Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Jordan Peterson Discuss Sam Harris' View On Religion
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 июн 2017
- Doctor Peterson discusses some of Sam's views on religion and rationality. Jordan claims people are generally far crazier than one would think.
Source: • Free Speech, Psycholog...
Support Dave Rubin on Patreon: / rubinreport
The way I understand Jordan's argument is that it is the abstraction of the "ideal" or "God" characteristics that makes societies/cultures thrive, and that abstraction is religion. When he says "Christian" he doesn't mean it necessarily as a belief in Jesus but rather, it could be any religion or god, but it is not Atheism. His argument is that there is no place of "morals" in atheism. Thus people who act "good" are acting in accordance to an abstracted ideal (supernatural, god, religion) even if they claim to be atheists.
Exactly
Well said bro
Bingo!
Spot on I think
They are actually Jews because the first testament is Jewish. No?
When a very smart man says very foolish things, you can almost always attribute religion
bardownsnipe religious thing is not stupid, at least that is what albert einstein said
Jonny Sevent he believe in intelligent design, frankly most physicst are highly religious, no they are not in internet, and also if a scientist itself said that there is a power, then idk how you saw it
Johnny Sevent. He was religious. Science can only give the demonstratble, observable nature of the world. There is an underpinning I can describe to you easily which the most brilliant minds see like Albert. If you were inside of a computer game designed to be exactly like our world how do you prove the computer exists? You certainly can not do so through demonstrable fact. You would have to inferr truths about the world through correlation between the truths; that is philosophy. That is the only way to prove or disprove of the computer and I'll tell you what, in our real world all signs point towards one source / processor for all universal laws.
Or he tries to impress a girl
Jonny Sevent - If you fail to see the depth of the question posed then that's that.
You start by attacking character rather than entertaining the argument, you seem to be well versed in deflective nonsense.
I do agree that science tells us about our world, it is our eyes. But our observations are limited only to what we can see. You wouldn't even have a big bang theory if it wasn't for philosophy or inference of truth based on collected data points. Don't pass over such a profound question with a dismissive hand without giving it any real thought. You would do well to reconsider it for your own sake.
At 9:09 Jordan realised “damn we are in 21st century , why drink water when u can identify as hydrated”
The hydro"eminism movement tends to believe that there is favortism toward full cups, and empty cups are treated unjustly. All cups must be viewed as equal and there should be no discrimination when choosing which cup to drink.
Lmao underrated
@@cryptfire3158 Keep talking bucko, pretty soon I'm gonna have you right where I want you.
Perfect example of how dumb Peterson is, haha
9:10 Dr. Peterson uses his mind to quench his thirst. All he needed was to hold the glass of water.
Know what causes that kind of behaviour? That kind of animation?
Meth.
@@evanroberts2771 his thought patterns and processes are way too stable to be cause by meth.
@@evanroberts2771 heard this fairly recently but apparently he has a physiological issue akin to tourette's syndrome.
@@jacobstallard2678 it’s far worse it was akathisia which can be lethal . it was caused by the meds he was on to treat I believe insomnia/depression from autoimmune disorder hence having to get off them so abruptly which could’ve also killed him . They’re brutal when you can’t taper properly, but it’s only cause by the benzodiazepines
But I saw him drinking. That is his mind failed him?
Just drink the fucking water already.
fucking loled
lol right? He teased it so much I've never wanted to see someone take a drink of water so bad in my life!
9:07 till 9:27 - holds the glass for 20 seconds 1 cm from his mouth - DOES NOT TAKE A SIP - puts it back again. Haha.
+Aron lol.
This one is a classic. He's always drinking in his videos, as if he's in some desert or something. This time, he played with it. It raises the question of what he takes drinks for during his lectures. Clearly, he survived without it. It's often sodas, which of course bring in the issue of carbonation, and its hidden meaning. I think it's to purify himself, out of guilt. By articulating things, I think there is always the guilt of error, and I think that's why he purifies himself so damn many times. No one used to drink while they gave lectures; nowadays, everybody has some kind of hydration going on. I'll drink to that.
Becoming an atheist does not mean you leave behind all your culture. Culture is not entirely formed by religion.
Edit: I am baffled by the amount of people who would even argue this and fail to grasp basic concepts.
Per Sundström But Religion is the Only way to pass down morals beyond one or 2 generations.
Just look at the New Atheists: most of their parents (in some cases Grandparents) Stopped going to Church.
It's Not a coincidence morals have changed so rapidly in such a short period.
I don't agree, it's more complex than that. But even if I granted you that, passing down morals two generations is not necessarily always a good thing. I wonder what most people who like Jordan Peterson would say about other religions than Christianity being passed down.
Claiming that the New Atheism movement is the removal of our cultural tradition is, in my view, ignorant. Where is the destruction and mayhem caused by our amoral atheist societies? Some traditions are better left behind.
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the
existence of deities. You could also argue that most people don't really
have well defined beliefs until they do. So when I say "becoming an atheist" I mean you reject a belief in deities. This includes never having believed in any in the first place etc.
I would not define atheism as nothing, since it tend to exclude a lot. But at the same time, you can be a "cultural Christian" and be an atheist at the same time. Which is the case for most atheists in the western world.
Ask yourself if maybe it is you who didn't understand the answer :) People created this word for a guys who don't believe in idea of a god. So if you don't believe in any of supernatural force ruling over the universe you are an atheist. And if you happen to rise in a christian family you will probably be a christian for a certain amount of time. And maybe at one day you realize that it all doesn't work well to a point where you reject belief of god creator and all other "magic". Puff you are an atheist. You just became a person who doesn't believe in god. Maybe there is no point in naming this "state of mind", but the name exists so far and is used so why don't you just get used to it.
Is an "orphan" also out of logic to you ? It's imo the same bag.
Cheers
I avoided your question? Disingenuous?
Atheism is a characteristic. You either have it or you don't. You can HAVE/GET/LOSE that characteristic. If you GET that characteristic, then you "BECOME an atheist".
Having no belief in a deity is a characteristic. Being ignorant on the existance of a deity is a characteristic. Having a belief in a deity is a characteristic.
All of these characteristics can tell you something about a person. What and how much, however, varies. But knowing a characteristic of a person, per definition, tells you something about the person. Which is why I wouldn't call it "nothing".
Peterson's glass of water is going to be the new Schrodinger's Cat.
The water is both drank and not drank.
😎
Or the new Bible. "It's both the inerrant word of God and merely human writings. At once profound and trivial. It's both a roadmap for living morally and a document that supports slavery. It depends on what you mean by BOOK, now doesn't it Sayummmm!"
@@Laura892ful Of course water is affected by alcohol. Pour some alcohol in a cup of water and the water starts to taste like shit.
@@cortical1 I genuinely hope hat no one at all ever goes to you for advice on anything.
@@AppleOfThineEye Because the Bible says how long you can keep your slaves and their children? This is a fact that doesn't involve me or any advice.
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift, and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
"
-Albert Einstein
That really resonated with me.
@@laithsaleem580 same here
Based on a quick Google search (the most effort merited from a comment section haha), this quote appears to be attributable to Bob Sample in 1976 rather than Albert Einstein and is likely one of many quotes misattributed to Einstein.
Damn! What a quote!
A hunch doesnt have the capacity to get it right without prior investigation. So if you have intuition, you must've studied a lot to get it right. First principles to get counterintuitive facts, like quantum dynamics. The physics approach
It’s hard to bite my tongue with these comments but when has anybody ever changed somebody’s philosophical standpoint in a goddamn RUclips comments section
I don't think people who follow Peterson or Harris are as toxic as you think. We're a lot more willing to listen to the opposite view than the average population.
I have learned a couple things from people in the comment section before, but never by arguing it with them. Only by the sort of ohhhh... hey that makes more sense..that sort of way. Replying though... as I am now... absolutely pointless.
I don't know about "philosophical standpoint", but on rare occasions RUclips comments have changed my view of the original video, or maybe one or two points made in the video. Of course I'm more often influenced by the original video itself.
@@aminerkin9844 , to be more specific it's the people who follow Peterson *and* Harris who are more open to new views. People who exclusively follow one sometimes (but not always) fall into either the category of the first comment on this video or they are some sort of extreme anti theist. Those seem to be a bit more common among the Hitchens crowd, but are still present with the harris crowd.
@@dylanrichardson199 I agree. Thanks for clarifying. I personally want to hear the best arguments for both opposite sides of anything. I am not interested only in one side and if I feel like I'm heavily bought into one side only, I make sure I actively seek to find the best arguments against what I believe, rather than doubling down on my own pre existing belief. I think people who follow Harris or Peterson are also interested to find out the real truth rather than just accepting things as truth without further questioning.
Everyone else: “hmm yes, science, biology, psychology, philosophy, etc”
Me: is he gonna drink that water? 9:09
I’m not even sure he did in the end he looked like he was scared it might be poisoned lmao
That’s what I been noticing too! My ADD kicks in.
I realized it happens a lot with jbp
HE NEVER DRINKS THE WATER!!!!
@@sl3ptsolong He does at around 12:08 or 12:09
This is what interests me the most about Jordan, his ability to both integrate religion and psychology in a way that can be accepted by both religious and non-religious person. It's quite rare in modern psychology
Jungian at its base
@@shannonlawsonnashville he really got me curious about Jung, i got taught a bunch about him in school but never actually read his work
Strangely I think Peterson is an atheist. He believes in the cultural/psychological influence of religion and the concept of the christian god, but not necessarily in the existence of a deity.
