak, or when whole lines of dialogue are (dogmatically) closed off, etc.
Cahya you think you're smart because you can make a generalization about comments that maybe similar. Similarity doesn't guarantee the same intent or meaning. Just because his comment is similar to others that argue against taking sides, doesn't mean they are all trying to accomplish the same things. Way to add to the conversation!
@J A limited time and a huge topic. At first, I thought he was acting that way too but then I thought about how prepared he was and realized he just had a lot to say with limited time. He was trying to get to the core of the difference and agree upon the similarities. I don't think it was a good discussion in some ways because of the dodging but he definitely is not demented or absent-minded and that's evidenced by how well he took the time to understand each question and honestly each word.
6 лет назад+14
@J A While harris seems like a pundit of popular opinion, knowing that if he focusing on JPs religious views he can put him on the backfoot.
One of the few talks where the moderator is as intelligent as the interviewees and where he is truly able to summarize the positions of both in a common context. Compliments!
If you're going to moderate a discussion between peterson and harris then you better be an intellectual. Bret and his brother Eric are highly intellectual.
Jordan Peterson is entertaining to listen to and a good debater/conversationalist, but at the end of the day, he tries to make very reasonable and rational arguments for very irrational and unreasonable things.
I don't know how much you know about Jungian Psychology, but Jordan and Sam are actually the same personality type (INFJ), which is probably why they clash so much. I am one too, and while I appreciate Jordan's ability to be so intensely open-minded about what on the face value are very clear, concise texts, I prefer Sam Harris. I don't feel like Sam is always constantly trying to be the smartest brain in the room.
@@alirezadoroudi9126 how could have possibly known that it not worth than free, without listening to it first?! The fact that dumb fucking losers like you are their fans proves my point. Now STFU
The moderator stepped in and made everyone agree? You mean he made Jordan agree with Sam because Jordan is sounded like a blithering moron before that point?
the fact that i'm not a native speaker of english but yet able to enjoy this conversation. learning the language is one of the best things I've ever done in my life.
These characters do not exist, you must have a lot of spare time, on your MILs patio. Take Peterson's advice-act like an adult, live your own life, stop existing on her dime. You have serious mental health problems.
Exactly Jordan You can not extract one sentence and isolate it from the rest of the Bible That is the most significant aspect but Weinstein must consider Matt 5 in relationship to wars And Harris need to tie slavery to sex is his problem
Harris again is almost childish not to understand how the old and new interact purposely. Also that Harris who is cavalier about some portions of scripture are written by God while others are written by smart men is incoherent
Having enough knowledge to sustain a debate like this for hours on end must be an intellectual goal of life. There are a very few select number of people alive who can do it. By 'it' i mean debating on philosophically deep ideologies and notions. Here i am, on my bed, trying to write this comment with as much literary flair as possible, waiting for my noodles to cook.
Highly agree, applauding when both sides are open to each other simply conversing to find an agreement is 100% unnecessary and it only does a disservice to the ones having the conversation
Totally agreed. Applause seems to indicate that there is a competition going on. This is meant to be a collaboration. I prefer Sam Harris' work to Peterson's, but I take no glee when Sam makes a solid point that might run contrary to Peterson's ideas. I just genuinely want to hear what Peterson's response might be... because maybe he has an answer to it. This tribalistic bullshit needs to stop.
Most people are self centered, emotional and impulsive, or a combination of a multitude of other unattractive traits. They can get excited when they feel like it was their idea, or speaks to their personal philosophy, a nod to their intellectual prowess. The fact that they aren't on the stage emotionally pressures, like an addiction, their desire to be a part of the debate. They applaud for self validation of their own awesomeness. Applauding during an intellectual discussion, or debate is extremely unattractive, distracting, selfish, and entirely unhelpful to what these titans are trying to accomplish for humanity. In summation, applause at a debate is poopy crap.
Jordan explained very well how god selects which sports team will win the league, and Sam explained very well that one sports team will win the league whether god exists or not
I agree with you, but people in general want to hear things that justify their beliefs, and in turn, want to be heard with their token show of support for what they just heard. Just explaining why, I think it happens, but again, I agree with you totally. . .
I think it was partly responsible for some of the firey competitiveness we saw in this debate. If these two were having this conversation at a coffee shop with nobody listening it's unlikely it would have been as in-depth or debate-like as this recording. Sam Harris was particularly encouraged by it. It did start to get distracting by the end when it was every 20 seconds instead of every 5 minutes.
@@dennisziabkin9735 The reason he rambles is because he is trying to figure out a response/solution to something that most of the time has no solution in regards to religion. So he goes in circles trying to explain the unexplainable.
@@tcrown3333 i like him too. I have watched most of his videos because they have an inmense utility and has a great intellect. Although, the only thing I dislike is his strong attachment to religion, which, I would say has about 80% nonsense, and he like any religious person, defends 100% of it. That's is when they can't explain the nonsense and they just ramble nonsense too.
Also a Peterson fan but he definitely plays word games on the topic of religion. Listening to him answer the question "do you believe in God" is cringe inducing.
If Jordan were applying his religious method as an astrophysicist, his method for discovering time travel would be to start by saying time travel is real, and then working his way backward through fictional texts to it's discovery
@@Ben-bg2lp oh, but he has so many other fallacies. I am still amazed how a human being of a seemingly sound mind and quite logical and argumentative in other areas as JP is, completely sheds all of these tools when it comes to defending religion and goes full blast rogue on logic. I was so glad that Sam unveiled what he did there with JP's eloquent, but basically rant on what his view of god is. He just invented the god that he thinks that would be ok to have, which so many sensible religious people HAVE to do nowadays, because otherwise it makes no sense, except to the fundamentalists which believe exactly what is written. JP simply changed the meaning of what god is. I mean if he questions the resurrection, and all other fix dogmas, automatically he is a heretic. Oh Jordan! This is where you show us your limitations as a human being. And it's natural. We all have limitations. But here he showed it so clearly, that it made himself get pissed off like a child in the last part when the audience appreciated the quality of Sam's piercing argumentation.
@@prematrans7682 In his books and lectures he explicitly admits it is not clear to him what truth is! He gives the example where telling an ugly person "you're unattractive" is not telling the truth, which sounds nice but is extremely treacherous. There he's giving himself permission to basically tell what he considers to be white lies. Now consider that he admits in both Vancouver and London that stupid people need religion (he caveats it in London with the smoke screen that "but we're all stupid🙄") because not everyone is capable of having a moral compass based in reality. These two evidences substantiate to me that he DOES NOT BELIEVE IN A GOD, but is compassionately appeasing to the majority stupid populus in the hope to keep them in line. This is the kind of evil who created religion in the first place in my estimation. The wealthy who need to maintain the status quo (1 Peter 2:18), preventing the people from coming to the conclusion that they have nothing to lose but their chains. This is the same reason why he is against Universal Basic Income by taxing the top tax bracket; not because it can possibly cause inflation, but because"if you keep giving people free money, they'll do drugs and alcohol". Something you'd hear from a man who has never been worried about making rent.
Physics and Ethics are very different fields. Physics has to be tackled from a strictly literal point, whereas ethics don’t because ethics is an abstract concept. I can’t see any other way to explore abstract concepts than to create scenarios where they might be applied and exemplified, and, in fact, there would be no compelling fiction if exploring the nuances of ethics wasn’t a frequently employed story element. I’m guessing Sam Harris is your guy. Why can’t you take a page from his book and be respectful to your idealogical opponents instead of being condescending and smug?
@@Sl4gyster it’s almost impossible to keep people quiet unless you’re at Carnegie hall lol. There’s no issue with ppl expressing their support/lack there of thru clapping and cheering for small bits of time. It feels like an actual discussion because humans have passion. Before you twist my words, things shouldn’t be based in emotion when debating facts. That’s clearly not what I’m saying.
Other than how phenomenal this discourse is, it's so nice to see intellectual, even-tempered people in the comments. It's a very rare thing on the internet.
@@joeyherp6257 about half the population looks at RUclips makeup artists as role models and they get 30+ million views in hours. That's a little scarier then the people here agreeing with Sam.
Well, not really top scholars lol, just popular speakers. Sam Harris is regarded by actual philosophers as a hack (not because they dislike his "profound ideas" or he rattles cages somehow, but because he's just bad at doing philosophy and makes bad arguments). Plenty of discussions on both of these guys as far as philosophy goes on r/askphilosophy (because people love asking questions about them there...) Harris is a good book writer, Jordan Peterson is a good psychologist and presumably respected in his field, but neither is a top scholar of anything along the lines of what they seem to be talking about here, e.g. ethics, religion, etc.
I thought the same… And wondered if it can become any easier to consume this type of content for a human mind. Will we be able to recreate those neural synapses from the 2 hours watching but instantly done through a “package installation”? I know the infinite amount of variables, but what could be the limit here? 🤔
So TRUE, I am getting tired of all the videos out there with titles like "Jordan destroys X" or "Whoever owns Y", it's not the point to see who wins what, it's a matter of getting closer to the truth or reason.
I believe you are right about decrying the notion that "winning" is what's important in this conversation. After all, it's technically not a debate. However, it does matter who has the better ideas, and anyone who comes out of this conversation thinking that JP had the better ideas is just deluding themselves. One of the main problems with JP and Shapiro is that they fancy themselves as intellectuals and thought-leaders, but they have one foot in rationality and one foot in ancient dogmatism. When they debate or have a conversation with someone like SH, that issue gets put on full display. Jordan was floundering on stage like a fish out of water when he was put into a position of defending the bible's abhorrent stance on slavery. At this point, anyone who still looks to JP for insightful, compelling rhetoric is sadly being sold snake-oil. This is the man who said on Joe Rogan's podcast that he didn't sleep for twenty-five days because he drank apple cider. Fucking apple cider, folks. He said that he had a feeling of impending doom because of an allergic reaction to sulfites and did not sleep for nearly a month. This man has a PhD for fuck's sake. Joe even gave him a chance to clean up what he said and walk it back as an exaggeration. He didn't budge. This is the man that people who detest so-called "beta males" look to for insight. What is more "beta male" that being taken down for a month by fucking apple cider? This guy is a carnival barker of the highest order.
I am an hour into the debate, and Jordan has yet to make a single clear point. He instead just dances around Harris’ questions the entire time, how can people respect this man. ?
However, it's only possible when the participants are civil though, and themselves understand the idea of an actual debate. So, it goes both ways I guess.
Jordan's answer to what a prayer being answered would look like reminds me of the time a Wiccan told me, "I have a great spell for getting a job: work on your resume, study your craft, dress well and show up early with the necessary paperwork, offer a strong handshake with good eye contact, and really listen to the interviewer."
Not sure why it would remind you of that..? What that Wiccan told you was essentially a "roll up your sleeves, get busy, and you'll see results"-attitude, no middle-man necessary. As much as I like Dr. Peterson, his constant attempts at invoking a sense of solid foundation to his stance that these religions should not be dismissed as merely man-made bears no resemblance, as far as I can tell, to what that Wiccan told you in this case?
@@sirriffsalot4158 maybe I didn't explain the connection well. It seemed to me like what he was really saying is that really caring about something, focusing all energies on it, respecting it, and giving it all you have is how you get it. No magic pill, no easy button, but tons of possibilities for anyone who really wholly commits to what they want. Seemed in line with the idea that a prayer, an actual prayer, requires that the one praying be actually willing to make good on the answer, even if it's hard or requires sacrifice, which it will.
@@JD-lj4gt Aha, well then, fair enough! I can't help but imagine Sam chiming in though, as a result, with something like "Well, so... where does the spell part come in here exactly?" Haha! :-D Peace out!
@@sirriffsalot4158 Some people like the idea of there being a spell to motivate them where as other people simply want a simple list of instructions to get what they want but would depress someone who wants the spell. At the end of the day I'll use either to get people to do what I want and don't care if it sounds stupid or extra as long as it works and that's just what I learned from dealing with people
The fact that a video like this has 3.1 million views (July 2020), actually makes me very happy and hopeful about today’s modern society and admiration for genuine hunger towards truth.
THIS is what an honest discussion looks like. Nobody falling back on bad faith arguments or trying to smear the other persons character. Honesty, integrity, compassion and respect.
I agree...this is a good conversation but, faith is inevitable, no matter what you think. Neither party can prove his position, especially Mr Harris. What upsets me is...a naturalist's world view takes far more faith than a religious worldview. The problem is, academia is brutally dishonest! The scientific evidence supports intelligent design, not darwinism or whatever
@@Soknik01 at 43:00 harris clearly sets him up for a weak "gotcha". peterson was trying to support his assertion that the new testament is an example of evolving dogma (which it IS), and Harris drove him into a corner where his only options were to stand by his assertion and continue his thought, or to disparage the entire Jewish faith and community. from a purely academic point of view peterson likely could have continued quite easily... but from a practical point of view, to make such a statement would be absolutely suicidal as a public figure. Peterson is already mislabeled enough... i don't think he needs everyone having this little clip as a basis to claim he is anti-Semitic as well. such tactics in a debate are usually considered low, rude, and ultimately limit the flow of free thought, Overall though, i still think Harris was a solid match for peterson (who is guilty of his own debate sins as well) and both parties held themselves and each other to an acceptable standard of discourse.