@@stephenpaulson8313 he did say in the H3 podcast that he's a christian, a pretty religious one at that. But part of his appeal is that his theory can be accepted by even the atheists, which would not be the case if he based his theories solely on christianity. I guess he just wants to appeal to as wide of an audience as possible
@@stephenpaulson8313 Jordan thinks God exist and He's a necessity,Jordan is just having a hard time with the Christ-Part because in order to call yourself a Christian you must be able to act like Jesus.
The arrogance that Christianity or the Old Testament theorized or has any monopoly on the concept of not murdering or not robbing or not lying astounds me
He didn't say that. In his lectures he talks about different religions all over the world and how they emerged. He personally believes that Christianity "captures it best" I think, but has a lot of respect for other religions. He attributed Harris's ethic to Christianity only because that was the system influencing him his entire life.
Peterson's point about religion is basically this:
Whether you're a "believer" or not, so much of who we are as humans has developed on the framework of "religion" that to throw all of it out in the name of "rationality" would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Over many thousands of years, humans developed (or were taught or given, whatever you believe) an extremely complex and rare system of morals and ethics. To arrive at the idea that the _individual_ is sacred and sovreign in their quest for personal salvation (as Christianity proported) is nothing short of a miracle. Ideas like that aren't free, and they aren't easy.
It is no small thing that humans developed ideas of "honor", "justice", or "dignity", and to say that we can simply keep those _without_ any trace of religion is a very dangerous idea. We stand on the shoulders of our whole human race and claim that we can cut ourselves off from them--that somehow we are better than them and we can be free from any ties to where the information came from.
Tldr: the idea is that much of the "rationality", "morals", and "ethics" that we take for granted have been developed over many thousands of years under "religion", and to throw out religion haphazardly and expect to keep all those values is dangerous. There is value to heritage, even if you dont believe there is an actual God.
That is a really good point. Dont throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater. I see in a trend of cynical critique that has no basis of it's own. When there is nothing left to critique , no traditions, no stories from our ancestors, only versions of ironic simulations of a mocking of values, what is left for people to bond over and by people I mean all the classes , a thing that transcends class maybe even for brief moments to be experienced by a group seems essential.
Great explination and I think this is a really good point.
If most people were to lose religion, they wouldn't necessarly become more rational, they would potentially lose all rationality
Jordan actually said that dont Breakdown the religions without any care for the people whose lives are affected by it.
One Example would be when Trump was elected half of the population wanted him to get impeached... They belittle him and the people who voted for him ... They shamed them made fun of them even ridiculed them. But at the end of the day its half the population who voted for him ... If he got impeached it would be like no one cares about the vote of half the population. Thats why America got so divided
So these atheist need to think about it whether they want more than 90 % of the population to throw away their sense of communal and their moral and ethics police just because a small population cant seems to understand it.
If these people dont have a religion or someone to look up to they will go for someone or something else.
If you take away people's religion or god from them ... They will make you your God. And thats something which is seen for years
Harris's argument however also points out the obvious, dogmatic belief is the kind of tribalism such systems seek to eradicate. The organization of religious institutions is precisely because the average individual does not think about the abstract "God" that Peterson tries to lay out. The average folk will deny that to be the case in fear of impurity. Peterson and Harris believes the stupid person or even the average person is going to see the world in the way they see it given they explain themselves properly, however that doesn't seem to be the case.
I understand the point but wholeheartedly disagree.
Suggesting that someone doesn't rob, murder, rape, etc. is because they were brought up in a christian influenced culture is ridiculous. I'd argue the same is true in parts of the world that have seen little to no christian influence, such as India, China, Japan, etc. And if those cultures ultimately came to the same conclusion (that you shouldn't rob, murder, rape, etc.) then doesn't it suggest that those qualities were born out because they're inherently better, not because of your belief system?
Imagine our world thousands of years ago where ideas and people could not travel freely or easily. Many (if not all) of the successful societies came to the same conclusion. No robbing, murdering, raping, etc. Now which is more likely? Each of those societies happened to develop (or were taught or given) religions that espouse those same (or similar) morals? Or that the societies that adopted those morals were the most successful and religion came in to explain why things are this way? I certainly think the latter.
Actually, I think that's a lot of why you see such a discrepancy between what's taught in our religious texts and what's practiced today. We KNOW society benefits when women have control over their reproductive processes through causal inference from regression analysis. 100%? No, but damn good. Now catholicism has been against artificial contraception since at least the 2nd century. And yet here's a Pew Research Center poll (bottom of comment) that found 89% of catholics think it's no problem at all! Seems more like society influencing religion than the other way around. To say a non-believers actions are influenced by the very religion they don't believe in seems dishonest. It is very possible they could have come to the same conclusion on their own even WITH the influence of religion (like so many others have).
www.americamagazine.org/faith/2016/09/28/poll-finds-many-us-catholics-breaking-church-over-contraception-abortion-and-lgbt
Agree with most what Peterson says, but when it comes to religion the confirmation bias is incredible.
In my opinion everyone has a bias and look for confirmation in a group or band their own. It gets uncomfortable only when the pissing contest starts - whether my bias is more reasoned and legit than yours. Thought experiment(sic) people seem to get into that a lot.
bartjebeltegoed
He shouldn't say Harris & co are wrong since both are talking about different things. Harris & co say if God and/or religion are true; Peterson says if God and/or religion are necessary. If I were to sum up, I'd say both are right to some extent, religion is a necessary evil, only because humans are not as intelligent as we'd want them to be. From Harris & Dawkins' perspective, humans are considered intelligent. Peterson sees humans as what they are.
True,all strongly held beliefs have confirmation bias.
Not at all - you have taken for granted values which society holds which directly arise from Christian teaching.
Maybe you think he sounds bias because of your own bias.
2:09 The interviewer presses him on what he means when he says that Harris is “acting out a Christian metaphysics”despite the fact that Harris says that he doesn’t believe in any religion.Peterson replies by giving examples: “He doesn’t rob banks he doesn’t rape he doesn’t kill people doesn’t murder”..This assertion by Peterson that, without Christian teachings, we would do these things is completely wrong. We do not get our morals from the Bible. The Bible gets his morals from us.
Dude I get your confusion and at one point this is exactly what I was thinking and what I found wrong in his argument. But then I watched that interview he did with Matt Dillahunty and I realised one thing, which is that Peterson so conveniently defines the word "God" to his liking. He defines "God" as this abstract concept that constitutes our values and morals, when in actuality we know it refers to this omnipotent, extra-dimensional and timeless being (that may or may not exist). When he defines God as the compilation of values and when an atheist like Sam Harris (who obviously has values) claims to be an Atheist, Peterson deduces that they're wrong. This is because an Atheist is someone who rejects the idea of a god and he assumes that these atheists are rejecting his definition of "God". I still disagree with him cause idk why the hell he's defining God this way and the more and more you watch his videos the more you realise that he's an Atheist that doesn't have a clear cut abstraction of his views.
Coming back to him claiming that Harris is "Christian", what he's trying to say is that Sam Harris having been born into a Christian household has morals and values that fit the general Christian Archetype. Thus in this case he defines the abstractions (i.e. the morals) that Harris has as a sort of "Christian God" thus making Harris "Christian". Confused? Yeah same. If Peterson's views on God really makes your Brain twirl then I'd recommend watching the Matt Dillahunty interview. You'll really understand the nature of his argument when you watch that.
This one ruclips.net/video/FmH7JUeVQb8/видео.html
@@safwanumer5787 Thanks for that. Unfortunately the interviewer did not follow through with the question that he started to ask in response to Peterson: “So you think that when you don’t do those things the underpinning of it is…”. He interrupted himself and digressed off the question and never came back to it!
I do understand one thing- That God exists in one place only as far as we know i.e. the human brain. And any attributes that are given to God are given by humans. We get our values through our nature as evolved beings and through the ever-changing “moral zeitgeist“.
Youre wrong on the topic of moral structure. If youll study the state of moral structure and what was the prevalent characteristics and qualities in mankind prior to Jesus Christ living and teaching His Gospels, you notice immediately the undeniable differences in moral code and cultural traits.
@@portraitofsorrow7803 What are the differences in mankind’s moral code before and after Jesus Christ?
Even hyenas, wild dogs and lions know that to survive they have to protect, love and take care of each other.
I don't know about love, but they do protectcand take care of each other
Then murder isn't "wrong," it's just something that lowers a murderers chance of survivability.
@@cancertomato1798 Why do you even judge between right or wrong? Can a chimp know between right or wrong? 🤔
@@eliramirez3798 Chimps cannot judge between right and wrong, they make decisions based off what will increase the chances of their genes surviving. For some reason humans have this internal instinct of how they should act which contradicts what should be beneficial evolutionarily.
@@cancertomato1798 Exactly, so they don't know what the hell murder is. That's something we judge as human. Don't you find that intresting and special about us? The fact that we can rationalized? Why is it that we are the only creature who can do that?
Jordan "It's no joke, man!" Peterson
It isn't obvious to me that that's true. It's so unbelievably unbelievable that you cannot believe it.
Calum Tatum just because you can’t follow it doesn’t make it word salad.