The audience seems to clap at the most anticlimactic of times, almost like they don't understand when someone has made a valid point. If it takes Jordan and Sam 5 seconds or so at least to think through what the other has said, I doubt everyone in the audience has figured out if what was said is correct almost instantly. I suspect they don't really understand what is being said, but just clap if it sounds like a good point is being made. It makes me cringe at some points.
@Antonio deCarmoducci I don't think that, and I never said that. I just noticed that the clapping was weird and out of place, and it frames the debate like an intellectual MMA fight where there needs to be a winner and loser instead of just two smart people having an interesting and productive conversation.
Such an oversimplification time as a linear progression disregards the metaphysical substrate upon which the reality of self referential and fundamentally subjective time measurement...
Literally the only thing I didn't enjoy about this is the crowd Edit: fellas, this was just a passing thought during a good debate. It's a minor grevience. It doesn't take away from the debate entirely and it definitely doesn't warrant calling the audience dumb or "imbeciles".
This is fantastic. We are so lucky to be able to hear this type of higher level thinking discussed openly an made available on RUclips. Long live long form dialogue via Podcasts, RUclips, etc. The death of biased CNN and FoxNews is near and we will all become smarter as a result.
That would be great. But it wont happen. They ll have their own long forms and they ll make it somehow more easily consumable and then they ll take over again. Its called scripting.
I sure hope so. I think that the problem should be fixed from the bottom up. Teach people how to think critically, not just trust anything that is on tv, and also accept being wrong as the important part of the learning process that it actually is, instead of making people fear being wrong like so many do.
Yes and no... I fear the algorithms on yt and fb etc narrow rather than expand our views & interests with their suggestions, which results in only seeing content with your point of view ( unless you actively seek otherwise). this process i think is leading to more polarization...
00:03 Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris discuss morality and ethics 09:22 The dangers of dogmatism and ideology in authoritarian regimes 25:23 Religious fundamentalists confuse literal interpretation with ultimate truth 33:27 The difficulty of fighting slavery in Islam and the importance of humanism and secularism 47:50 The hero is born at the darkest point of the journey and truthful words lead to salvation. 56:47 Understanding and imagination are vastly different. 1:11:02 Religious texts as inferences for well-being 1:18:34 Interpretation of religious texts and its impact on moral belief system 00:03 The discussion covers the concept of God and answered prayer 1:40:47 Moral intuitions function as universal truths across contexts. 2:03:07 The Enlightenment has a long evolutionary history
Excellent discussion. I was very impressed with Bret Weinstein’s ability to deeply comprehend both points of view in real time and simplistically point out to the audience what the parties disagreed on. Worthwhile watch.
JP's idea of God is not the Christian idea of God, but he's still clinging to the identity of a Christian, because a lot of his audience wouldn't be happy if he didn't. Sam doesn't seem to want to say this directly but that is what appears to be the case.
Well using it to attack often times also works by constructing a straw man of the original argument, by making the original argument weeker and then debating it. However its not a very glorious way to win a discussion.
So what you're saying is that these individuals should stop letting each other walk all over each other and defend their points with irrational conviction...
@@awesomebydefault3877 Modern "iNtTelKShUalS" are masters at bastardizing the Socratic method and using cheap reciprocation to simply confuse you into conceding rather than actually making their own point. That's not what Peterson did here. He took control of the entire debate QUICK in the first two minutes by placing the burden of truth on Harris. No trickery. No unwarranted aggression. No word twisting. No insults. No sarcasm or snark. I see nothing wrong with it. All he did was put Harris in a place where he has to defend his book.
People are complaining about the crowd. Isn’t it wonderful that people are so passionate about this. That’s something special! Thousands of people and millions on RUclips watching and listening to highly intellectual conversations :)
Yeah but when I'm sitting here for 2 hours it's a little distracting. I appreciate the enthusiasm but Weinstein as the host should of shut it down. I'm trying to learn here dammit. Not listen to a clap track
I think the passion and the applause are wonderful. I wish I could be there and clap when a point is made that I could not voice myself. These topics are difficult to discuss. I think that's why we listen to intellectuals like this, because they have a way of conveying messages that many of us struggle to get out. And it's just a breath of fresh air for me. To hear passionate people get excited about these kinds of ideas. I unfortunately don't find much of that where I am. So I say yeah!!! woot woot!!! - Go Team Harris Go!!! lol
1:54:10 - The problem with Jordan Peterson struggling to answer this question is that he's viewing it through the lens that the bible has to make sense in SOME way. So, rather than approaching it like anything else and seeing that it's absurd on its face, like all of the christians that came before him, he looks for any reason he can find to confirm what the bible is saying. And because it's so incredibly unlikely, the only way to make any sense of it whatsoever is to claim it's metaphorical. And then you're only limited by your imagination.
I agree, the crowd was a distraction. Debates like this don't benefit from emotional response. People have chosen their side long beforehand and don't often want to change sides regardless of anything.
@@cyrushyram5673 yeah. Why do we have to choose sides? That's friggin retarded, man. Can't we keep a neutral position until we hear and understand what they're saying?
So, I have watched this twice, with pauses to let some of the arguments sink in. This is absolutely hard, amazing, deep and satisfying. I`m really grateful to live in a time and place where debates like this exist and are shared with the broader audience.
This kind of debate only happens when both parties have the skill and intellect to debate and present ideas clearly and with respect. Too many times one side doesnt have the required skill or persuasiveness and often resorts to repeating the same argument or insulting the other side. Sam and Jordan are modern day titans, a joy to watch
@@user-cr5yv5ho2i Benzodiazapine withdrawal. Look up his youtube channel, a few months ago he posted an update with his daughter interviewing him. They explain a lot of it.
Or that there wouldn't be a missing pixel near the center of the frame (pretty sure whoever had the camera on Jordan has a camera with a busy image sensor)
@Janusz Reguła You're obviously not very versed in sound engineering if you can't hear that all of the audio is side stereo information, there's nothing in the middle and that's why it sounds the way it does. A pop filter would LITERALLY do nothing. You probably just said that because that's the only "sound engineering" tool you know of. Dude you need to learn , its okay to just say nothing if you don't know what you're talking about
@Janusz Reguła "A simple pop filter would go a long way." No it wouldn't, there's no "esses" or over dynamic consonants in the audio. Also you can not attach a pop filter to a hand held microphone, all pop filters attach to a stand. Your argument is completely null.
it's crazy how much I love the type of communication sam and jordan manage to achieve.. so much understanding of the other, respectful teasing, the ability to go in and out of various types of metaphors / wordings.. the *best*
Gottado St personally, the length at which the applause happens does not generally matter, interruption of the discussion though... I do not like. I agree that they are a small amount of the video but they without fail happen after Jordan or Sam state their case of respond to one another.
These two will never run out of things to talk about. I love how they are discussing about events, words, ideas, religion, and every other part of our everyday life at a resolution that is extremely rare. All the things they talked about here are very cliche, yet never have I broken them down to their very foundations. It feels like I know more and more about the things I already know, but at the end of the process of knowing, I feel that I do not know a single bit. I am very much in awe of these two.
I wanted to watch this, but first I had to define what I meant by 'Watch' in a post visual hypothetical society. Once I had redefined the word to a point that I could recognise it's value in what was now a quasi religious experience, I discovered that I had rendered language devoid of any real meaning, and had to imagine what was said through a veil of treaties from modernistic idealogues of an imagined apocalypse.
@Z Rhoads If you don't think Pengburn is gonna copystrike him, given how greedy they are - and considering how even Shapiro striked his videos, I've got bad news for you buddy.
4:00 safe word 6:59 how to discuss with someone 10:10 might be easier to establish initial agreement on things to avoid than in things to achieve 10:43 Moral Realism 12:26 Religious dogmatism is taken as praise 15:07 argument against the idea of atheism being the culprit of 20th cen atrocities 19:14 on the phenomenology of the spiritual experience 21:56 on the service of atrocity rooted in belief 24:33 people not stuck on tribalism, but religious beliefs that are able to commit atrocities in its name 26:53 what religious fundamentalists claim 28:52 most of what it is in religious texts is not humanities best 31:24 making religious beliefs palatable makes people grounded on iron age discussions that do not help further pursue better ideas 33:28 a better command for the 10 commandments 35:33 on the different issues that arise when applying the written dogmas on a practical level when trying to advance scientific research 36:44 are there religious ideas that when taken through a current lens are undeniably wrong? 42:00 does the old testament and its brutal parts gets superseded by everything written in the new testament? 44:00 the problem with finding important psychological runes in the ruble is that it makes you cherry pick stuff that you consider good or bad and avoid the entire narrative you might be defending if reading every sentence considering the intention or twist meant in its end
Jordan should have just ended the debate by saying the Quran/Bible should not be taken seriously and faith based organized religion is a problem that should be solved, not encouraged. Religion such as Judaism is fine, their holy text(old testament) is fine, but it should not be taken absolutely literally and should not rule your life.
@@mediatour8898 what do you mean by “taken seriously”? Do you mean ALL aspects of those books? Attributes such as humility, charity, kindness, patience, etc taught in the New Testament and Quran should certainly be taken seriously, i would say. The Sermon on the Mount has had incredible benefits to society. Before the concepts of forgiveness taught in the NT, people were being stoned quite regularly. Society has come quite a long way since…
@@mediatour8898 I've given up trying to understand if Jordan believes in god or not. His point seems to be "god is essential and you better believe, but he's a metaphor".
@@nixonwasframed Do you not understand that Peterson earns a living by telling religious zealots exactly what they want to hear? Have you ever heard of this profession? Motivational speakers are basically actors. Your all- consuming adoration of Jordan Peterson is 😂.
It's just a shame that Sam Harris is a complete and utter dunce and has no clue about the religions he is discussing. It is like listening to a talking Gold Fish insulting Kung Fu and saying it's not acceptable in 2020. He talked so much shit it's as if all 3 of his meals per day are literal dog turd. He is condescending, clueless and wrong about many things in regards to Islam primarily, and no doubt about Christianity too. It's comical to listen to an Atheist speak about religions. You have to have the I.Q. of a peanut to actually listen to anything he says. If you want to know about a religion you do your own research, and not listen to somebody who is lying / or has read a made up monkey version of something they class as the genuine scripture.
@@wildcatR4WR there isn't a single claim about islam that he got right somewhere around the first hour for example...we believe in jesus we just don't believe he's a God
Don't read the comments. Judge and examine the conversation based on your own resources and merits. Allow your conclusions to arise from there. (feel free to read much later, like days. A recommendation)
Wow. I never thought about that. That my perception of the whole conversation could be influenced by the comments even if they are illogical. Thank you so much for that impulse!
I just want to say that I've never seen Peterson this excited to have a conversation about difficult topics with other people before. He's skipping over words, speaking quickly to the point where his thinking is faster than what he's saying (a verbal language of excitement and humor). He's on the same level of conversation as Harris is, and for the most part he's been trying to actively get on the same level of agreement as Harris, and let that negotiate the direction of their arguments. Such a great talk. It's great to see Peterson have fun.
I agree, it is nice to see the excitement and enthusiasm, but they are not on the same level of conversation. On "Religion", while Peterson discusses the inner world, Harris is fixated on the outer.
That’s because (I think) that Sam doesn’t come from a place of resentment and hatred but genuine thirst for understanding and acceptance of ideas, and he goes deeper into his own understanding and tries to articulate himself and express himself honestly with Peterson without it being an attack on him but rather on the idea presented by him.
I've often thought that Jordan Peterson is re-thinking his position and giving his audience his current thoughts on a subject, even if the thought just occurred to him, rather than just pitching the same idea on every subject every time it comes up. And so he speaks fast, to keep up with his brain, and we can see when he is satisfied with how the idea came across.
@@harshpherwani6590 I rather believe that their main difference is temperamental rather than ideological. Sam thinks we can come up with a moral system independent of world religions and Peterson argues we should still preserve that which is valuable from the past. Basically, Peterson has a conservative position which historically has been more correct from my own understanding. For comparison, the abandonment of Greek philosophy with the goal of trying to figure out morality from scratch during the dark ages had terrible consequences for Europe. The same happened during the rise of communism. Basically, how Peterson always says: drastic chances of society based in ideology lead to catastrophes. Sam is more liberal, he is hopeful humanity can easily transition into better moral systems which although extremely desirable hardly ever happens swiftly or peacefully. So again the main difference between both their views is how they perceive the willingness and ability of humanity to change and find out what's best. This is overestimated by one while underestimated by the other.