100th like 🤘
It's something like that
Roughly speaking ;)
It's hilarious that as soon as Dr Peterson starts disagreeing with most of you. You turn on him and call him stupid. He doesn't have to agree with you.
It is not a matter of disagreeing with ones view, my issue with JP is his statements as absolute truth.
No but he should have rational, logical reasons for disagreeing. He does not.
It is funny that there are people who think you should either be pro or against someone consistsntly and cannot agree and disagree with someone's views depending on specifics.. some things peterson says are good. Some are completely bs. And you have trouble dealing with that? Wow
@Paul Murrin i don't think thete is anyone who denies that one can have beneficial effects from having erroneous beliefs. It is what the placebo effect is right. Peterson however has the idea that religion somehow is the basis of moral progress. He manages to describe a lot of human behaviour to biological evolution. But somehow is in denial of it and smuggles in jesus when it comes to social cehesion. While our morals largely stem from being tribal animals, and thus having a need for harmony within our "tribes". Most things he ascribes to religion can more easily be rooted in our evolution. He takes this route to speak of differences between men and women. But goes all evangelical when it comes to moral behavior. The only topic he often starts to go on elaborate ramblings is the topic of religion. All other topics he has a mote clear cut view on. If you say people have no counter arguements to his ramblings. Then you are probably just too entranced by petersons referrals to writings of others, and feel noone can match him. Overlooking the fact that he is knitting elaborate stories together in support of his views. Spits them out at a rapid pace. The only way you would feel he has been proven wrong is if someone were to pick appart all those sentences one by one and debunk each one ceperately or provide an alternate i terpretation to them. Noone has the time for that. Nor patience. This is why peterson comes off stronger than he is. It does not make him right. He can say " i spent a lot of time thinking about this" a million times. It does not make his arguements better. Humans in general perceive things in a manner that fit their view. Through colored glasses. Peterson is no exception. And in a way i find how obvious it is with him shocking. Because as a psychologist, you would expect him to be more selfaware.
Yup he's a great intellectual who has credibility and lots of experience in this domain. Ya know, but he not atheist. So he's all wrong and no experience can redeem it.
Seriously the nerve of these people.
Even though I don't agree with half of what Jordan says here, I still like to listen to his opinions, as they are very well thought and challenging.
As a physicist he is dead on!
That's why I like Peterson, he encourages us to think and analyze ourselves (as any psychologist worth his salt should). I don't agree with all of his perspectives no, but he is very passionate and encouraging nonetheless. He's quite admirable!!
Jordan Peterson *picks up glass of water, tempts himself with drinking from it for 15 seconds, never actually takes a sip, sets it back down*
Minute 9.00 i thought he woulf finaly drink, but he dribled me better than messi.
Daniel Campos Lolol didn’t notice that the first time
he he he good one! :)
@@dankan1349 ruclips.net/video/jey_CzIOfYE/видео.html watch this, sam harris laid good points in this
@nick m. Have Dawkins discuss with JP yet?
nick m. I loved Hitchens until I found out, that he was a filthy Marxist. This broke my bloody heart. Therefore, he can’t, because Marxists are unworthy.
Sounds more like an argument for how man created god rather than whether or not there is a god.
The argument is not whether or not god exists, but rather whether a religion is necessary for a functional society.
Very eye opening comment
+faro0485 I"m just going to assume English isn't your first language and give you a pass...
No it is not necessary. Compassion is what is necessary. People can be compassionate without religion and with religion. So no... we don't need any form of religion for a functional society. There...problem solved.
+Faro0485 Now I know English isn't your fist language, or second, or third...you are entirely incoherent.
7:50
"The chimps went to war in the mid 70's".
Cant help imagining a chimp UN Security council, all dressed in suits, declaring war
Planet of the Apes
2:11 "he doesn't rob banks, doesn't kill people doesn't rape" Sam Harris also doesn't kill his neighbor when he sees him working on Sundays he also doesn't have any slaves all of which is permitted in the Bible. Jordan Peterson loses me here..................................
"Thou shalt not kill" - Ten Commandments/Bible
Mr. Jimmy3459 : That's because you don't like your own straw man image of God. Your understanding of what the Christian God is like is shallow and flawed. Try reading "Is God a Moral Monster." Spoiler alert: He isn't.
@@user-is3yn7xr4c Code of Ur-Nammu, Laws of Eshnunna 300 years before Moses with Ten Commandments:
"Thou shault not kill, or you'll be punished"
@@tamething1
Morality in particular forms existed long before God of the Bible was even invented. God of the Bible (especially the Old Testament version) is certainly a cruel monster according to modern views on morality
@@MyneOhMy There's no need for morals, they hold back the humans from becoming transcendent beings. One must strive to become superior to what he was the day before all the time.
Peterson is often difficult to understand because he works with different definitions of common terms than we do. So for those who are upset cause JBP said those who don't kill, steal, rape are acting out their belief in Christianity... He's not saying that they believe in a metaphysical God, but rather that they act out the pattern of actions created over millions of years of evolution that allow us to live peacefully with each other - that was eventually articulated via religion (particularly Christianity.)
He sees "God" as humanities abstract of the ideal person - something that exists beyond any particular individual, that everyone should strive to be. Judeo-Christian values says that person is one who does not kill, rape, steel, etc... Which are the principles that the west was founded on. So even though Harris does not believe in a metaphysical God, he does believe in many of the core principles that were articulated in Christianity (as well as some other religions)
Austin Shaner You defeated your own summation of Peterson's argument when you said Harris "act out the pattern of behavior of actions created over millions of years evolution." First, how does one "act out", as if by choice, something that is built into one's nature from millions of years of evolution. And second, if religion is just a human articulation of a larger system of evolution, then that means that our morals and values are in fact not based in religion, but derived from our evolutionary ancestry. An ancestry which includes religion but is not based in religion.
Then he's talking nonsense, because that isn't what people like Harris are talking about when they say they don't believe in Christianity, and any honest person knows that.
Uh...really? Consider the birds, consider the lilies. Do they toil? Do they spin (wool?) No. So you should be like them, don't work, and expect divine providence, aka heavenly welfare. And give no thought for the morrow, (i.e. don't make any plans or goals). This is all Matthew 6. Oh, and love your enemies, out to destroy you, (Mat 5) whilst anyone who does not HATE his parents, siblings, spouse and children and even his own life also CANNOT be Jesus' disciple. (Luke 14:26). And lets' just ignore the fact that all of christianity is predicated on accepting the torture and murder of innocent Jesus who got the death penalty for OTHER people's sin crimes. What could be more evil and unjust than that? That's literally murdering the whipping boy, beating and crusifying him for other people's infactions. Jordan glosses over everything and makes up the rest. He reminds me of conspiracy theorists.
THE TRUTH IS CRAZY. NOT ALL WILL UNDERSTAND, AND TONS WILL BREAK DOWN & SUICIDE.
Nicely put!
Peterson does good against Harris when Harris isn’t there. That’s about it.
what? Harris is destroying Peterson and he isn't even there!
When he is debating with Harris, he tends to kiss his arse. I think, rightly or wrongly, that he is rsthet in see of him. Anyone can critisize anyone else, in that person's absence. It is easy to do that, and a rather cheap shot from someone I otherwise admire, like and respect. Also, no robbing banks, raping or murdering does not necessarily, automically have anything to do with believing in God. Sorry, Jordan, that is just bullshit!
Sorry, rather bad typos! I meant to say that he is rather in awe of him. I like Harris. He can be quite funny. He never seems to get excited, or passionate, about anything, tho. Is he actually a machine? Not a man at all l? Rob-Atheist!
I did it again! Robo-Atheist! I have this correct o text thingy. It can be so irritating. Goodnight.
Jordan doesnt necessarily say that you are a God believer as soon as you dont do those things. But that you DO in fact follow the Judeo-Christian moral code. Nietsche's Übermensch idea also stems from the ability to overcome all previous moral codes and to stand on your own and if you cant do that you are weak. But again, we DO live along the lines of j.-ch. ethics. So i could argue on the other side that it has formed our collective world view to the point where we can rationally assess the reasons why certain moral codes should be implemented for a better society.
With this i only meant to say that the argument isnt as near as flat as that.
I like listening to this guy, he speaks from a perspective that's different and is very enthusiastic.
If you can't prove your god then I don't have any reason to believe your god exists.
Magic Mushrooms are the proof
*tips fedora
It seems to me that JP is saying God is not a "thing" but a symbol or concept. Not a perfect analogy, but the wind can't be seen directly, but has an effect that can. 6 months ago I became more open minded after listening to Tom Holland (author and historian). Although I am not advocating religion as practice or as an organisation etc. For me there is a clear distinction between the literal and the symbolic
Michael Voorhees DMT*
@@michaelvoorhees7812 how does a chemical reaction prove god exists?
Mac Tek: 'Lack of belief is a belief'.
In the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Varkings Mac Tek is what you’d call a “softbrained moron.”
Belief is a state with regard to some proposition, warranted or unwarranted. Agnostic lack of belief is a null, undefined state with regard to some proposition, warranted or unwarranted. Anti or A-belief is a state with regard to some proposition, warranted or unwarranted. I suggest it's very similar to a little philosophy book we got at varsity: "on bullshit". TLDR truth and lies have some relation to the actual state of affairs, while bullshit simply doesn't care. There is no reason I know of to suppose that binary logic applies at the level of relationships that you are referencing, and modal logic is just as good.