@@harshpherwani6590 I will also add that there is a nice physics analogy to this better than the one the presenter used. Basically, all physics students are thought Galilean relativity. It is wrong and outdated but it works good enough for most applications. Special relativity could be taught instead by it would add a layer of complexity unnecessary for most things and even then, it is always better understood from the Galilean one. So you usually get a review of Galilean before doing special so you know what motivated the ideas, context is important in science. I think Galilean relativity is used by most people like they use religion, it is wrong and outdated but good enough for most things and even if you want to come up with a better version, you better understand the bias you already have from it. This is basically how I see Peterson argument. Sam is that kid in every class that will always argue teaching Galilean is delaying our understanding of the subject because it is just wrong and we would rather just teach the right ideas from the start so new generations start with the most recent bias. Sure that may work but new generations may also forget what has already been tried and try it again. There is merit to both ideas.
I don’t know how many times I have listened to this discussion. Each time I do, I feel like I’m listening to it the first time. This is a really good discussion.
@Wiliam Forsythe ...no. no its not. This isn't 2 and a half men or the big bang theory. You came out with some hostility dude, calling someone am imbecile like that, chill.
Ten synonyms for "like"? Wow! Here are some- breed, class, description, feather, genre, ilk, kidney, kind, manner, nature, order, sort, species, strain, stripe, type, variety Not sure where "feather" fits in... But I hope that you breed remember them instead of class using "like" in every sentence. And I hope your high-school graduation will go OK.
The brain uses a very stable amount of calories (Around 100g glucose, which is 400 kcal per day. Or around 17 kcal per hour). No matter if u think a lot and solve complex problems or not. The rate of energy usage by the brain is quite stable. This is because your brain is always working and processing. For example: When u are just walking, the brain interacts with the nervous system, which controls all your movements. When u are sleeping your brain processes and stores all the things experienced during the day. There is a small variance in the energy rate the brain uses. But not a noteworthy difference.
@@renedaniels9195 That's interesting, but probably applies on the average (non-stressful situations). The reason I bring it up is, for example, there are studies on how grandmasters burn up to 6k calories in a chess tournament per day. You can draw parallels to how this debate is like a chess match of two minds.
these are the kind of conversations me and my friends would have in high school when we would get high and go to Denny's, except we thought we were much smarter then we really we're
for sure, then you keep having them. and if you keep learning and growing, they'll get even wilder than when you were kids. never stop wondering, nor dreaming, even when you're old. life is empty without it
The audience literally forfeited their q&a to listen to these people discuss this topic. This is true humanity. I have asked myself so many of these questions they are asking each other. What's so amazing to me is that even though I mostly agree with Harris in this debate, I have learned so much from both of them just by observing this discourse. I live in an amazing time.
Everyone in that audience understood the assignment. They knew the smartest people in the room were already covering everything, and no question they could ask would add anything more constructive than what these two (and their moderator) were already in the midst of. Very proud of that audience for letting them continue, and have the utmost respect for them all.
@@tkk3852 You think? My worldview is more like Peterson but I think Harris made some damn good arguments that I can respekt and think about - even if I don‘t agree
“Audience claps and cheers” yet they don’t even understand the point being made for both sides. Audience shouldn’t make a sound. They all need to be muted.
Yep, you don't clap during your lecture in university... this audience is very bad, but they did pay to get in so they believe they are entitled to cheer...
Just to play devils advocate for a minute. Are not some of the arguments put forward criticising religious dogma not also applicable to the US Constitution? For example just try debating a change to the second amendment and see what happens.
47:13 IF YOU COULD NOT READ THE BIBLE CHRONOLOGY* If the Bible is more or less a “library” and you walked into it, not knowing the timeline, would we as a society have came to the same conclusions?
Travis Pangburn's business model goes something like this: First, create a product for which there is HUGE demand and excitement. Then wait until all the excitement about that product has completely died out and is replaced with utter frustration about the unnecessary delay, THEN release the product. A debate is not an Iphone. The excitement for a debate doesn't grow the longer you wait with the release after the debate has already taken place because a debate looses its relevance after two months.
+streglof - Lol! That sounds about right. An alternate reason; The foundations of his own beliefs was so shaken it irks him to release the debate at all.
I'm not even sure what point Sam is attempting to make here. that we can derive morals from nihilism/atheism? that abandoning religion is supposed to make it a better world? that his criticisms of religion and its social consequences somehow disprove the existence of god? I mean clearly, atheistic communism is responsible for over 150+ million deaths in a small fragment of the 20th century. clearly, secular governments and motives are responsible for far more deaths and misery in history than primarily religious motives. Sam Harris' arguments work well on the uninformed, they're hypothetical ideas kind of like ideas of Utopia are hypothetical that don't translate into reality. but I can see how mouth foaming clueless atheists support him, they're man-children that haven't cleaned up their room, going after a TJ Kirk template. Sam is a great wizard with words, that makes useless, simplistic and irrelevant analogies to compare against complex problems.,,,,,,,,.,...........................,
Completely agreed. I would go even further and suggest his actions may have even harmed the entire IDW phenomena, by slowing the momentum previously garnered.
People seem to enjoy this debate but I found it mostly frustrating, as im noticing is usually the case with any debate with Peterson. Its pretty perplexing that people hold his point of view in this arena to such a high regard considering how minced into oblivion most of his thoughts are. Maybe people are satisfied with such vague apologies of religion since they might be easily adopted to a variety of ideologies, plus theyre notoriously slippery when put to any standard of questioning. Peterson answers a straight forward question with a smoothie blend of impressive, opaque words and then acts triumphant. People seem to eat it up.
,.,.,I'm not even sure what point Sam is attempting to make here. that we can derive morals from nihilism/atheism? that abandoning religion is supposed to make it a better world? that his criticisms of religion and its social consequences somehow disprove the existence of god? I mean clearly, atheistic communism is responsible for over 150+ million deaths in a small fragment of the 20th century. clearly, secular governments and motives are responsible for far more deaths and misery in history than primarily religious motives. Sam Harris' arguments work well on the uninformed, they're hypothetical ideas kind of like ideas of Utopia are hypothetical that don't translate into reality. but I can see how mouth foaming clueless atheists support him, they're man-children that haven't cleaned up their room, going after a TJ Kirk template. Sam is a great wizard with words, that makes useless, simplistic and irrelevant analogies to compare against complex problems.,.,...........
Andrew P you’ve really missed the point if that’s your conclusion of Harris, are you needing to cling to your god that tightly in order to be so blind?
I wonder if either of the speakers would agree that them being smart is the reason for the refreshing feeling. I am pretty sure intelligence is one of those fallacious dogmas taken as factual that they would both object to defining sexual selection. Maybe it's just the level of effort to seek the truth that we find refreshing. And maybe one had it more than the other.
Jesus all these people in the comments picking sides like it's a football match. Adults can disagree and still talk amicably and more importantly productively people. Let's not contaminate intellectual discussions with tribalism like almost everything else these days please. Harris, Peterson and Weinstein are breaths of fresh air at their best and thought provoking at their worst. As soon as you start taking up one corner loudly you become the ideologue attached to an heuristic (the heuristic being one man's explanations), and succumb to exactly the problems of un-adaptability all three men denounced. Have some self awareness.
Indeed! I recently started watching these debate videos, and there are so many tribalism being displayed everywhere in the comment section. If you get the core message from ANYONE in the debate and that somehow contributed to your life in a good way, then GREAT! No need to shove that down someone's throat. I mean, it's nice to share something you think is good, but don't involve hate and tyranny with it. That's called irony... Peterson brought really great points about the questions I had on this concept of God. I was raised in Christian family, and I HATED going to church. Wasting my time listening to the sermons that made less sense than what I myself learned from Bible (and so much circular reasoning). "Believe because you need to believe" they say... But Peterson says God is actually something each individual sets: the unknown or the potential. I especially liked his lecture video about "tragedy vs evil", as I personally really like Buddhist teachings: one of them being "Life is a sea of pain(suffering)" Tying that idea with the idea of God was quite brilliant, as it really made sense. Many people said the similar teachings to me in the past, including my dad, but it just didn't have the same punch. It never got to my core. But the way Peterson tells the story, the roundabout way with many stories and histories, allowed ME to connect the dots. (compared to someone else just flat out saying it) The fact that he always try to make sure what the real intent behind a person's question is is another thing that impressed me. I wouldn't say I am a particular person's fanboy. However, I did look up lots of Peterson's video recently (thanks to my recent questioning on my own meaning of life), including the ones that people who antagonize him recommended (the one where he loses a debate against Matt Dillahunty according to some comments in random articles I found on Google). Some vids I wanted to mention: I really appreciated "Munk Debate" with Stephen Fry: Well, in this video Stephen Fry was the main character. I was in total awe of his delivery. The pastor... I would say, he was a comedian, but not a debater... he was too offensive andin my opinion, shallow with his arguments. Maybe more facts could have helped? And a debate with Matt Dillahunty: Matt does a fascinating job in articulating his argument. There are moments where Peterson seem like he is dodging the issue, and there are also moments Matt does the same. I think the definition of religion in Peterson's mind and Matt's mind are very different, and thus the argument kept spinning between the two. I really liked the Q&A section, as that brought out much more of a speech from each person. If you have another awesome person you would like to recommend, please let me know! And lastly, I highly recommend looking up clips of Peterson talking about Disney films! Especially Pinocchio, Beauty and the Beast, and Peter Pan. These really made me appreciate art more than anything. Truth be told, I thought those films were just child's movies until I saw the lectures.
I agree - of course. I atill happen to think that Sam Harris has an annoying habit of holding on to speech time and trying to get applauses, but discussing manners (like letting the other finish their sentence without interrupting) has become really rare and he's not the only one making that mistake. He's just in this context the most annoying that way I think. I otherwise enjoyed the debate. Cheers.
But surely you see the irony in taking a reasonable position and defending it to an unreasonable degree, or to the point where you shut out reasonable criticism to that position.
yeah, after watching the London and Dublin talks, they were much better on this front. And it's sad because I'm from Vancouver, and wasn't able to land a ticket to see these dudes talk.
I think the key issue with the crowds at these places is that they’re treating intellectualism like something extraordinary and although in today’s time it is out of the norm to be well spoken and knowledgeable in several topics in generations prior it was actually normal and not something worth cheering or making a big deal about. It seems the crowd is so excited by points being made that they don’t take the time to process what was said and instead clap for everything they feel is a punch line or an uppercut to the other guys argument. It’s childish and stinks of group think.
Yeah, I feel like it incentivizes short crowd-pleasing cliche's that people are already familiar with and disincentivizes positions unpopular with the audience. People want to cheer for positions they already hold and arguments they're already familiar with.
The classrooms of our universities have devolved into such tragic shape! We can hope they watch the rerun in years to come and come to your conclusion. Thank you. Well said!
Pay attention to those little idiosyncracies. THey're scattered all throughout this sort of content on the internet. The internet and the discussion it allows is incredible. Unfortunately, it's all being manipulated to serve a very small groups agenda. Group think is exactly what's going on here. Nothing new, been going on for over 30,000 years. This type o shit is designed to make you feel smarter just for watching it. You' really didnt learn anything accept perhaps a good lesson in conversing and discussing topics. It's the little bits around the edges, the crowd, the subtle direction of tone the moderator does. The handlers of this world (if you will) are incredibly skilled at managing the thought process of the general public, one month, one year at a time. Over carfully structured plans that span centuries. It's interesting to contemplate the levels here. Personally, I wonder if we didn't invent all the gods themselves, embuing them with a type of non-physical consciousness simply with all the devoted psychic worship. Thats what gods need to grow in power, isnt it? Blind faith. Blind faith has real power. THese believers are sending REAL psychic power to these made up personas. A lot of modern nuero-science and quantum physics suggests this may be the case. That the collective psychic energy takes on a sort of independent autonomy and thus, the gods can actually manifest in the lives of worshippers. It would explain why the gods behave so much like unruly children rather than omnipotent, perfect immortals. Will be exciting to see how our understanding of the matter rolls out over the next century.
Seeing men of science being treated as rock stars is such a cool thing to see. Most likely they felt a bit uncomfortable at first but I'm pretty sure they loved it at the end. They deserve it!
That is pretty problematic considering that incourages holding their theories and opinions in too high of regard to question. The opposite of what science is about.
Don't worry, RUclips's recommender AI knows how to keep you clicking to get your required dosage of ads. Somewhere a Silicon Valley billionaire is laughing at us. Somewhere as in Silicon Valley.
I sometimes wonder how Peterson finds his way home. Because, what is 'home'? It could take quite a while to unpack that. And by 'way'...don't get me started....
I love this format, I think it’s in some ways more powerful than a book on the subject. It’s not so well thought on wordings and depth (as it’s real-time), but having two contrasting perspectives constantly pushing each other’s boundaries and cross-checking its assumptions is the biggest value. Was thinking of ways to improve the experience, helping brain graspability maybe combining multiple senses. What about a visual design of the axioms and navigated logical lines to make them more easily falsifiable? Is there any sort of template developed for this type of application? 🤔 A real-time access to validation resources to check for flaws would also be nice… edit: I found out about Argunet, which is really cool but it's not quite exactly like the framework I envisioned. Would be nice to have a way to organize claims with tags, backing up by axioms and evidences with sources, vote on the most relevant claims attributing grades, list conclusions with some metadata info using path to reach info, automated rebuttals or warning alerts for any sort of fallacy with LLMs... side notes: - I'm a systems engineering guy, prob that's why I think there should be a more structured method for debate. - Some topics don't reach a universal truth, but there's room for improvement to facilitate picking a side. - Crazy how society advanced in some specific fields and the debate framework stays the same since the beginning. - This is a stage exhibition planned for public entertainment, spontaneity is key, the fair conflict between minds is what engages the primal spark of interest rooted in the codex of our genes, but still there could be more strong truth-seeking elements.
First five minutes in hearing Sam say he wants to express his motive for being there brought me hope for humanity. More people need to be this aware and open.
@@zazzyz4558 I agree. It was fairly clear that he was listening to respond rather than to understand. Especially with him cutting off Jordan to shoot one-liners, crowd-pleasers, and thinly veiled digs at Jordan and his ideas. Sam's a smart guy, there's no question about that, but he also seems fairly ego driven and close minded.
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](/img/tr.png)
NEW EVENT! THE ANTISCIENCE OF GOD? Lawrence Krauss & Stephen Hicks ruclips.net/video/extbcWCnhxU/видео.htmlsi=zbwVhOBBgwxLtB1e
I had to rewatch this series of debates and listen to Peterson's lectures on Maps and Meaning and his biblical series before I could even attempt to comment, but here goes:
I think the main point that Peterson was trying to convey to Harris was that religion appears to have developed organically over the course of human history as a way to preserve and communicate abstract ideas and concepts that can reduce suffering and promote success in life in those who act them out. He tends to define these ideas and concepts as values (e.g. fairplay, honesty, etc), which we use in our daily lives as a moral compass for our actions. As a personal example, I train jiu jitsu every morning at 6 AM because I value physical fitness, fairplay, and strategy, which I hope will ultimately help me in my endeavor to live a meaningful life. The act of doing something we value is in Peterson's definition, religious. Therefore, he assets that even atheists tend to live a religious life because they act on values that they hold dear to their person.
Harris seems to assert that we as humans, have the ability to extract the same values that Peterson defined without the need for interpretation of the stories in religious texts like the bible. On top of that, he cites that dogmatic and literal interpretation of some stories has shown to be disastrous throughout history-responsible for war and death. There are plenty of examples such as the Inquisition, the anabaptist revolt in Muenster, the Buddhist/Hindu civil war in Sri Lanka, and ISIS. Therefore, I believe Harris concludes that if we can assume that humans can synthesize the "good" values in life without the need for religion, we should- the risk is otherwise too great.
Peterson's counter claim is that it is likely impossible for humans to be able to do away with religion and synthesize our own values. He's cited Nietzsche and post modernists like Derrida or Foucault often, claiming that social systems such as communism fail to address human impulsive tendencies and propensities for evil, which are not values, per se, but are addressed as vital and fundamental parts of most ( I say most because I'm not qualified to assert all) of the world's religions. Therefore, Peterson concludes that there remains significant value in respecting and acting out religious logos because they also help to recognize and reduce acts of malice.
So they're talking past each other, in some sense. I think the real question is: Assuming Peterson and Harris are correct, how can we implement religions without devolving into literal interpretations? I think they found the answer when they agreed to it at the beginning- free and frank speech.
I wonder if anyone will read this....
Great summary of this debate. Thank you.
What's funny to me is that Peterson heavily reference Mircea Eliade, who was a fascist and anti-semite and whose work was later proven to be biased, because among other things it lacked any empirical evidence.
Also I'm just being curious have you read Foucault's Les Mots et les Choses ? Because the way Peterson's use Foucault to prove this point is quite a twist.
Also to claim that religion help recognize and reduce acts of malice is the same thing as claiming that north korea's regime does.
Great summary, I tend agree with Harris more than Peterson. Religion, while it may be beneficial in some situations, poses a much larger threat to humanity as we move forward. It lays foundation for tribalism, asserts outdated moral truths, and allows humans to disregard the importance of this life in preference for the afterlife. I see no reason as to why we must derive a solid moral foundation from a belief system with an all powerful deity at the center.
This summary is so good I'm tempted to not even watch the debate lol
Perfect comment. Your conclusion was pretty much the issue with all these debates. They leave out the "what to do next" question.
As a semi truck driver these talks make my 16hr day effortless
Safe journeys bro.
@@spockboythank you
Pay attention to the rd
@@patcummings5778 listening to music or this I prefer this
Right? All I do when i drive is listen to debates and lectures
After carefully analysing both perspectives and most of the axioms upon which the ramifications of their arguments were constructed, I can accurately conclude that they were trying to call each other gay.
😂
lol
If only Valentine could have been the moderator 😂
I feel intellectually compelled not to laugh at this but ...😂😂
@@edom7817 theres always some truth in humor and they never said no homo so...
Jordan Peterson: *wiggles hand menacingly*
Sam Harris: *eyebrow raising intensifies*
😂😂😂😂
🤣🤣🤣🤣 accurate
😂😂😂
The winner is anyone who came away from the discussion having sharpened their thinking.
Thabo Tshu so I lost?!!
Aye aye sir, that IS theeee point. Not which speaker won.
I agree to the point this is a subset of all winners ;]
Well, that would make him the loser since the true winner would be anybody who did not need their mind sharpening from this almost completely pointless debate (due to Jordan refusing to answer questions). If your mind was equally sharp before and after this video, then you are the real winner. Yes, it means you didn't learn anything from it... but, there is nothing to learn from this that you shouldn't have already known, in essence.
Thabo Tshuma, By that logic, Jordan Peterson is the winner.
Glad he's come closer to reality.
I think the tendency to pick sides between these two is a mistake. Harris is correct that religious fundamentalism carries the potential for serious danger and must be kept in check. Peterson is right that pure, unadulterated logic is not a sufficient ground for establishing universal ethics. The proper takeaway isn't to choose a side here, in my opinion. The proper takeaway is to be grateful that these two men are able to discuss these things in a rational, intelligent manner and that we are all lucky enough to learn from it. The world needs both of these men.
Cahya I didn't say I don't have a preference, I said that the tendency to draw tribal lines is unfortunate
Doctor Bringus - It's a bad way to approach any learning endeavour. If you take sides it's as though you are working from a preconceived conceptual framework that is rigid and dogmatic and it becomes difficult to allow new information in. It's quite ironic because it's the very thing both of them warn against.
I don't necessarily think it's bad to pick sides-after all, Jordan and Sam are on different sides, themselves-problems arise when either side is denied the right to speak, or when whole lines of dialogue are (dogmatically) closed off, etc.
Cahya you think you're smart because you can make a generalization about comments that maybe similar. Similarity doesn't guarantee the same intent or meaning. Just because his comment is similar to others that argue against taking sides, doesn't mean they are all trying to accomplish the same things. Way to add to the conversation!
Cahya really? That straw man is the best you can do?
When you're out with the boys and someone mentions the Bible
underated man
Loooool nice one
Coding in Flow - Haha! 😂
@J A limited time and a huge topic. At first, I thought he was acting that way too but then I thought about how prepared he was and realized he just had a lot to say with limited time. He was trying to get to the core of the difference and agree upon the similarities. I don't think it was a good discussion in some ways because of the dodging but he definitely is not demented or absent-minded and that's evidenced by how well he took the time to understand each question and honestly each word.
@J A While harris seems like a pundit of popular opinion, knowing that if he focusing on JPs religious views he can put him on the backfoot.
The winner in this debate is every viewer who learned something from both parties.
Caius Cosades this is most certainly true.
Ah very wise words Solomon!
Put some clothes on Causios and give me a quest to fight bigger foes than rats
@@Lopeirada Bigger than rats you say... There's this guy called crassius...
@Doctor Drywell You just did that yourself, what the actual f-?
Imagine presidential candidates having debates on complex topics like this.
Yes, imagine Trump even just coversing in a civil manner:)
most Americans probably wouldn't even care to see candidates get this deep
I dont think trump and biden have the intellectual capacity to debate topics like this one
Imagine politicians not knowing anything about anything
@@nimim.markomikkila1673 just as unlikely as any other politition just not lying conciously
I don't like it when the audience mistakes an intellectual discussion with a rap battle.
Wait, this wasn't rap?
Lol
I'm hoping somewhere, someone is dubbing this debate with a beat
It's all about your team winning.
Some of us enjoy debates the way others enjoy sports or rap battles
I realized that I've never really had a conversation.
Man that's deep. But still you can begin the process today. It's an amazing thing to open your life up to, and your relationships will improve.
It can be tough when the people you’re surrounded by aren’t interested in having conversations deeper than the latest football stats.
😂
😂
facts
Ben stiller really evolved into a well read intellectual.
Hahahahhahahq
Lol good one Mate
I saw ben stiller and immediately thought "oh, there must be a comment about that already". Looked down and the comment showing was this one.
He is very rational, I’m more of a Jordan Peterson guy myself.
@@3stripeboy shouldn't we all.
One of the few talks where the moderator is as intelligent as the interviewees and where he is truly able to summarize the positions of both in a common context. Compliments!
Isn’t that Bret Weinstein? He’s an intellectual as well
Bret Weinstein has an interview with Joe rogan where mr Peterson is present too.
I agree wholeheartedly. I had to research him. I appreciate his presence so much.
Truly.
If you're going to moderate a discussion between peterson and harris then you better be an intellectual. Bret and his brother Eric are highly intellectual.
I think Ben Stiller made some good points.
Which one is Ben Stiller?
This cracked me up :D
Unfortunately I was having a mouthful of salad in my mouth when I read your comment. Now I`m cleaning it off the monitor...
BEN STILLER GOT WOKE
Hahahahaha. Never saw the resemblance till now lol
Jordan Peterson is entertaining to listen to and a good debater/conversationalist, but at the end of the day, he tries to make very reasonable and rational arguments for very irrational and unreasonable things.
I don't know how much you know about Jungian Psychology, but Jordan and Sam are actually the same personality type (INFJ), which is probably why they clash so much. I am one too, and while I appreciate Jordan's ability to be so intensely open-minded about what on the face value are very clear, concise texts, I prefer Sam Harris. I don't feel like Sam is always constantly trying to be the smartest brain in the room.
I’m blown away that we can watch this for free..
I do it everyday
Because it’s not worth more than that.
@@sarahmcbeth9156 What do you mean?
@@sarahmcbeth9156 it's worth your time to get online,watch the debate and the leave a shitty comment on youtube you lifeless dumbass
@@alirezadoroudi9126 how could have possibly known that it not worth than free, without listening to it first?! The fact that dumb fucking losers like you are their fans proves my point. Now STFU
The moderator is amazing. After one hour of back and forth discussion he just steps in and in 5 minutes makes everyone agree.
well that's because it's not just any moderator, it's Bret Weinstein, someone who i'd easily put on the same level of the other two intellectually.
@LWKGD that wasn't my point
because Brett is as intelligent as they are
Brett is most likely the smartest man in the building
The moderator stepped in and made everyone agree? You mean he made Jordan agree with Sam because Jordan is sounded like a blithering moron before that point?
the fact that i'm not a native speaker of english but yet able to enjoy this conversation. learning the language is one of the best things I've ever done in my life.
Me too.
🤣🤣🤪
These characters do not exist, you must have a lot of spare time, on your MILs patio. Take Peterson's advice-act like an adult, live your own life, stop existing on her dime. You have serious mental health problems.
Where from?
@@Parlefalk Turkey or as we call it Türkiye
We gave away 8000 meals this Christmas 😊 Here is the video ruclips.net/video/wd1Qv7AzuBw/видео.htmlsi=VBwdhN2tbt-DSQvw
Exactly Jordan You can not extract one sentence and isolate it from the rest of the Bible That is the most significant aspect but Weinstein must consider Matt 5 in relationship to wars And Harris need to tie slavery to sex is his problem
Harris again is almost childish not to understand how the old and new interact purposely. Also that Harris who is cavalier about some portions of scripture are written by God while others are written by smart men is incoherent
we gave away 8,001 meals last Christmas. and?
You want a cookie ?
@@toowavyydotbiz douchebag
Whoever put this together, recorded it and released it... helped more people than they realize.
"Please, do not recored this" 😅
Intellectualizing is another good way to distract yourself.
The ether that takes place allows you to be more self serving.
@@inhisname8395 Literally not related to the comment at all
It help me realise that sam dont have enough knowledge about Islam.
@@asifurrahamansajon8777 Islam, like any religion, does not hold any knowledge.
All one can know is that it's bullshit.
Having enough knowledge to sustain a debate like this for hours on end must be an intellectual goal of life. There are a very few select number of people alive who can do it. By 'it' i mean debating on philosophically deep ideologies and notions. Here i am, on my bed, trying to write this comment with as much literary flair as possible, waiting for my noodles to cook.
Were the noodles
any good?