(The null hypothesis mentioned in a much longer comment below)
A Word In the Wind TLDR; let’s obfuscate when asked about the validity of god claims
That would be agnostic. Atheism in this case would be collecting coins instead. Your own phrasing is incorrect and is confusing you.
@@jamesszczesny7015
Athiesm - a lack of belief in a god or gods.
Agnosticism - a belief that nothing is known or can be known of existence or nature of God
If a belief in a deity is a channel on TV, and every belief is a different channel. Athiesm is turning the TV off, it's a lack of belief. It cannot be said to be a belief since it is a lack of one, it's a state of being.
Collecting coins is another hobby. Athiesm is not another belief. It is a lack. It is an entirely different thing to the presence of a belief. Turning the TV off is not like changing the channel, it is entirely different.
Jordan “depends on what you mean” peterson.
Does he know what he means? Sometimes he makes not the impression.
Metaphorically speaking. And that's that.
@Jaypee Dela Rosa : Doesn't it?
Im amazed he is against post modernism when he reminds me a lot of some post modern philosophers. Redefining words, examining self evident concepts, etc.
It’s true though, context is the anchor of deliberate direction.
jordan peters says he isnt addicted to benzos but he acts out a benzo addict's ethos.
Morality doesn't come from Christianity, it's something we built slowly over many years through intellect, evidence, the evolution of our civilization, and a complicated but natural urge to make things work and survive. Science has helped us light the dark. Look at the statistics of war and violence. We're at all-time low with war historically. Things seem bad right now but technically it is more peaceful than ever before. No one will forget what it was like when religious people had all the power... Violence, burning people alive, child abuse, superstition, genocide, slavery, torture, and confusion.
Based on the comments here, it is just astounding how many people have an immediate emotional reaction to something that Jordan said, but without any understanding of what he is saying...
It is not possible to understand nonsense.
well, I guess you are another one.
"Based on the comments here, it is just astounding how many people have an immediate emotional reaction to something that Jordan said, but without any understanding of what he is saying..."
I understand him perfectly. Based on your comment, and others, you are ignoring the real points and focus on the "emotional reactions" to please your own ego. But hey, I might be projecting. Wait...
Well he's pissing on Sam Harris: a lot of people learned about Rubin from his defection from TYT after Cenk's awful interview with Harris. It's interesting to see Harris being critique from different angles: Peterson is not a particularly religious man (not in a conventional sense) yet I do believe he has Christian beliefs. Harris does have a nasty habit of pretending humans are at some highly advanced state of being, far beyond the civilizations of the Middle Ages. I see Peterson's point: we're still chimps, in suits, for the most part. Civilized society is an abstraction that helps us get through the modern world, but it's not in our nature, for sure: it requires work and discipline.
Chris Ducat , I believe they both (Peterson and Harris) understand that but they have entirely different approaches to this problem - Peterson is more conservative and Harris is more progressive. But Peterson appealing to evolution as "The ultimate judge" of what is a sustainable system and what is not - this is ridiculous. It's a bit like saying - "what is natural is good" - a naturalistic fallacy. The evolution is an optimisation process which has no property of converging - it means there can be millions of local maximum where this process can stuck, UNLESS you apply some energy to overcome that - and that is my point - maybe without religion we would need to apply some additional energy to sustain society but that not a strong argument not to give it a try.
I don't find Jordan's arguments persuasive at all.
Research his definition of God. He is a genuine Darwinist, unlike rationalists. Absolutely brilliant mind
+Joey Quigley I can appreciate that. His arguments didn't really persuade me but I can see where he was coming from and where he was trying to go.
TJ Kim I second that. His conception of truth is incredibly off putting. Admittedly, I feel a little biased towards Peterson after hearing his definition of truth. However, I do recognize that he has a brilliant mind and that he does expound great advice here and there on Psychologically themed topics.
He's a psychologist who plays at being a philosopher. Real philosophers simply point out his propositions are full of holes and move on. Laymen for some reason are sometimes bamboozled by his bullshit, though, and when Harris blatantly showed him the flaws in his propositions, which Jordan himself admitted, the peanut gallery here holds it against Harris for some reason. Only a true ignoramus gets mad at the guy exposing a faulty argument. "Hey, shut up, you arrogant jerk! We want to believe Jordan's bullshit! If you would just let him advance his flawed argument built on faulty propositions, then we could all be happy! But, no, you gotta open your arrogant, Godless, libtard Jew mouth and point out where Jordan's logic fails. Why can't you just let him bullshit us??? You son of a bitch!"
Makisupa Policeman Who are you even talking about? You have formed a strawman of a person that isn't even in the comments.
9:23 gee he was close
I don’t think Peterson refutes Harris very well. Nice try, but it just isn’t very convincing.
Seems like people are conflating Jordan Peterson's idea that the concept of god (and the resulting religions that creates) as an abstraction of a set of ideals that has helped humanity evolve and progress into the sophisticated creatures we are today, with him somehow endorsing the supernatural dogma of religions. Which he doesn't. His simple argument (if you are able to follow along his words) is atheist like Sam Harris, entire moral worldview is predicated on those same set of ideals (tolerance, social responsibility, etc.) and set of behaviors selected for by evolution (the underlying beliefs/ideals that humans have abstracted as god). Even if Sam etc. deny the existence of a supernatural god (which Peterson does not disagree with), as long as he maintains his moral worldview built on that underlying set of "good for society" beliefs and ideals, his beliefs will not truly have separated from that abstraction. And Peterson argues, if they did actually separate from that set of "ideals" of human behavior which had been determined of millions of years of evolution, than the resulting society may not function properly and may not be stable. Since y'know over millions of years, those where not the ideals that humanity successfully selected for....
I'd like to think a fair amount of people can grasp that. But of course for the TL:DR crowd, there isn't much that can be done.
What in the fuck are you people babbling on about..... you don't seems very "stable"!
"good for society" as a principle already separates a moral worldview from religions, which are based on the logically flimsy an vague "because god".
Harris has never argued in favor of abandoning evolved, and thus rational, morality. Peterson just wants to make religion synonymous with evolved morality, which it is not. Another argument he uses is that people are too stupid to be moral without religion, which is unbelievably arrogant since he himself is able to understand it.
Understanding that morality evolved means that your view of morality can be rational, thus you can have rational morality like Harris can. This is completely different from an arbitrary but directly evolved morality, which is how you misunderstood me.
It is not my straw man but Peterson's. For the purposes of this conversation he wants to view religion as nothing more than a set of moral ideas that evolved. This is false as religion involves much more and also evolved moral principles are not what Harris is arguing against.
I have no idea what you mean when you ask "why not steal or lie when you wouldn't get caught". People do that all the time. It can be completely rational but if you have some moral system which is against it i'm afraid that system may be inferior to rationality in natural selection.
Improving on hundreds of thousands of years of evolution is not necessarily difficult. Improving on god's ingenious design of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in mammals requires all the complexity of a straight line.
The major point where Peterson is right is that trying to replace religion with educated ideas is bad when people don't have the latter.
Well said. What I got from it was that the concept of God, this guiding moral compass, is the evolutionary trait that has been selected for. That God is nothing more than the personification and abstraction of a society's ideals, something to strive for.
jonuiuc you are waaaaay waaaaaay off! our morality came from pagan beliefs if any...we had morals before Jesus we just didn't write them down and in some weird sequential order based on absolutely no hierarchy! also if we all live based on Christian morals just answer ONE OR TWO QUESTIONS FOR ME...is rape or slavery immoral? if so then why are they advocated in the bible as fine as long as cerrain PARAMETERS were taken into consideration...!!! what a softball WEAK AS FUCK interview! one rebuttal that was pis poor regarding the ship discussion.
Love Peterson but he's willfully ignorant on the topic of religion simply because he romantacizes it.
Because you don't understand him.
then he is not explaining it very well
K bu He can't explain everything to everyone
Also love Peterson (seeing him speak tomorrow with Dave!), but yeah, as someone else put it: he literally redefined "truth" as "truthiness" on Sam's podcast. I wish he didn't do this because he doesn't need that wishy-washiness to be effective.
I think it's fair to say Harris has a fundamental misunderstanding of human development. He appears to believe himself to be unique in some way. As though he developed in a bubble with no societal interference. Also with relation to his part of the group of people he is a part of. Humans. There are good and horrible things about religions. He focuses on the horrible. Peterson focuses in the positive effects. It's an interesting dicotomy but neither of them has absolute autority in the subject. No single person contains the sum total of human understanding on the topic. Neither of these guys is that deep. No one is. But we all contain the framework of millions of years of neural deveopment to consider such things. Sophestry aside, I like to listen to them talk about these topics.
Jordan peterson just picked up his glass of water, acted like he was about to take a sip, and while approaching the edge of one his long run on sentences, he brought the glass closer to his lips, several times, as if he was finally about to drink it, even though it was very clear he wasn't finished with his sentence yet, and then he finished his thought, put the glass back down without taking a sip, and then began a new long run on sentence.
Woah
Anyone with logical mind should have doubts on religion because there is no solid evidence, no offence
That is so fascinating. I was thinking quite the opposite. To me it is so obvious: when you look at nature, physics, Mathematik, chemistry, human bodies etc it is obvious that there is God. I cant understand who people would not understand it. It is so beautiful.