@@_gongon Yes they were. The trick is to know what spices to add in addition to the packaged flavouring
Ey, I ate noodles while watching this too.
@@memeswereablessingfromthel3942 Lämp
@@h0axyboi486 REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
conversation does not require applause
Highly agree, applauding when both sides are open to each other simply conversing to find an agreement is 100% unnecessary and it only does a disservice to the ones having the conversation
Totally agreed. Applause seems to indicate that there is a competition going on. This is meant to be a collaboration. I prefer Sam Harris' work to Peterson's, but I take no glee when Sam makes a solid point that might run contrary to Peterson's ideas. I just genuinely want to hear what Peterson's response might be... because maybe he has an answer to it. This tribalistic bullshit needs to stop.
Most people are self centered, emotional and impulsive, or a combination of a multitude of other unattractive traits. They can get excited when they feel like it was their idea, or speaks to their personal philosophy, a nod to their intellectual prowess. The fact that they aren't on the stage emotionally pressures, like an addiction, their desire to be a part of the debate. They applaud for self validation of their own awesomeness. Applauding during an intellectual discussion, or debate is extremely unattractive, distracting, selfish, and entirely unhelpful to what these titans are trying to accomplish for humanity. In summation, applause at a debate is poopy crap.
you people are sad
Yeah! Like those people was watching a wrestling match rather than intellectual arguments between two perfectly valid points of view
Jordan explained very well how god selects which sports team will win the league, and Sam explained very well that one sports team will win the league whether god exists or not
you're breaking it to your audience?
unironic Laugh Out Loud
This comment made me laugh out loud. Spot on.
There is no good reason to cheer or boo in a debate between two people. All it does is distract and interupt.
I agree with you, but people in general want to hear things that justify their beliefs, and in turn, want to be heard with their token show of support for what they just heard. Just explaining why, I think it happens, but again, I agree with you totally. . .
America! Fuck yeah!!!
There shouldn't be an audience then if you dont want reactions
pre. c. - You are so right .
I think it was partly responsible for some of the firey competitiveness we saw in this debate. If these two were having this conversation at a coffee shop with nobody listening it's unlikely it would have been as in-depth or debate-like as this recording. Sam Harris was particularly encouraged by it. It did start to get distracting by the end when it was every 20 seconds instead of every 5 minutes.
I always wondered what English sounds like to non-English speakers, so I just watched this video.
@@dennisziabkin9735 The reason he rambles is because he is trying to figure out a response/solution to something that most of the time has no solution in regards to religion. So he goes in circles trying to explain the unexplainable.
@@jimmytimmy3680 I like Peterson, but I have to agree with you. He loves word salad. It's one way of evading a direct response.
@@tcrown3333 i like him too. I have watched most of his videos because they have an inmense utility and has a great intellect. Although, the only thing I dislike is his strong attachment to religion, which, I would say has about 80% nonsense, and he like any religious person, defends 100% of it. That's is when they can't explain the nonsense and they just ramble nonsense too.
@@jimmytimmy3680 HE doesn't even come close to defending 100% of it. Choose your words carefully.
Also a Peterson fan but he definitely plays word games on the topic of religion. Listening to him answer the question "do you believe in God" is cringe inducing.
Weinsteins instinct to spot logical inconsistencies is really useful here.
Does saying shit like this make you feel animated?
Dude, what?
LMAO
I knew he'd be really good for it too as soon as I saw him with Peterson on Rogan's podcast.
Scotty's Bottom are you trying to say his comment only has the purpose of trying to portray himelf as smart?
If Jordan were applying his religious method as an astrophysicist, his method for discovering time travel would be to start by saying time travel is real, and then working his way backward through fictional texts to it's discovery
Your analogy is so brilliant that I don't think any other form of diagnosis of JP's falacy could explain it more clearly
👏
@@Ben-bg2lp oh, but he has so many other fallacies. I am still amazed how a human being of a seemingly sound mind and quite logical and argumentative in other areas as JP is, completely sheds all of these tools when it comes to defending religion and goes full blast rogue on logic. I was so glad that Sam unveiled what he did there with JP's eloquent, but basically rant on what his view of god is. He just invented the god that he thinks that would be ok to have, which so many sensible religious people HAVE to do nowadays, because otherwise it makes no sense, except to the fundamentalists which believe exactly what is written. JP simply changed the meaning of what god is. I mean if he questions the resurrection, and all other fix dogmas, automatically he is a heretic. Oh Jordan! This is where you show us your limitations as a human being. And it's natural. We all have limitations. But here he showed it so clearly, that it made himself get pissed off like a child in the last part when the audience appreciated the quality of Sam's piercing argumentation.
@@prematrans7682 In his books and lectures he explicitly admits it is not clear to him what truth is! He gives the example where telling an ugly person "you're unattractive" is not telling the truth, which sounds nice but is extremely treacherous. There he's giving himself permission to basically tell what he considers to be white lies.
Now consider that he admits in both Vancouver and London that stupid people need religion (he caveats it in London with the smoke screen that "but we're all stupid🙄") because not everyone is capable of having a moral compass based in reality. These two evidences substantiate to me that he DOES NOT BELIEVE IN A GOD, but is compassionately appeasing to the majority stupid populus in the hope to keep them in line.
This is the kind of evil who created religion in the first place in my estimation. The wealthy who need to maintain the status quo (1 Peter 2:18), preventing the people from coming to the conclusion that they have nothing to lose but their chains.
This is the same reason why he is against Universal Basic Income by taxing the top tax bracket; not because it can possibly cause inflation, but because"if you keep giving people free money, they'll do drugs and alcohol". Something you'd hear from a man who has never been worried about making rent.
I have always found it funny that JP uses fiction books as if they were facts, and I'm not talking about the bible, which we all know is fiction 😂
Physics and Ethics are very different fields. Physics has to be tackled from a strictly literal point, whereas ethics don’t because ethics is an abstract concept. I can’t see any other way to explore abstract concepts than to create scenarios where they might be applied and exemplified, and, in fact, there would be no compelling fiction if exploring the nuances of ethics wasn’t a frequently employed story element.
I’m guessing Sam Harris is your guy. Why can’t you take a page from his book and be respectful to your idealogical opponents instead of being condescending and smug?
I really hate this format of debate with cheering crowd like it’s a sporting event
I've come to realise that it seems to just be the american way.
@@Sl4gyster vancouver is in canada
@@Sl4gyster it’s almost impossible to keep people quiet unless you’re at Carnegie hall lol. There’s no issue with ppl expressing their support/lack there of thru clapping and cheering for small bits of time. It feels like an actual discussion because humans have passion. Before you twist my words, things shouldn’t be based in emotion when debating facts. That’s clearly not what I’m saying.
@@Sl4gyster do you know geography? Must be an American thing to know geography
@jsauce 93 I don’t know if I would assign that as an American thing. Have you ever seen a British parliament debate?
Other than how phenomenal this discourse is, it's so nice to see intellectual, even-tempered people in the comments. It's a very rare thing on the internet.
It would be even nicer if people would Honor their example of Civil Discourse by the usual Human Nature way of EMULATION.🤓😎
o i can change that if u want XD
Just pointing that out means you have a toxic mentality. Sad but true.
🙄
Who asked ya?! Lol! Just kiddin
a two hour lecture/discussion between top scholars with over 2million views. that's wonderful! we're not all lost after all
Adriano Muricy About half the viewers believed Sam was right so were still pretty lost.
@@joeyherp6257 about half the population looks at RUclips makeup artists as role models and they get 30+ million views in hours. That's a little scarier then the people here agreeing with Sam.
BR?
Well, not really top scholars lol, just popular speakers. Sam Harris is regarded by actual philosophers as a hack (not because they dislike his "profound ideas" or he rattles cages somehow, but because he's just bad at doing philosophy and makes bad arguments). Plenty of discussions on both of these guys as far as philosophy goes on r/askphilosophy (because people love asking questions about them there...)
Harris is a good book writer, Jordan Peterson is a good psychologist and presumably respected in his field, but neither is a top scholar of anything along the lines of what they seem to be talking about here, e.g. ethics, religion, etc.
@@joeyherp6257 Aww look at you.. typical of a Jordan Peterson fanboy.
Gosh, we are so lucky to live in an age where we can access stuff like this so easily.
I thought the same…
And wondered if it can become any easier to consume this type of content for a human mind. Will we be able to recreate those neural synapses from the 2 hours watching but instantly done through a “package installation”? I know the infinite amount of variables, but what could be the limit here? 🤔
The interviewer was asking the right questions at the right moments, i enjoyed his eloquence
Its Bret Weinstein, a brilliant man himself
He is quite possibly the brightest guy in the room and to me the easiest to listen to lecture
That guy is a master speaker!
Having Bret Weinstein as your moderator is like having Gordon Ramsay as your waiter
I believe bret, to be a literal genius.
I've never watched a debate between two intellectuals and thought...Thank god the moderator is here to provide an interpretation.
He did a great job.
@Amey Tiwari what does back then means?
@Amey Tiwari
I think Sam declared they don't exist.
@Amey Tiwari
I don't waste any time on him.
It doesn’t matter “who won” what matters is that these topics are being conversed in a healthy, mature and intellectual way like so.
not at all, sam's argument was based on solid logic, JP was full of subjective crap.
So TRUE, I am getting tired of all the videos out there with titles like "Jordan destroys X" or "Whoever owns Y", it's not the point to see who wins what, it's a matter of getting closer to the truth or reason.
Yep! Thank you
@@jessieg5877 why are you even commenting this.. it only shows you have tunnel vision.
I believe you are right about decrying the notion that "winning" is what's important in this conversation. After all, it's technically not a debate. However, it does matter who has the better ideas, and anyone who comes out of this conversation thinking that JP had the better ideas is just deluding themselves. One of the main problems with JP and Shapiro is that they fancy themselves as intellectuals and thought-leaders, but they have one foot in rationality and one foot in ancient dogmatism. When they debate or have a conversation with someone like SH, that issue gets put on full display. Jordan was floundering on stage like a fish out of water when he was put into a position of defending the bible's abhorrent stance on slavery. At this point, anyone who still looks to JP for insightful, compelling rhetoric is sadly being sold snake-oil. This is the man who said on Joe Rogan's podcast that he didn't sleep for twenty-five days because he drank apple cider. Fucking apple cider, folks. He said that he had a feeling of impending doom because of an allergic reaction to sulfites and did not sleep for nearly a month. This man has a PhD for fuck's sake. Joe even gave him a chance to clean up what he said and walk it back as an exaggeration. He didn't budge. This is the man that people who detest so-called "beta males" look to for insight. What is more "beta male" that being taken down for a month by fucking apple cider? This guy is a carnival barker of the highest order.
I am an hour into the debate, and Jordan has yet to make a single clear point. He instead just dances around Harris’ questions the entire time, how can people respect this man.
?
You know the moderator is good when you forget that he's there
However, it's only possible when the participants are civil though, and themselves understand the idea of an actual debate.
So, it goes both ways I guess.
or the participants
The moderator was barely there in the Trump debate, and look what happens
Yeah, the guy is an actual genius
You know the moderator is good when he’s Bret Weinstein
Jordan's answer to what a prayer being answered would look like reminds me of the time a Wiccan told me, "I have a great spell for getting a job: work on your resume, study your craft, dress well and show up early with the necessary paperwork, offer a strong handshake with good eye contact, and really listen to the interviewer."
Your prayers are always answered as long as you understand that “No” is an answer.
Not sure why it would remind you of that..?
What that Wiccan told you was essentially a "roll up your sleeves, get busy, and you'll see results"-attitude, no middle-man necessary. As much as I like Dr. Peterson, his constant attempts at invoking a sense of solid foundation to his stance that these religions should not be dismissed as merely man-made bears no resemblance, as far as I can tell, to what that Wiccan told you in this case?
@@sirriffsalot4158 maybe I didn't explain the connection well. It seemed to me like what he was really saying is that really caring about something, focusing all energies on it, respecting it, and giving it all you have is how you get it. No magic pill, no easy button, but tons of possibilities for anyone who really wholly commits to what they want. Seemed in line with the idea that a prayer, an actual prayer, requires that the one praying be actually willing to make good on the answer, even if it's hard or requires sacrifice, which it will.
@@JD-lj4gt
Aha, well then, fair enough! I can't help but imagine Sam chiming in though, as a result, with something like
"Well, so... where does the spell part come in here exactly?" Haha! :-D
Peace out!
@@sirriffsalot4158 Some people like the idea of there being a spell to motivate them where as other people simply want a simple list of instructions to get what they want but would depress someone who wants the spell. At the end of the day I'll use either to get people to do what I want and don't care if it sounds stupid or extra as long as it works and that's just what I learned from dealing with people
The fact that a video like this has 3.1 million views (July 2020), actually makes me very happy and hopeful about today’s modern society and admiration for genuine hunger towards truth.
Not enough.
But the real question is how many of them watched the entire video.
Totally agree!
isn't that like 0.05% of our specie?
It makes you happy that debates are seen as entertainment nowadays? Great...
Jordan has a slight amount of "angst" when the crowd admonishes Sam's points while Sam does not react to Jordans admonishment.
Jordan is also an idiot, so there’s that.
THIS is what an honest discussion looks like. Nobody falling back on bad faith arguments or trying to smear the other persons character. Honesty, integrity, compassion and respect.
Harris was kind of trying to smear, be honest.
@@123443213099 yeah he seemed to me as rude.
@@123443213099 how so?
I agree...this is a good conversation but, faith is inevitable, no matter what you think. Neither party can prove his position, especially Mr Harris. What upsets me is...a naturalist's world view takes far more faith than a religious worldview. The problem is, academia is brutally dishonest! The scientific evidence supports intelligent design, not darwinism or whatever
@@Soknik01 at 43:00 harris clearly sets him up for a weak "gotcha".
peterson was trying to support his assertion that the new testament is an example of evolving dogma (which it IS), and Harris drove him into a corner where his only options were to stand by his assertion and continue his thought, or to disparage the entire Jewish faith and community. from a purely academic point of view peterson likely could have continued quite easily... but from a practical point of view, to make such a statement would be absolutely suicidal as a public figure.
Peterson is already mislabeled enough... i don't think he needs everyone having this little clip as a basis to claim he is anti-Semitic as well.
such tactics in a debate are usually considered low, rude, and ultimately limit the flow of free thought,
Overall though, i still think Harris was a solid match for peterson (who is guilty of his own debate sins as well) and both parties held themselves and each other to an acceptable standard of discourse.
The audience seems to clap at the most anticlimactic of times, almost like they don't understand when someone has made a valid point. If it takes Jordan and Sam 5 seconds or so at least to think through what the other has said, I doubt everyone in the audience has figured out if what was said is correct almost instantly. I suspect they don't really understand what is being said, but just clap if it sounds like a good point is being made. It makes me cringe at some points.
HappyGhetto the applause in general sort of bothers me. It sounds like drunks at an rock concert or something, not an attentive audience at a debate.
They're thinking of a response not if it is a valid point. I like the applause.
You could have done a better job of making this point.
@Antonio deCarmoducci I don't think that, and I never said that. I just noticed that the clapping was weird and out of place, and it frames the debate like an intellectual MMA fight where there needs to be a winner and loser instead of just two smart people having an interesting and productive conversation.
@@GeorgeKiernan awesome
Brett: "You've got two minutes."
Jordan: "Well it depends on what you mean by minutes."
Sean Haggard lol
lmao
Such an oversimplification time as a linear progression disregards the metaphysical substrate upon which the reality of self referential and fundamentally subjective time measurement...
@@williamedstrom5681 Are you quoting empty vessel Jordan Peterson,
or are people beginning to sound like him???
Yes - his digressions are irritating after a while...
I do love the conversation. I do wish our politicians would discuss issues this deeply and thoughtfully.
Literally the only thing I didn't enjoy about this is the crowd
Edit: fellas, this was just a passing thought during a good debate. It's a minor grevience. It doesn't take away from the debate entirely and it definitely doesn't warrant calling the audience dumb or "imbeciles".
Shashank K same here. I prefer an intimate discussion because audience makes it a competition in a way with the clapping and laughing.
True, the collective audience was reprehensible. Childish and frightened. They were so bad that I would have guessed this took place in America.
Shashank K at least they voted for the conversation to continue 😅
@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579 True. The one thing they did right was to realize that allowing themselves to ask questions would be a complete disaster.
Dr_Owen Maestro I would have guessed it took place on the back of a van truck in Texas on the way to drinks 😂
How dare they hold these philosophical discussions without Kanye.
Mrs. Lisa Williams hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
i knew it was missing something
Lol brilliant
Finally someone with some good sense! Hahaha
I recently heard that Kanye has never read a book. I can't even imagine life without great literature.
Mrs. Lisa Williams 😂
This is fantastic. We are so lucky to be able to hear this type of higher level thinking discussed openly an made available on RUclips. Long live long form dialogue via Podcasts, RUclips, etc. The death of biased CNN and FoxNews is near and we will all become smarter as a result.
Let's accelerate toward that.
That would be great. But it wont happen. They ll have their own long forms and they ll make it somehow more easily consumable and then they ll take over again. Its called scripting.
I sure hope so. I think that the problem should be fixed from the bottom up. Teach people how to think critically, not just trust anything that is on tv, and also accept being wrong as the important part of the learning process that it actually is, instead of making people fear being wrong like so many do.
Yes and no... I fear the algorithms on yt and fb etc narrow rather than expand our views & interests with their suggestions, which results in only seeing content with your point of view ( unless you actively seek otherwise). this process i think is leading to more polarization...
Austin Parrish amen
00:03 Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris discuss morality and ethics
09:22 The dangers of dogmatism and ideology in authoritarian regimes
25:23 Religious fundamentalists confuse literal interpretation with ultimate truth
33:27 The difficulty of fighting slavery in Islam and the importance of humanism and secularism
47:50 The hero is born at the darkest point of the journey and truthful words lead to salvation.
56:47 Understanding and imagination are vastly different.
1:11:02 Religious texts as inferences for well-being
1:18:34 Interpretation of religious texts and its impact on moral belief system
00:03 The discussion covers the concept of God and answered prayer
1:40:47 Moral intuitions function as universal truths across contexts.
2:03:07 The Enlightenment has a long evolutionary history
Excellent discussion. I was very impressed with Bret Weinstein’s ability to deeply comprehend both points of view in real time and simplistically point out to the audience what the parties disagreed on. Worthwhile watch.
Yeah, I was definitely impressed with ability as well. I had to rewatch several segments of the dialogue just to follow along.
at all! the moderator just keep interfering when the parts were making their best points against the opponent.
I enjoyed hearing both Harris' and Peterson's points of view. But I was really impressed with Brett Weinstein's ability as a moderator here.
Yes Brett deserves a credit too
The man is a genius in his own right
The most constructive moderator I've ever seen; Without him, everybody including the debate parties would have been lost within the first 30 minutes.
Plus he made up for audience questions with some good ones of his own.
@@minzblatt ya.. I really wanted at least 1 audience Q&A in their 4 debates (8 hours) but never got it.
Brett is a Professor of Evolutionary Biology
JP's idea of God is not the Christian idea of God, but he's still clinging to the identity of a Christian, because a lot of his audience wouldn't be happy if he didn't. Sam doesn't seem to want to say this directly but that is what appears to be the case.
Except he's not a Christian
never have i seen a moderator grab our attention so much while just doing his job. that man is a legend.
Bret weinstein is a treasure for sure. Super smart guy in his own right with a really interesting story behind his own "claim to fame"
@@Fuckingboredrn I might look him up, he's awesome
22:38 I thought he was going to say, "ya bul Dee dee dee, That's All Folks."
😂
@@killercuddles7051 lol you crazy
👍🏻🌹
This is "so what you're saying" done right. Not used to attack but used to understand the position of the person you are having a conversation with.
Well using it to attack often times also works by constructing a straw man of the original argument, by making the original argument weeker and then debating it. However its not a very glorious way to win a discussion.
So what you're saying is that these individuals should stop letting each other walk all over each other and defend their points with irrational conviction...
unlike radical leftists
@@awesomebydefault3877 Modern "iNtTelKShUalS" are masters at bastardizing the Socratic method and using cheap reciprocation to simply confuse you into conceding rather than actually making their own point. That's not what Peterson did here. He took control of the entire debate QUICK in the first two minutes by placing the burden of truth on Harris. No trickery. No unwarranted aggression. No word twisting. No insults. No sarcasm or snark. I see nothing wrong with it. All he did was put Harris in a place where he has to defend his book.
People are complaining about the crowd. Isn’t it wonderful that people are so passionate about this. That’s something special! Thousands of people and millions on RUclips watching and listening to highly intellectual conversations :)
Yeah but when I'm sitting here for 2 hours it's a little distracting. I appreciate the enthusiasm but Weinstein as the host should of shut it down. I'm trying to learn here dammit. Not listen to a clap track
all shouting Barabbas..........
I think the passion and the applause are wonderful. I wish I could be there and clap when a point is made that I could not voice myself. These topics are difficult to discuss. I think that's why we listen to intellectuals like this, because they have a way of conveying messages that many of us struggle to get out. And it's just a breath of fresh air for me. To hear passionate people get excited about these kinds of ideas. I unfortunately don't find much of that where I am. So I say yeah!!! woot woot!!! - Go Team Harris Go!!! lol
KnockdownWheel I love both Sam and Jordan but when it comes to religion I can’t follow Peterson. He’s still brilliant tho :’)
@@victorarstad3570 Agreed on all accounts 👍😊
1:54:10 - The problem with Jordan Peterson struggling to answer this question is that he's viewing it through the lens that the bible has to make sense in SOME way. So, rather than approaching it like anything else and seeing that it's absurd on its face, like all of the christians that came before him, he looks for any reason he can find to confirm what the bible is saying. And because it's so incredibly unlikely, the only way to make any sense of it whatsoever is to claim it's metaphorical. And then you're only limited by your imagination.
These sorts of discussions are so profound, that I can happily blame my procrastination on them
Couldn't say it better man
Absolutely, what could possibly be more profound than the Supernatural?
The objects of professional finders.
I meant to respond sooner.
The amount of applause after almost every statement really takes away from the discussion.
I agree, the crowd was a distraction. Debates like this don't benefit from emotional response. People have chosen their side long beforehand and don't often want to change sides regardless of anything.
@@cyrushyram5673 yeah. Why do we have to choose sides? That's friggin retarded, man. Can't we keep a neutral position until we hear and understand what they're saying?
Usually the amount of applause in an audience like this is directly proportionate to the degree of confirmation bias. People love echo chambers.
Yeah fuck crowds
@@cyrushyram5673 agreed
So, I have watched this twice, with pauses to let some of the arguments sink in. This is absolutely hard, amazing, deep and satisfying. I`m really grateful to live in a time and place where debates like this exist and are shared with the broader audience.
@1 2 yes but not as readily as it is now.. This is intact the true age of information, although there is a lot of trash out there :P
So you enjoy pointless word salad by halfwitted frauds?
@1 2 not for debates silly...centuries.
@@gorryman better than Soyboyz and red hair girls cries and screams...
@@gorryman seriously!
This kind of debate only happens when both parties have the skill and intellect to debate and present ideas clearly and with respect. Too many times one side doesnt have the required skill or persuasiveness and often resorts to repeating the same argument or insulting the other side. Sam and Jordan are modern day titans, a joy to watch
That's true. Very civil and calm debate unlike the political debates where both politicians and journalists scream.
my brain feels like it's benching 350 watching these two dig into it. so thankful for all of this.
lol, benching 350...nice
matthew daniel Siskin do you even lift
peridot vegas lol I do yoga and read piles of books bud. Lift I do not.
@@nahyeahwhatsahandle calm down there little sonshine. take a breather.
This debate should have been held now, with covid-19 restrictions taking the audience away...
I’d much rather take you’re wife away
I agree, the audience is annoying
Wouldn't be possible. Peterson's been extremely sick for quite some time.
@@Pete0621 do u know what caused him to be sick?
@@user-cr5yv5ho2i Benzodiazapine withdrawal. Look up his youtube channel, a few months ago he posted an update with his daughter interviewing him. They explain a lot of it.
Considering how important these guys are, one would think the sound engineering would be better.
I literally was going to say the same thing until I saw your comment.
Or that there wouldn't be a missing pixel near the center of the frame (pretty sure whoever had the camera on Jordan has a camera with a busy image sensor)
@Janusz Reguła collar mic with a noise gate, about £20 would be fine also,,
@Janusz Reguła You're obviously not very versed in sound engineering if you can't hear that all of the audio is side stereo information, there's nothing in the middle and that's why it sounds the way it does. A pop filter would LITERALLY do nothing. You probably just said that because that's the only "sound engineering" tool you know of. Dude you need to learn , its okay to just say nothing if you don't know what you're talking about
@Janusz Reguła "A simple pop filter would go a long way." No it wouldn't, there's no "esses" or over dynamic consonants in the audio. Also you can not attach a pop filter to a hand held microphone, all pop filters attach to a stand. Your argument is completely null.
it's crazy how much I love the type of communication sam and jordan manage to achieve.. so much understanding of the other, respectful teasing, the ability to go in and out of various types of metaphors / wordings.. the *best*
When I speak like that, my mother tells me it makes me seem unapproachable. 😭
I don’t like the applause. I just want to listen to these men have an intelligent conversation.
Cmon they’re a fraction of the video
Gottado St personally, the length at which the applause happens does not generally matter, interruption of the discussion though... I do not like. I agree that they are a small amount of the video but they without fail happen after Jordan or Sam state their case of respond to one another.
The tribal christianity-herd. Simple as that. Hopeless 😩
Alls Greta , I hear that Sam Harris tribe clapping away too..
Too bad.