@@SiSi-lk7wc your only saying this because you believe in a certain religion but in reality it’s not sound that a supernatural is the result of everything we observed, it’s absurd to think so
I'm going to take Sam's side on this. Peterson brings religious baggage to the debate
He at least admits to this, unlike Sam.
This statement makes as much sense as following intergalactic space Horus that was aped for the story for HeyZeus.
Horus who betrayed the Emperor of Mankind?
+Thagmomizer Sam bringing up religious baggage? Since when?
Harris brings a rational, Litvak-Jewish, approach to Atheism. Notice he doesn't proselytize, unlike Dawkins. And his arguments basically never boil down to insults or personal attacks.
This the 10% of Peterson when he is at his weakest. I love the other 90% of what he has to say...He unintentionally misrepresents Harris & Dawkins when talking about the motives for going to war and chimps. They would never say that religion is the ONLY reason we have gone to war. Sam, in particular, argues that specific beliefs have specific consequences...a belief in martyrdom, jihad and eternal paradise is the perfect recipe for a suicide bomber, which is why Islam has a near monopoly on suicide bombers...to start talking about the terroritorialism of chimps is a red-herring. Yes, animals fight wars and they rape. So we have some of that in our genes, we don't need to make this WORSE with irrational beliefs.
Adam G you just contradicted yourself. You said "animals rape and war with each other. We have some of that in our genes and that we shouldnt make it worse with irrational beliefs." The reason WE dont do that is because of these "irrational" beliefs we have i.e. religion. Christianity for example, raping, hating and murdering one another is prohibited. Animals dont have religion, so they do those things without a thought of anything they just do it. We dont do it because of the belief that we will be judged in the afterlife. Live the best possible life, if there was no religion, we probably would still be acting like anmials.
Hellslaughtr10 When was rape and murder bad for christians? After moses committed genocide? After jesus said "i come through the sword"? After the crusades? The countless wars between which christian thinks their imaginary friend is better? After the inquisition? After the rape and cultural destruction of polytheist cultures world wide? After the genocide of the native americans? After the church sided with Hitler?
Christians cant even claim to have good morals, to claim theyre the basis of morality is laughably retarded
Adam G. Do a google for Sam Harris and Scott Atran on Islamic suicide bombers.
Hellslaughtr10 no, christianity provides guidlines as to *when* to practice raping, hating and murdering one another. and this can and *has* been used to justify these actions.
Adam G I do agree that he misrepresents Sam's argument to a degree, thats why im glad they've talked since this interview and ironed out their views a little more transparently
Harris: “War is attributed to religion”
Jordan: “Chimpanzees go to war”
Harris falls flat on his face...
lol wut?
If you are debating who is right and who is wrong, you seem to have missed the point
Karan Saxena didn’t miss the point at all, just stated exactly what i heard..
Chimpanzees engage in organized violence, but they don’t launch crusades or jihads. Our magical Skyspooks justify our predatory simian drives. Sorry it’s not simple enough for you primates.
I think you'll find Harris says some if not most wars can be attributed to religion, Peterson misrepresents Harris by inferring he claims 'all wars', which is not Harris's view.......and he's now using Chimps to prove god because he realizes the bible fails miserably.
Jordan Peterson says so much without ever clearly saying anything.
100%
i never really understood him to the end .. sometimes he comes up with the worst pseudoscientific views man
That's his thing for sure. Uneducated, uncritical people fall for his long, empty, noncommittal sentences.
ignorant people think he's right because he sounds smart and uses big words. but in reality it's just word salad
@@jeremyhammond7764 most ppl say stuff like this cus the words leaving a persons mouth don't resonate with them due to the fact that they intellectualize everything and close their hearts to it lol if u can't understand him just say so, its ok
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
I agree. We need this kind of civil discourse and when I grew up you could agree to disagree and still go out to lunch.
put that in quote, eventually with credit to that Aristotle guy ;)
Educated or rational? I feel that we can be rational without being educated but can we be educated but be rational about our being educated? Are we gaining education or are we being indoctrinated? I think as we are in the process of being educated, we need to be rational. Then, we can be properly educated.
Hang on, I need to rationalise that...
but haven't you've already entertained it if you don't accept it...
Thats what being "open minded" is really about
We atheist just don’t expend our mental energy on the belief in a deity, and we don’t really care who or what you worship as long as you don’t try to take other peoples freedoms with those views
Well said. People think you are trying to convert them. I don't care what others think that is their business. Atheism is not a philosophy nor a belief system. It doesn't have to prove anything.
As well, I don't care who or what anyone worships, provided science and evolution continues to be taught in the schools.
Just a question, who created you?
Normally agree with Peterson on most things but he lost this argument when he thinks anti science is good🤥
Might be worth re-watching the video. Jordan’s position here is extremely evolutionally, biologically and psychologically scientific. When they were discussing Science and Anti Science movements Jordan was separating his conviction from the point of view of those like Harris and Hawkins whose ideas are under the Scientific name tag. He was against their understanding about religion and it’s functionality within society - he was not against science.
To provide more evidence for his loyalty to science, Jordan is vehemently against the anti-biology-science movements (mentioned in this video) and is totally on board with science for that topic as well.
Not meaning to flame you! I’m just pretty certain that Peterson is not anti-science
I don't think he says anti-science is good. He says...there is increasing interest in anti-science discussions. Juts like Radical elements on one side gives boost to Radical elements on the other side. Both are bad. so to eliminate the anti-science movement, we need to stop demonizing Religions. If we understand the God/Godliness he refers to is an abstraction, it gets easier. also to "act" as if the God exists. It is not necessary to believe in God exists, to "act" as if it exists.
If I may. It does not actually matter, from my perspective. I think that he is not always aware of that he is saying, albeit he expresses himself eloquently. The ideas he is expressing are false and easily proved so. Sometime a dangerous lie is needed. Sometimes we need to base our thoughts in verifiable evidence.
When I only hear clips and see edits of Jordan Peterson talking I can’t help but think about what I missed or didn’t hear him say and what context was implied as I am aware that he always chooses his words extremely carefully.
4 months after watching this video
And this guys religious argument is still laughably ridiculous
damn right, sir
Everything in Life goes Both ways and Everything in Life has to be Balance from A to Z ..... ..Do you know that or I need to xplain ????
this comment is far more funnier by comparison
"Let's make no bones about it" lol there's always one funny expression in a Peterson video.
Just one?
Peterson makes no claim that a supernatural deity exists and intervenes in our world. He just asserts that it’s important to believe there is.
And the sad thing is, that he is probably right...
@A non this is Exactly how I feel
It's totally unimportant to believe the hogwash. People would be far better off not believing in the mumbo jumbo that is organised religion. It's organised for a reason, and that's a financial reason, to benefit those who push it.
@@MOGGS1942 , all true, but what would happen if the poor people of, say, South America, would be stripped of their beliefs tomorrow? I think freaking hell would break loose. It is the illusion of a better life after death that keeps them calm.
@@toyfabrik2993 Same in Africa, where I lived among predominantly muslims, plus a handful of christians. It was hardcore religion all the way. I was totally isolated as an Atheist with many struggling with my stance. It has to start with educating the young, but it will take a very long time to undo the grip organised religion has.
"Atheism is false" is like pointing at a sheet of blank paper and shouting "You solved this equation wrong!".
@@soundwavesuperior6761 This is an analogy, not a strawman. You need to relearn your logical fallacies.
You are both wankers.
The "Without religion no morals" argument? Really?! For fucks sake
No, the "Western morals are based on the dominant moral system for the past 2,000 years," argument. History.
The Christians now have their own Deepak Chopra
Wow, looks like Deepak's twin brother. Spooky.
"Your heart self interacts with a symphony of life"
Right!! its not hard to follow him at all.
LOL
I'm anti Christian, but cannot find any fault with the ideas Peterson is presenting. Maybe you're the one with blinders on.
I take issue with Peterson assigning all those rationally determined, evolutionary imperatives like not killing, not raping indiscriminately, not stealing from others, as being part of 'christian metaphysics. The christian dogmatic structures have attempted to claim ownership of those things as the Hebrew beliefs tried to do before them. It is like Columbus claiming to have discovered & then claiming America.
.
if you don't like the word religious, then change it to be 'social' or philosophical.
Religion is a rather loose definition anyway.
Ok
Well said.
Well stated. Substitute Christian with Muslim, Zoroastrian, Astrological, Mormon, etc and his points sound even more absurd. He seems to imply Christianity to the exclusion of the other fairy tales.
The only difference between "a theist" and an "atheist" is a little space.
Its a pun
@None of your Business sorry for the late reply, I was only notified to a recent "like" ...
... my comment is nothing more than an observation.
9:09
"I need some wata"
"Oh wait"
"Ah screw it im sipping it"
"Gotcha"
HAHAH man that's funny
Mike Evans 😂
Nice observation. That scene really describes the ego of this man. "I'd rather die from dehydration than to not speak out every single thought thats going through my mind."
😂😂😂😂😂
The interesting thing about Peterson is that he makes a solid case for religion (if not organised religion) without being the least bit anti-Science, dude is pretty potent!