These two will never run out of things to talk about. I love how they are discussing about events, words, ideas, religion, and every other part of our everyday life at a resolution that is extremely rare. All the things they talked about here are very cliche, yet never have I broken them down to their very foundations. It feels like I know more and more about the things I already know, but at the end of the process of knowing, I feel that I do not know a single bit. I am very much in awe of these two.
Me too, Bro
I wanted to watch this, but first I had to define what I meant by 'Watch' in a post visual hypothetical society. Once I had redefined the word to a point that I could recognise it's value in what was now a quasi religious experience, I discovered that I had rendered language devoid of any real meaning, and had to imagine what was said through a veil of treaties from modernistic idealogues of an imagined apocalypse.
😂😂😂
Haha best comment so far
Haa haa haa thanks > So right on. Their ability to create complexity out of simplicity is staggering!
Clean your room.
Wash your penis.
Haha
Thanks!
Yes.
Found you. Be nice :D
Nice! Can't wait...
*No*
Because it's unlisted.
@Z Rhoads If you don't think Pengburn is gonna copystrike him, given how greedy they are - and considering how even Shapiro striked his videos, I've got bad news for you buddy.
sometimes you have to take one and fight it for the greater good
4:00 safe word
6:59 how to discuss with someone
10:10 might be easier to establish initial agreement on things to avoid than in things to achieve
10:43 Moral Realism
12:26 Religious dogmatism is taken as praise
15:07 argument against the idea of atheism being the culprit of 20th cen atrocities
19:14 on the phenomenology of the spiritual experience
21:56 on the service of atrocity rooted in belief
24:33 people not stuck on tribalism, but religious beliefs that are able to commit atrocities in its name
26:53 what religious fundamentalists claim
28:52 most of what it is in religious texts is not humanities best
31:24 making religious beliefs palatable makes people grounded on iron age discussions that do not help further pursue better ideas
33:28 a better command for the 10 commandments
35:33 on the different issues that arise when applying the written dogmas on a practical level when trying to advance scientific research
36:44 are there religious ideas that when taken through a current lens are undeniably wrong?
42:00 does the old testament and its brutal parts gets superseded by everything written in the new testament?
44:00 the problem with finding important psychological runes in the ruble is that it makes you cherry pick stuff that you consider good or bad and avoid the entire narrative you might be defending if reading every sentence considering the intention or twist meant in its end
Yoo thanks dude
Jordan should have just ended the debate by saying the Quran/Bible should not be taken seriously and faith based organized religion is a problem that should be solved, not encouraged. Religion such as Judaism is fine, their holy text(old testament) is fine, but it should not be taken absolutely literally and should not rule your life.
@@mediatour8898 what do you mean by “taken seriously”? Do you mean ALL aspects of those books? Attributes such as humility, charity, kindness, patience, etc taught in the New Testament and Quran should certainly be taken seriously, i would say. The Sermon on the Mount has had incredible benefits to society. Before the concepts of forgiveness taught in the NT, people were being stoned quite regularly. Society has come quite a long way since…
@@mediatour8898 I've given up trying to understand if Jordan believes in god or not. His point seems to be "god is essential and you better believe, but he's a metaphor".
@@nixonwasframed Do you not understand that Peterson earns a living by telling religious zealots exactly what they want to hear? Have you ever heard of this profession? Motivational speakers are basically actors. Your all- consuming adoration of Jordan Peterson is 😂.
This is one of the most meaningful discussions I have ever had the pleasure of listening to. Thank you, Jordan, Sam, and Bret.
It's just a shame that Sam Harris is a complete and utter dunce and has no clue about the religions he is discussing.
It is like listening to a talking Gold Fish insulting Kung Fu and saying it's not acceptable in 2020. He talked so much shit it's as if all 3 of his meals per day are literal dog turd. He is condescending, clueless and wrong about many things in regards to Islam primarily, and no doubt about Christianity too. It's comical to listen to an Atheist speak about religions. You have to have the I.Q. of a peanut to actually listen to anything he says. If you want to know about a religion you do your own research, and not listen to somebody who is lying / or has read a made up monkey version of something they class as the genuine scripture.
@@Worms_Pro Would you care to exemplify that response of yours with what he's wrong about?
@@wildcatR4WR there isn't a single claim about islam that he got right somewhere around the first hour for example...we believe in jesus we just don't believe he's a God
@@Worms_Pro exactly
@@reembagadi7875 I don't think that claim was of much relevance to the conversation
The question regarding religious totalitarianism versus secular totalitarianism by Peterson was the pinnacle of this discussion.
Don't read the comments. Judge and examine the conversation based on your own resources and merits. Allow your conclusions to arise from there.
(feel free to read much later, like days. A recommendation)
Good advice. People tend to flow with whatever the majority is saying.
Except for yours of course.
@@shelbukowski1443 Ironically, yea xD
JML689 I don’t usually comment but this is excellent advice, thank you for this.
Wow. I never thought about that. That my perception of the whole conversation could be influenced by the comments even if they are illogical. Thank you so much for that impulse!
and you thought you were having deep, well articulated conversations with your friends, drunk at 5am
HAHAHAHAHAHA
So damn true lmfao
Guilty as charged
I slam bitches pussies out!
Lol yes
I just want to say that I've never seen Peterson this excited to have a conversation about difficult topics with other people before. He's skipping over words, speaking quickly to the point where his thinking is faster than what he's saying (a verbal language of excitement and humor). He's on the same level of conversation as Harris is, and for the most part he's been trying to actively get on the same level of agreement as Harris, and let that negotiate the direction of their arguments.
Such a great talk. It's great to see Peterson have fun.
I agree, it is nice to see the excitement and enthusiasm, but they are not on the same level of conversation. On "Religion", while Peterson discusses the inner world, Harris is fixated on the outer.
That’s because (I think) that Sam doesn’t come from a place of resentment and hatred but genuine thirst for understanding and acceptance of ideas, and he goes deeper into his own understanding and tries to articulate himself and express himself honestly with Peterson without it being an attack on him but rather on the idea presented by him.
I've often thought that Jordan Peterson is re-thinking his position and giving his audience his current thoughts on a subject, even if the thought just occurred to him, rather than just pitching the same idea on every subject every time it comes up. And so he speaks fast, to keep up with his brain, and we can see when he is satisfied with how the idea came across.
@@harshpherwani6590 I rather believe that their main difference is temperamental rather than ideological. Sam thinks we can come up with a moral system independent of world religions and Peterson argues we should still preserve that which is valuable from the past. Basically, Peterson has a conservative position which historically has been more correct from my own understanding. For comparison, the abandonment of Greek philosophy with the goal of trying to figure out morality from scratch during the dark ages had terrible consequences for Europe. The same happened during the rise of communism. Basically, how Peterson always says: drastic chances of society based in ideology lead to catastrophes. Sam is more liberal, he is hopeful humanity can easily transition into better moral systems which although extremely desirable hardly ever happens swiftly or peacefully. So again the main difference between both their views is how they perceive the willingness and ability of humanity to change and find out what's best. This is overestimated by one while underestimated by the other.
@@harshpherwani6590 I will also add that there is a nice physics analogy to this better than the one the presenter used. Basically, all physics students are thought Galilean relativity. It is wrong and outdated but it works good enough for most applications. Special relativity could be taught instead by it would add a layer of complexity unnecessary for most things and even then, it is always better understood from the Galilean one. So you usually get a review of Galilean before doing special so you know what motivated the ideas, context is important in science. I think Galilean relativity is used by most people like they use religion, it is wrong and outdated but good enough for most things and even if you want to come up with a better version, you better understand the bias you already have from it. This is basically how I see Peterson argument. Sam is that kid in every class that will always argue teaching Galilean is delaying our understanding of the subject because it is just wrong and we would rather just teach the right ideas from the start so new generations start with the most recent bias. Sure that may work but new generations may also forget what has already been tried and try it again. There is merit to both ideas.
I don’t know how many times I have listened to this discussion. Each time I do, I feel like I’m listening to it the first time. This is a really good discussion.
I just don't understand why the audiences thinks they're at a football game
I've seen worse, like the peterson-zizek Debate
an intellectual debate is exciting live
Because it takes place in North America, where life is a football game
@@johnjungkook2721 life is a football game here yea
@Wiliam Forsythe ...no. no its not. This isn't 2 and a half men or the big bang theory. You came out with some hostility dude, calling someone am imbecile like that, chill.
I learned like 10 new words listening to this
Dogma dogma dogma dogma
Ten synonyms for "like"? Wow!
Here are some- breed, class, description, feather, genre, ilk, kidney, kind, manner, nature, order, sort, species, strain, stripe, type, variety
Not sure where "feather" fits in...
But I hope that you breed remember them instead of class using "like" in every sentence. And I hope your high-school graduation will go OK.
Phantasmagoria.
Is that just because the other 100 big words you've never heard before just went over your head like they did mine?
Can you list the words you learnt?
These guys must've burned many calories by thinking so deeply and articulating their (very complex) thoughts so eloquently. Truly amazing..
Nah the new atheists just mock and make fun not really a debate.
You cant put Harris on nearly the same level as Peterson.
In fact, smart people burn less calories when they do mental work....
Read to while listening to Sam say "You want to end this on masturbation!?"
The brain uses a very stable amount of calories (Around 100g glucose, which is 400 kcal per day. Or around 17 kcal per hour). No matter if u think a lot and solve complex problems or not. The rate of energy usage by the brain is quite stable. This is because your brain is always working and processing. For example: When u are just walking, the brain interacts with the nervous system, which controls all your movements. When u are sleeping your brain processes and stores all the things experienced during the day.
There is a small variance in the energy rate the brain uses. But not a noteworthy difference.
@@renedaniels9195 That's interesting, but probably applies on the average (non-stressful situations). The reason I bring it up is, for example, there are studies on how grandmasters burn up to 6k calories in a chess tournament per day. You can draw parallels to how this debate is like a chess match of two minds.
I'm playing a drinking game where I take a drink where JP wiggles his fingers while talking, or says "hierarchy", "axiom", or "presuppositions".
Don’t forget “Dictum”
are you dead? that’s a dangerous game to play my friend
Metaphysical substrate
Dictum? I hardly know him!
these are the kind of conversations me and my friends would have in high school when we would get high and go to Denny's, except we thought we were much smarter then we really we're
XD
Have a great day ahead of you! 😄
God Bless! Stay strong, stay safe and take care of yourselves! Wishing everyone the best! 😇 💗
for sure, then you keep having them. and if you keep learning and growing, they'll get even wilder than when you were kids. never stop wondering, nor dreaming, even when you're old. life is empty without it
Always strive to have conversations like this with people smarter than you
You should listen to it when you are high, it makes sense a lot more
@Henry-Bart why do you exist
The audience literally forfeited their q&a to listen to these people discuss this topic. This is true humanity. I have asked myself so many of these questions they are asking each other.
What's so amazing to me is that even though I mostly agree with Harris in this debate, I have learned so much from both of them just by observing this discourse. I live in an amazing time.
Everyone in that audience understood the assignment. They knew the smartest people in the room were already covering everything, and no question they could ask would add anything more constructive than what these two (and their moderator) were already in the midst of. Very proud of that audience for letting them continue, and have the utmost respect for them all.
Harris was destroyed in this debate.
@@tkk3852 if that’s true then by contrast, Peterson was literally killed in this debate.
@@tkk3852 lol DESTROYED
@@tkk3852 You think? My worldview is more like Peterson but I think Harris made some damn good arguments that I can respekt and think about - even if I don‘t agree
“Audience claps and cheers” yet they don’t even understand the point being made for both sides.
Audience shouldn’t make a sound. They all need to be muted.
The audience was getting on my nerves too. This isn’t a sport, it’s two intellectuals working through ideas together.
Yep, you don't clap during your lecture in university... this audience is very bad, but they did pay to get in so they believe they are entitled to cheer...
While I agree can’t really blame them. This could have been done without an audience but someone chose for it to have one.
Just to play devils advocate for a minute. Are not some of the arguments put forward criticising religious dogma not also applicable to the US Constitution? For example just try debating a change to the second amendment and see what happens.
@@bluetoad2668 your comment has nothing to do with the thread.
47:13 IF YOU COULD NOT READ THE BIBLE CHRONOLOGY*
If the Bible is more or less a “library” and you walked into it, not knowing the timeline, would we as a society have came to the same conclusions?
Travis Pangburn's business model goes something like this: First, create a product for which there is HUGE demand and excitement. Then wait until all the excitement about that product has completely died out and is replaced with utter frustration about the unnecessary delay, THEN release the product. A debate is not an Iphone. The excitement for a debate doesn't grow the longer you wait with the release after the debate has already taken place because a debate looses its relevance after two months.
+streglof - Lol! That sounds about right. An alternate reason; The foundations of his own beliefs was so shaken it irks him to release the debate at all.
whoever gets excited about the new iphone probably has to clean their room
I'm not even sure what point Sam is attempting to make here. that we can derive morals from nihilism/atheism? that abandoning religion is supposed to make it a better world? that his criticisms of religion and its social consequences somehow disprove the existence of god? I mean clearly, atheistic communism is responsible for over 150+ million deaths in a small fragment of the 20th century. clearly, secular governments and motives are responsible for far more deaths and misery in history than primarily religious motives. Sam Harris' arguments work well on the uninformed, they're hypothetical ideas kind of like ideas of Utopia are hypothetical that don't translate into reality. but I can see how mouth foaming clueless atheists support him, they're man-children that haven't cleaned up their room, going after a TJ Kirk template. Sam is a great wizard with words, that makes useless, simplistic and irrelevant analogies to compare against complex problems.,,,,,,,,.,...........................,
Completely agreed. I would go even further and suggest his actions may have even harmed the entire IDW phenomena, by slowing the momentum previously garnered.
Andrew P 4th time seeing this same comment in the comments.. lame 😒 not even funny anymore
Hope you’re cleaning your room
The moderator deserves credit. He is really good. He's really good on summarizing both's point justicely and directing this.
Kudos to the moderator. He was able to follow and distill their arguments so well, and snip off seemingly endless loops with sharp questions
Breit Weinstein does alot of his own stuff if you want to see his work
Brett is a Professor of Evolutionary Biology
he’s an equal to jordan & sam
Well articulated
People seem to enjoy this debate but I found it mostly frustrating, as im noticing is usually the case with any debate with Peterson. Its pretty perplexing that people hold his point of view in this arena to such a high regard considering how minced into oblivion most of his thoughts are. Maybe people are satisfied with such vague apologies of religion since they might be easily adopted to a variety of ideologies, plus theyre notoriously slippery when put to any standard of questioning. Peterson answers a straight forward question with a smoothie blend of impressive, opaque words and then acts triumphant. People seem to eat it up.
To the point. -- and yes.
90's Quality Cameras, Constant Feedback Humming on the Background.
That's the exclusive and high priced Pangbumm quality.
It's the Pangburn philosophy!
,.,.,I'm not even sure what point Sam is attempting to make here. that we can derive morals from nihilism/atheism? that abandoning religion is supposed to make it a better world? that his criticisms of religion and its social consequences somehow disprove the existence of god? I mean clearly, atheistic communism is responsible for over 150+ million deaths in a small fragment of the 20th century. clearly, secular governments and motives are responsible for far more deaths and misery in history than primarily religious motives. Sam Harris' arguments work well on the uninformed, they're hypothetical ideas kind of like ideas of Utopia are hypothetical that don't translate into reality. but I can see how mouth foaming clueless atheists support him, they're man-children that haven't cleaned up their room, going after a TJ Kirk template. Sam is a great wizard with words, that makes useless, simplistic and irrelevant analogies to compare against complex problems.,.,...........
Andrew P you’ve really missed the point if that’s your conclusion of Harris, are you needing to cling to your god that tightly in order to be so blind?
Pure ASMR.
better than nothing
Man this is the first time I saw JP actually getting excited talking to someone and challenged! Love to see
You should see his conversation with Russell Brand on the podcast "under the skin"
Matt Dillahunty exposed him as the pseudo-intellectual he is.
@@charlescheeseborough298 Be careful picking a fight with JP fans, they’ll viscously defend him to the death in all the stupidest ways.
@@Giosue3465 I know. Lol
@@Giosue3465 kind of like Sam Harris fans 🤷🏻♂️
I totally forgot how refreshing it can be to watch two really smart people have a discussion
Me too. I wish there was more of it.❤️
I wonder if either of the speakers would agree that them being smart is the reason for the refreshing feeling. I am pretty sure intelligence is one of those fallacious dogmas taken as factual that they would both object to defining sexual selection. Maybe it's just the level of effort to seek the truth that we find refreshing. And maybe one had it more than the other.
And not just smart, but respectful.
Calling Jordan Peterson smart, lmao you're funny
That's not how you spell "one".
A wonderful demonstration of the art of conversation that is so rare between differing points of view.
Jesus all these people in the comments picking sides like it's a football match. Adults can disagree and still talk amicably and more importantly productively people. Let's not contaminate intellectual discussions with tribalism like almost everything else these days please. Harris, Peterson and Weinstein are breaths of fresh air at their best and thought provoking at their worst. As soon as you start taking up one corner loudly you become the ideologue attached to an heuristic (the heuristic being one man's explanations), and succumb to exactly the problems of un-adaptability all three men denounced. Have some self awareness.
Indeed!
I recently started watching these debate videos, and there are so many tribalism being displayed everywhere in the comment section.
If you get the core message from ANYONE in the debate and that somehow contributed to your life in a good way, then GREAT!
No need to shove that down someone's throat.
I mean, it's nice to share something you think is good, but don't involve hate and tyranny with it. That's called irony...
Peterson brought really great points about the questions I had on this concept of God.
I was raised in Christian family, and I HATED going to church.
Wasting my time listening to the sermons that made less sense than what I myself learned from Bible (and so much circular reasoning).
"Believe because you need to believe" they say...
But Peterson says God is actually something each individual sets: the unknown or the potential.
I especially liked his lecture video about "tragedy vs evil", as I personally really like Buddhist teachings: one of them being "Life is a sea of pain(suffering)"
Tying that idea with the idea of God was quite brilliant, as it really made sense.
Many people said the similar teachings to me in the past, including my dad, but it just didn't have the same punch. It never got to my core.
But the way Peterson tells the story, the roundabout way with many stories and histories, allowed ME to connect the dots. (compared to someone else just flat out saying it)
The fact that he always try to make sure what the real intent behind a person's question is is another thing that impressed me.
I wouldn't say I am a particular person's fanboy.
However, I did look up lots of Peterson's video recently (thanks to my recent questioning on my own meaning of life), including the ones that people who antagonize him recommended (the one where he loses a debate against Matt Dillahunty according to some comments in random articles I found on Google).
Some vids I wanted to mention:
I really appreciated "Munk Debate" with Stephen Fry: Well, in this video Stephen Fry was the main character. I was in total awe of his delivery. The pastor... I would say, he was a comedian, but not a debater... he was too offensive andin my opinion, shallow with his arguments. Maybe more facts could have helped?
And a debate with Matt Dillahunty: Matt does a fascinating job in articulating his argument. There are moments where Peterson seem like he is dodging the issue, and there are also moments Matt does the same. I think the definition of religion in Peterson's mind and Matt's mind are very different, and thus the argument kept spinning between the two. I really liked the Q&A section, as that brought out much more of a speech from each person.
If you have another awesome person you would like to recommend, please let me know!
And lastly, I highly recommend looking up clips of Peterson talking about Disney films!
Especially Pinocchio, Beauty and the Beast, and Peter Pan.
These really made me appreciate art more than anything.
Truth be told, I thought those films were just child's movies until I saw the lectures.
Adults can also decide that they find one position more reasonable than another.
I agree - of course. I atill happen to think that Sam Harris has an annoying habit of holding on to speech time and trying to get applauses, but discussing manners (like letting the other finish their sentence without interrupting) has become really rare and he's not the only one making that mistake. He's just in this context the most annoying that way I think.
I otherwise enjoyed the debate. Cheers.
But surely you see the irony in taking a reasonable position and defending it to an unreasonable degree, or to the point where you shut out reasonable criticism to that position.
yeah, after watching the London and Dublin talks, they were much better on this front. And it's sad because I'm from Vancouver, and wasn't able to land a ticket to see these dudes talk.
I can not believe it took me almost 2 years to see this... Mind blowing!!!
me 2. I discovered this video when I made a typo while looking for dirty pics...er... intellectual discussions.
I think the key issue with the crowds at these places is that they’re treating intellectualism like something extraordinary and although in today’s time it is out of the norm to be well spoken and knowledgeable in several topics in generations prior it was actually normal and not something worth cheering or making a big deal about. It seems the crowd is so excited by points being made that they don’t take the time to process what was said and instead clap for everything they feel is a punch line or an uppercut to the other guys argument. It’s childish and stinks of group think.
I agree, but as you probably noticed, too. The further they get into the debate/discussion, the less it occurs, which is hopeful.
About an hour on, they get annoying again.
Yeah, I feel like it incentivizes short crowd-pleasing cliche's that people are already familiar with and disincentivizes positions unpopular with the audience. People want to cheer for positions they already hold and arguments they're already familiar with.
The classrooms of our universities have devolved into such tragic shape! We can hope they watch the rerun in years to come and come to your conclusion. Thank you. Well said!
Pay attention to those little idiosyncracies. THey're scattered all throughout this sort of content on the internet.
The internet and the discussion it allows is incredible. Unfortunately, it's all being manipulated to serve a very small groups agenda.
Group think is exactly what's going on here. Nothing new, been going on for over 30,000 years.
This type o shit is designed to make you feel smarter just for watching it. You' really didnt learn anything accept perhaps a good lesson in conversing and discussing topics.
It's the little bits around the edges, the crowd, the subtle direction of tone the moderator does. The handlers of this world (if you will) are incredibly skilled at managing the thought process of the general public, one month, one year at a time. Over carfully structured plans that span centuries.
It's interesting to contemplate the levels here.
Personally, I wonder if we didn't invent all the gods themselves, embuing them with a type of non-physical consciousness simply with all the devoted psychic worship.
Thats what gods need to grow in power, isnt it? Blind faith. Blind faith has real power. THese believers are sending REAL psychic power to these made up personas. A lot of modern nuero-science and quantum physics suggests this may be the case. That the collective psychic energy takes on a sort of independent autonomy and thus, the gods can actually manifest in the lives of worshippers. It would explain why the gods behave so much like unruly children rather than omnipotent, perfect immortals.
Will be exciting to see how our understanding of the matter rolls out over the next century.
Seeing men of science being treated as rock stars is such a cool thing to see. Most likely they felt a bit uncomfortable at first but I'm pretty sure they loved it at the end. They deserve it!
To call JBP and Harris "men of science" is a bit of a stretch.
@@MrKosobi I think the more proper term is "demagogue".
That is pretty problematic considering that incourages holding their theories and opinions in too high of regard to question. The opposite of what science is about.
A clinical psychologist and neuroscientist and some people still take issue with saying they’re scientists.
@@zackdelarocha8 If the bar for being a "scientist" is as low as you have it, then "scientist" becomes meaningless.
Thank you so much for no ads on the debate
Don't worry, RUclips's recommender AI knows how to keep you clicking to get your required dosage of ads. Somewhere a Silicon Valley billionaire is laughing at us. Somewhere as in Silicon Valley.
put ad blocker on your chrome
Commie spotted
use an adblocker you savage
I sometimes wonder how Peterson finds his way home. Because, what is 'home'? It could take quite a while to unpack that. And by 'way'...don't get me started....
Well actually 1 ! Wait 2 !!
One comment two comments Three! three! comments ha ha ha
haha great. oh and four comments
I sometimes wonder why comments on youtube are so......
@@vipersuphere now 5 comments wait 6
I love this format, I think it’s in some ways more powerful than a book on the subject. It’s not so well thought on wordings and depth (as it’s real-time), but having two contrasting perspectives constantly pushing each other’s boundaries and cross-checking its assumptions is the biggest value.
Was thinking of ways to improve the experience, helping brain graspability maybe combining multiple senses. What about a visual design of the axioms and navigated logical lines to make them more easily falsifiable? Is there any sort of template developed for this type of application? 🤔 A real-time access to validation resources to check for flaws would also be nice…
edit: I found out about Argunet, which is really cool but it's not quite exactly like the framework I envisioned.
Would be nice to have a way to organize claims with tags, backing up by axioms and evidences with sources, vote on the most relevant claims attributing grades, list conclusions with some metadata info using path to reach info, automated rebuttals or warning alerts for any sort of fallacy with LLMs...
side notes:
- I'm a systems engineering guy, prob that's why I think there should be a more structured method for debate.
- Some topics don't reach a universal truth, but there's room for improvement to facilitate picking a side.
- Crazy how society advanced in some specific fields and the debate framework stays the same since the beginning.
- This is a stage exhibition planned for public entertainment, spontaneity is key, the fair conflict between minds is what engages the primal spark of interest rooted in the codex of our genes, but still there could be more strong truth-seeking elements.
First five minutes in hearing Sam say he wants to express his motive for being there brought me hope for humanity. More people need to be this aware and open.
Fuck.yes. "I might be the problem" is an absolute MUST that you have to ask yourself if you expect to have an objective and fair view of anything.
Finally someone mentioned 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
So nice that 2 people talk about it discuss instead of pointing finger and saying its all your fault you and your party! No matter of direction.
Sam is arrogant. His smug ego makes my skin crawl. His arguments come from a fairly low level of awareness.
@@zazzyz4558 I agree. It was fairly clear that he was listening to respond rather than to understand. Especially with him cutting off Jordan to shoot one-liners, crowd-pleasers, and thinly veiled digs at Jordan and his ideas. Sam's a smart guy, there's no question about that, but he also seems fairly ego driven and close minded.