To people who know very little about religion or science, maybe he makes a strong case...his ideas are weak and almost childish. He should read Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of The Middle Way from the second century CE and realize all the nonsense he takes for granted and expects everyone else to as well were analyzed in excruciatingly methodical detail and found to have no inherent existence. That means ideas like "soul" or "God" which Jordan talks about casually, as if there's something there everyone inherently knows regardless of the fact he refuses to define the terms, are nonsensical ideas not rooted in reality. The reality is much more fucked up than his simplistic claims he tries to validate by merely saying "I'm a scientist." What he should say is that he's a poor scientist making unfounded claims and trying to bamboozle people with a lot of words. Rhetoric does not make an argument valid. Even more preposterous that he takes these unsubstantiated ideas and attempts to use them as a base for his sweeping claims about gender and society in the same way religious institutions have been doing since the beginning of time. That's not "scientific." This guy is an asshole.
Makisupa Policeman and Thomas Aquinas made a solid case for the existence of God base on brutal metaphysical argument that still cant be debunked today.
He has no good case for religion. He can't even answer a yes or no question about whether or not he believes Jesus Christ rose from the dead or not, the damned tapdancer. "Too simple of a question." He says. What a joke. Talk about a confused man.
Nobody knows wheter god exists or not, we can't prove nor disprove it, there is no evidence of god. but don't say somebody knows or doesn't know that's just gives an argument to religion. Also you are missing his point, his point is a about using religious morality as the basis of morality in society.
You'd like to believe that, but the only way to believe in God after a thorough analysis is if you throw away all the evidence of that thorough analysis and literally go *against* logic in its most methodical and exhaustive examinations about reality. There is no reason to believe, so the statement "nobody knows or not..." becomes moronic and childish. That's not to say brilliant minds haven't seriously thought about this, but not every brilliant mind that did has considered it equally exhaustively. In fact, nobody has considered it as exhaustively as Nagarjuna did in his treatise I already mentioned. Few of our greatest thinkers who did try to tackle this question in modern times were even aware of this treatise, so basically they wasted their time; however, their work merely ends up proving Nagarjuna even moreso, so it was not a complete waste of time and there is always some good to come from examining whatever is important to you.
I think Jordan has a misunderstanding of Sam's views. I think Sam's views align more with something along the lines of how he thinks Jordan and him both get their moral intuitions from the same source, but that the source isn't religion. It's based on the ethical intuitions built over hundreds of years of human conversation in light of scientific discoveries (with influence from our species' evolutionary background) and that morals founded by religion have been bashed in from the outside over time by science and human conversation (conversations that are based on values of finding out what is true, even if you have to change your mind, and trying to stay honest) to become what they are now.
Agreed... I found it annoying when Peterson asserted Harris was using a Christian mindset while pretending it wasn't... Christians don't have a patent on morality. You might even say they become moral in spite of Christianity.
It's essentially just convergent reasoning, which is the closest thing to truth we can genuinely derive. Almost every thinker, barring the religious ideologues, supports this supposition implicitly or explicitly, including Peterson and Harris.
@@maxbrown8044 The idea is sound, when moved out of a religious context; I find Jordan's assertion that Sam's philosophies are based on Christianity to be clearly wrong though... A bridge isn't a Christian bridge if it was built by Christians.
@@JeremyHolovacs Yeah not to mention that Christians were not the first to employ any of these moral strictures, and Jordan himself points to some evolutionary mechanism for their derivation. He just points to religion as being some archetypical catalyst for these, when it is quite obviously other sociocultural and interpersonal mechanisms at play.
There is no such thing as *"BIOLOGICAL MORALS"*
Rationality and Morality are subjective based on socio-cultural values that were constructed in a specific tribe or society.
I think he's trying to argue that you heard thunder before the lightning strikes.
Such underrated, that it pains to see why most of people out there are so dumb, to easily jump the hype train.
Peterson is still my guy even though I disagree with him on this
Alex M his 15 minutes is nearly up.
More people are seeing through his BS
@@bazstrutt8247 Bullshit.
@@lordindigonnisvoldebeastal3796
Yes...
People are seeing thru his bulkshit
@@alisonaizlewood475 People are seeing through your attempt to appear literate.
@@lordindigonnisvoldebeastal3796
Almost funny... 😂🤣😂
The problem with a god is that he will never tell you anything. A ruler might justify his actions or tell you how the law is to be seen. What does a deity say? Nothing, the clergy speaks for this deity. What right do they have to speak for god? None. Perhaps they studied religion or "hear voices", but there is absolutely no indication that they don't just speak for themselves. And for the longest time humans have lived under monarchies, which are not fundamentally different from dictatorships.
Peterson has a very deep and odd view of religion he says a lot about the topic but really nothing at the same time. Harris is very cynical in his views of religion but they make a lot of sense, more than Peterson.
The Vman totally agree, Peterson is embarrassing to listen to when discussing religion, he talks such a terrible load of nonsense and the points he makes are so weak and often quite ridiculous.
Watch ravi zacharias, your world will be changed
These comments make me sad. Either you didn’t understand what he was saying or you didn’t listen in the first place.
The Vman , nope! you are just an atheist and being biased to your cause. j.p clearer addressed and dispeld the 1 sided arguments of sam harris and co.
i will aslo happily add that ww1 and ww2 were Athiest wars betweens atheists (nazi) and agnostics (Soviets) atheist doctrines of these countries lead to these wars.
@izzo moses I was agreeing with you until you mentioned the World Wars. It’s naive to think atheism or some effect of it caused those wars, when innumerable numbers of wars were done *specifically* in the name of religion. It’s a lot more nuanced than that.
That said, it’s sad to see folks that seem to think religion never had any value and has always been exclusively some form of tyranny. Jordan Peterson doesn’t claim morality came from religion, rather that religion is a good representation of our own moral systems we developed, and how religion and morality evolved together over time to accommodate culture.
I am not religious. But I believe that religion is important. Mainly because of what Jordan Peterson said and additionally because it helps keep your sanity. Just accepting the fact that there is a thing which is way greater than you and is taking care of you, makes you happier. It has not become obsolete for our society just yet.
"Listen Nog; Hue-mons are wonderful, thoughtful, caring people... so long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts. Deprive them rest, sonic showers, and threaten their very lives. And these same wonderful people become nastier than any blood thirsty Klingon." ~ Quark, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
I love Jordan Peterson, but to say Sam, Richard, and crew attribute war to religion only is oversimplifying their views.
Of course it's going to be oversimplified, it's impossible to fully represent another party's arguments when that party isn't present...
Fair enough. It's a gross oversimplification of their views. Possibly even a mischaracterization.
Cory Burton I love people who try to insult intelligent people by using big words that they clearly don't understand. Even if you disagree with Harris and Dawkins they couldn't be further from "troglodytes" 😂😂😂
Cory Burton. Ya! Good one bro brah. Don't you have an episode of Real Caucasian Househusbands of Survivor County Island Shore to watch?
That"s so patriarchically mysoganisticly genderist. How do you know their dudes? They could be zim/zer non-binary sub-geniuses.
I don’t get that though. Just because you don’t kill. Rob or rape people doesn’t mean you are a Christian. It means you just know how to function in a society and don’t want to go to jail or end up dead. Has nothing to do with Jesus
Exactly. Why aren't people picking this up? This is a fallacy, and any "intellectual" that makes this claim is very sneaky and dishonest
Jordan has multiple issues
Two ships, two planets...both would undoubtedly fall into the same maladies we find ourselves in today. Human nature would prevail.
Exactly
Nothing else could ever prevail, in a religious or atheistic paradigm so no idea what you're trying to prove there.
777_777 I take it that what he is saying is that having a belief that there is a creator god does not make you behave any better
Definitely, but how do you Ramesses human nature? Rationality totally ignores it so the Harris ship would not have the ability to understand the reality and so take increasingly authoritarian steps to control their society, destroying freedom, innovation. Thus they would fall behind. The other ship depends on what religious beliefs are taken. Amish, Muslim, etc. would do less well than others as they are more traditional in their concept of God - e.g. God wills it, etc.
@@kennethmarshall306 it takes a formula and I think religion done well can be a good ingredient
.....did anyone else see a blue cartoon cat in the bottom left corner or have I finally broken?
irrelevant ideology Yes, you have finally broken. Hallucinating, in fact.
I see it too
Clifton is lying. There is no cat.
Nope, no cat,,,,,, but gimme a pull on your smoke
Yes I see it too
Going over old videos of Dawkins, Hitchens & Harris I realise now that their answer to religion is fairly shallow. Essentially the argument against religion and supernatural is all just "hallucinations and delusions". As if they're all just random and coincidental occurrences that weak minds succumb to. Peterson's view is that we've co-evolved with religion for hundreds of thousands of years and that it has survived all those years for a reason, as if religious societies are more stable, as if some kind of religion is a requirement for functional society. As someone who considered myself an ardent atheist, this view actually seems much more reasonable.
Can you describe further???
Except for the fact that we are living in the most peacefull era in the history of humanity!!! While religion has been fading.
@@renderlessgames don't look to others for answers. Get out into the world and learn from life! You are curious. That's a good thing! Always look on the bright side of life... imagine whistling!!!!!
@@vincentconti3633 By pure numbers of followers there's never been more religious followers alive than any other time.
@@vincentconti3633 The extreme left are also on the rise, communism wanting to replace religion. Do you understand?
See that prairie dog who is not murdering another prairie dog? He is a Christian. He won't say he's a Christian, but he is.
Moronic analogy
Great analogy!
@@user-is3yn7xr4c Good comeback. You know, I never thought of it that way.
@@triktrak_1451 Its much deeper than that though. There is no morality without religion, and Jordan is saying that Sam's morals are that of Christianity.
@@cancertomato1798 I understand that Jordan holds that Christianity is woven into our human story in inextricable ways, so it is stranded in the fabric of who we are. I don't deny that perspective. But to prioritize that hypothesis over an individual's (Sam's or anyone's) self authorship is dangerous. Once I permit myself to believe I can know you better than you do, your personal sovereignty is imperiled. Also, I don't think Jordan (or certainly any secular humanist!) would agree that "there is no morality without religion."
What in the hell is Peterson saying around the 2:00 mark? Sam Harris doesn't really believe atheism because he doesn't rape and murder? wtf? Sam Harris wrote an entire book on consequentialist ethics.
Those ethical objections obviously predate christianity not to mention just about every religion holds the same truths.
Yeah...And where does ANY religious apologist get off by simply CO-OPTING for a particular religion any sort of GOOD behavior of the lack of BAD behavior as the embodiment of some long ago made-up story.
Any good behavior or lack of bad behavior could be shown by anyone, regardless of their religious upbringing. This is what Hitchens and others like Harris have said. Good people will do good things. Bad people will do bad things. But to get good people to do bad things...you need religion.
By living according to those values (not killing,raping, stealing, etc) Harris unknowingly upholds the Judeo-Christian ethic, regardless of what he says about religion. He is living a values based life. Indeed, the heritage of the West is from that ethic. Has anyone noticed that wherever that ethic has gone, places flourish? Compare the major Muslim nations and those that were historically "Christian" (in quotes bc I don't mean specifically a set of doctrines , but values stemming from that tradition). I won't say wherever the Bible has gone, bc you can clearly have people who carry a Bible or an orthodoxy with them while their actions are in total opposition to the ethic they profess (think Crusades, which were masquerading under a Christian ethic). We in the West have taken it for granted. You may say that one can live morally or virtuously without 'religion', and you wouldn't be wrong. But it's just mighty ignorant of history. Like a grown man thinking he's all moral and an acceptable member of society of his own accord, forgetting that his parents raised him with manners, grace and guidance , without which he wouldn't last a day in this frightening world.
Nietzsche addresses people like Harris in his parable of The Madman. Firstly, Harris is a name with little or no weight in the philosophical community, his views on ethics fall generally into the same broad category of intuitive ethics, however, that should fall apart quite easily with any examination.
He tries to compare intuitive morality to intuitive physics, only this comparison falls apart upon a first glance. One (without going deep into ontological discussion) cannot successfully violate physical laws and expect any sort of well-being. However, it is the common belief in the modern day that one can easily violate morally intuitive laws and not only produce incredible well-being for oneself but perhaps even proportionate well being for oneself to the extent to which one acts against one's vestigial intuitions of say empathy or generosity. Those most powerful in the world did not arrive at their post by being the most honest, the most empathetic, or the most generous (exemplifying slave morality traits), but rather by acting according to morally ambiguous if not morally abject reasons and harming others in order to achieve a certain result. All this hearkens back to Nietzsche's study on slave and master morality. The idea of master morality in itself doesn't seek to find legitimacy but rather transcends the foolish and slavish dogmas of the common person. Those with power in the world do not concern themselves with the well-being of others but the well-being of themselves at the cost of others.
Which brings me back to The Madman. The atheist stands amongst other atheists, who do not believe in a god yet dogmatically follow all the semantics of a god. Even if we accept the idea of Mencius that men are intuitively moral, or have some degree of natural moral inclination it does not justify morality at a structure of conscious convention only that it is natural any more than other natural constructs such as prejudice are validated by their natural states. One can believe in morals, but if one has no good reason to believe in the productivity of believing in morality then one is choosing to blindfold oneself before embarking on a journey or tipping the scales against oneself. In nature, the natural world, there are no good things and bad things. Historically, those humans who have been able to look beyond the simple-minded conceptualization that something could be "good" and something else could be "bad" are those that succeed. Objective morality does not exist, to anyone except for perhaps indeed a madman.
crazymusicman13 Sam Harris was also a shill for Hill
Sam Harris is unable to distinguish between God and religion. He argues against his own interpretation of religion and not against God, but, is unaware of the difference.
Jordon debated Sam...and got schooled.
Harris is in error, like any other atheist, as *I have proved* in my newest top message (anyone can sort the comments to see it).
Why does people keep talking about Christian values at the core of anything related to our moral values?!? Did we as humans started all together with Christianity?!? You can’t explain something like this taking a starting point “halfway” in to history...
because there are some people who have no self-respect for their own intellect to figure out what his right and wrong. they're simply saying without a book, i'm too stupid to decide for myself what is morally right or wrong. so much for 3 pound brain. i can't empathize with other people. you better keep an eye on me because that's how much of a man-child i am
It goes back to the garden. But just starting with Christ
Jesus was a Jew
His teachings were not new. They were repeating the principles that the entire Jewish Bible teaches
Those things are built from the mosaic law
@@nomadicrecovery1586 Actually the idea that any man can be moral without God is in the NT and is part of the book of Job; actually a basic point of the book. Most misunderstandings of these things will be ironed out when New Atheists start talking with serious respected theologians in this new pursuit that the talks about metaphorical truths have ignited.
Doesn't Get Sam right at all...but these men are worth listening to. Always. full stop.
Lol right. You can definitely read people better than Jordan Peterson
I've never heard Sam or anyone suggest that once we had the enlightenment, people suddenly "became rational". Also, "Christian metaphysics" has nothing to do with Sam's worldview and isn't required to "not rob banks" as Jordan puts it. A great many Buddhists also don't rob banks or kill people. Primitive non-Christian tribes have existed without killing people or raping. I've also never heard Sam or the other Four Horsemen suggest that humans waging war is solely because of religion. Unfortunately Jordan is still stuck, *as he has admitted*, in trying to reconcile science with his own religious beliefs.
Sam Harris has the nerve to make blanket statements about the entire history of Islamic AND Christian civilization, as if to suggest that ivory tower intellectual snobs like himself are just totally morally superior to literally half of the human population and the two most popular religious traditions that have ever existed in the world, perhaps that is a point worth considering. Condescending pretentious secular liberal nonsense
fusion772
Have you read the bible? How about the Qur'an?
Are *you* not "" just totally morally superior "" to the ideas and moral philosophies contained therein??
I certainly am!! I would hope that you are. Because if you are not, then you are a degenerate scumbag.
+Frank Sanders Oh yeah. Like love your neighbour, turn the other cheek, be kind to strangers. I mean only degenerates do something as aweful as respect other people.
You know i hate this kind of argument. You define the religion as the worst possible interpretation you can imagine.
You could just as well argue, that people that belive in evolution are degenerates, since the worst possible interpretation of the theory of evolution (social darwinism) is a cause of the holocaust.
I'm a Muslim, God is the Creator and the Sustainer of the universe who created everything for a reason. Muslims believe that He created humankind with a simple purpose to worship Him. He sent messengers to guide people in fulfilling this purpose. Some of these messengers include Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, peace be upon all of them. They all taught a consistent message about God by affirming His greatness as the Creator and guiding people to worship Him alone.
God, the All Wise, did not create us to simply wander aimlessly or to only fulfil our basic instincts and desires. Rather, God describes this life as a test. Every person is being tested as to who will choose to acknowledge God and follow His guidance, and such as the part of the test of this life, He has made it our responsibility to use the abilities He has given us to acknowledge Him. This means that only those who are sincere, humble and reflect deeply will recognise and believe in Him.
I watched that interview he did with Matt Dillahunty and I realised one thing, which is that Peterson so conveniently defines the word "God" to his liking. He defines "God" as this abstract concept that constitutes our values and morals, when in actuality we know it refers to this omnipotent, extra-dimensional and timeless being (that may or may not exist). When he defines God as the compilation of values and when an atheist like Sam Harris (who obviously has values) claims to be an Atheist, Peterson deduces that they're wrong. This is because an Atheist is someone who rejects the idea of a god and he assumes that these atheists are rejecting his definition of "God". I still disagree with him cause idk why the hell he's defining God this way and the more and more you watch his videos the more you realise that he's an Atheist that doesn't have a clear cut abstraction of his views.
Coming back to him claiming that Harris is "Christian", what he's trying to say is that Sam Harris having been born into a Christian household has morals and values that fit the general Christian Archetype. Thus in this case he defines the abstractions (i.e. the morals) that Harris has as a sort of "Christian God" thus making Harris "Christian". Confused? Yeah same. If Peterson's views on God really makes your Brain twirl then I'd recommend watching the Matt Dillahunty interview. You'll really understand the nature of his argument when you watch that.
Peterson refuses to engage with the supernatural, he merely wants to discuss the biological and psychological. I can forgive it because that's what we know. It's a valid point though: through evolution we were naturally predisposed to abide by some moral laws as a collective. Individually we may very well try to break those laws but the collective recognized what was fair and what wasn't fair. Religion and Superstition was the first and probably the only way we can explain the phenomenon of our rules and morals. Yes we see why we constructed them over eons in the evolution of man but what makes them right, what makes morality real still needs to be explained. I understand why we evolved a sense of sight but I still need to look out into the world to understand what light is, what it is I'm seeing. In the same way though I understand why this sense of morality was wired into us over epochs it does not really explain what that morality is and if it is real or not.
We are all hesitant to throw that law away. It's not impossible to do so as we can see that people who genuinely believe there is no such thing as right and wrong exist can do anything they please, especially the more horrifically "wrong" things.
Harris believes we can throw away religion and superstition, that they aren't useful in a man's psyche and still hone in our sense of morality and actually live meaningful lives and be good people. I don't think it's really possible because what he and JP have done (and what JP points out here) is live with only the brainstalk of religion. They dogmatically believe that human life has value, something justified in Abrahamic faith by Genesis 1:26, the idea that we are created in the image of God, but otherwise can't be proven true using the scientific method or facts alone. (I avoid saying here reason because I think that Believing in a classically theistic God logically leads to the idea that human life is valuable which then logically leads to all of our laws and values).
If I understand JP correctly he means that Harris hasn't gone all the way when cutting out religion. He has some still unjustified beliefs that he carries about and protects religiously. I would very much like to see then if being atheistic completely must necessarily lead to nihilism. Because at this current point JP paints Harris as a man who claims to have forgone God and living better for it but is secretly carrying some rosaries in his back pocket. (metaphorically speaking)
He needs God and uses his brilliance as proof. Sorry. I don't dont think so. Proof it or belief it. At least be honest about it. Jp is the typical Jesus smuggler.
Except hes not saying he Christian, he is saying that he has the same morals as Christians and he is trying to make an argument out of the idea that without a god to tell us our morals in fear of him doing us harm that we would return to our savage behavior and become less rational. Or because when they died they believed that they would get a out of world payment for there behavior on earth. Personal I believe what he is saying is true because only until Christianity came along we were raiding villages murdering and raping people, You definitely could make the argument that we decided our morals but I personally don't believe that because in the 90s when atheism was at its peak school shooting and murders became more prevalent because without a purpose, or feeling significant you tend to do things you wouldn't normally do because there is no real meaning, everyone dies and that's it no more no less I have no real purpose in life. People say "gun control" but did you ever see school shootings happen before the 1990s no because people had a purpose. To serve and do good under god. Because at the end of there life when they have done good they can rest in piece in heaven. Atheist can have morals but they can't have anything to base there morals on.
@@danielwmwolf This comment brings nothing to the conversation except "sorry, I don't don't think so." "Jesus smuggling" is just a lazy term for , I don't know but your winning the argument so I'm just gonna say you're "Jesus smuggling". I thought you guys were able to prove Religion wrong, instead of saying "Jesus smuggler" just say "I have no further knowledge of this topic and I can no longer continue talking about this topic because of lack of said knowledge."
@@rocknecointin682You make a lot of claims about atheism but I don't think it's consistent with reality, To say that atheists aren't moral while at the same time acknowledging the existence of moral atheists is paradoxical. If you think atheists get their values from Christians I'd beg to differ. Morality did exist before the period of Christianity and to suggest otherwise is anthropologically untrue since philosophers like Seneca, Plato and Aristotle were already dabbling with higher order moral philosophy like the "objective-subjective morality" debate and all of this happened in ancient Rome and Greece, this in and of itself is proof that Morality can exist on it's own (and certainly existed before Christ). Even dogs and chimpanzees have moral structures that mimic that of humans. If you believe that the only thing keeping someone from going psycho is the promise of devine reward, then I hate to break it to you but that person doesn't have a conscience and is a terrible, selfish human being who acts to be nice just to save himself from hellfire. Pretty depressing imo. I think you're interpreting Peterson's words very differently and he does not define God in the way you think he does. His definition of religion is very weird and that's exactly why all his fans are so confused about his stance. Religion in it's classical definition isn't how Peterson means it. Maybe watch a couple videos where he discusses this like the Matt dillahunty one and even watching a couple of critiques of that interview might help.
P.s. do tell me why you believe that gun violence is caused by atheism. Maybe you have some studies that plot a causative relation?
I really appreciate and respect both Sam and Jordan. I think they're both necessary in this day and age. I agree with both of them on most topics. Regarding this domain, though, I tend to agree with Sam. Although, I understand most of the points Jordan is making and he's definitely made made think a lot deeper about the topic.
Great interview.
Thirty years ago I might have concurred as we weren't forced to worry about religion much back then at least not in the west. And there was a feeling that progress was inevitable. But nowadays it looks like history could repeat itself if religious powers are left uncontrolled. Religion can and does kill intellectual debate and indoctrinates children. It has just too many negative effects , its time is up and it needs to be shown up for what it is, once and for all.
blanca, When has religion been "controlled" in a way that was not brutal and horrific? Don't people have to right to disagree with you ? Would you enforce your "rationality" on everyone and with what means?
Blanca, Religion is less powerful today than it was 30 years ago. Unless you're referring to the SJW cult.
@@GODHATESADOPTION no its not. It's much more rational than theism. Just statisticly you got like less than 1% probability that you picked the right religion. Then there are all the religious claims about the world that have been absolutely disproven. And year by year with our scientific understanding it makes all religious claims seems more and more ridiculous. Take Epicurus arguments against God and evil and you have just logically disproven God's omnipotents. And that was 2200 years ago. Or the problem with the soul. A soul have to exist for you to continue to live after death. Well people who have epelepsi must sometimes have their two brain halves divided. Each of the two halves gets becomes a single "identity" does he get 2 souls. Or someone that is born with CP is their intact "healthy" soul just locked up in their head and when they die they become a completely different person? All evidence suggest that our consciousness is just material. There has never been any scientificly proven "miracle" why not? If God is almighty why not give some proof? Why design the world so people would believe in different religions so they will go to hell, just because they where born a sertain place? Only ignorant or intellectually dishonest people believe in God.
@@maximilianjohandson3382 you cant have rationality without God its an abstract concept not concrescent, therefore immaterial, materialism is illogical
Religion is TRULY not the reason for warring ETC. It is an excuse. The real reason IS HUMAN NATURE. Baser instinct far removed from religion.
If religion is not the cause of war then religion is not the cause of peace.
As Peterson said, you can consider religious sentiment an aspect of territoriality, but the fundamental motivation is still territorial. The problem with Islam is that its followers believe all territory, both geographical and religious, is rightfully theirs and so, many of them are prepared to kill anyone anywhere who doesn't share their religion.
It is the only cause of possible peace, because if there is no God then there is no no end to human rapacity.
LucisFerre1 people will always find an excuse to hate and fight. I'm an atheist but if religion was forgotten tomorrow are you so naive as to think humanity would be any less destructive?
So remove the excuse. What's the excuse for capitalizing entire words?
The fact that Sam Harris doesn't rape and doesn't kill people does not necessarily mean that he's acting as if there is a God. You don't necessarily need a metaphysical creature to create yourself some moral values and define goodness and badness for your own. I'm not saying, however, that morality is objective but what I'm saying is that people can still create themselves some subjective ones.
This is Jordan's way of acknowledging the absence of a literal god.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him." -
Voltaire
why?
As he lie on his deathbed, Voltaire offered God his fortune in exchange for two more years of life.
Dan Jones what’s the citation for that claim?
Because the common quote is literally the opposite.
An old priest visited Voltaire on his death bed and asked him to renounce Satan.
His answer was “this is no time to be making enemies.”
Lol and do you find it necessary then? I think not.
@@graysonharris540 probably because the vast majority of people are illogical, don't want to believe everything in the universe is the result of random probabilities, means evil can win over good (& does very often), scientists know more than priests, we have no solid scientific/ spiritual very deep historic basis, etc.
He losing a argument with Harris, and Sam isn't even there!
only sam wants to argue...he can't lose because he isn't trying to win...he is just speaking his point of view...that's was divided thinkers like sam harris just don't understand...they fail to expand their framework for learning because they are so insecure and defensive that they think every conversation is a battle over whose right and whose wrong
It's no contest! Both Sam Harris and Dawkins are on a whole different level then Peterson
Too true! Peterson makes excellent arguments regarding evolution and its role in human consciousness, social development, and how and why religion exists the way it does today. It's unfortunate he's unwilling to come to any real conclusions though, he just talks past the issue and won't land anywhere concrete (which is what Harris was trying to get him to do when they spoke).
Lecturing on philosophy is great and it stimulates the listeners' minds, but it's a really big missed opportunity (one that all the commenters seem to be fine with as well) do disregard someone who disagrees with you on religion assuming they're stupid, inferior, etc.
There are excellent reasons to take an atheist view of the world (Peterson admits this in the video) and there are excellent reasons to follow a religion.
The two conclusions I draw from listening to Peterson, Harris, and others are:
1. *Having a good reason to believe something, in this case recognizing an idea as a successful survival strategy, does not make that thing true.* It may very well be that the most robust and successful social structure is believing in Scientology. That doesn't have any bearing on the truth of the claims within. Unfortunately the case may also be that having a population fully aware of the truth might also not be the most efficient survival strategy. This goes for scientific and moral truths. Peterson seems to align with this idea of truth value coinciding with utility toward survival. Quite an anti-Christian philosophy to hold, although useful in its own way.
2. *Multiple religions have shown to generate stable ideals, while being mutually exclusive factually.* This is part of Harris' argument that religions prove themselves wrong in the same way that the relationship between human/animal sacrifice and weather prove themselves wrong.
Put more simply, the most successful ideas are not necessarily true or moral. Religions are largely projections/abstractions of those successful ideas (as Peterson lays out here, quite eloquently around 13 minutes).
Fascinating topics, I really enjoy listening to Peterson and hope he has more fruitful discussions with people like Harris.
When I heard them speaking it became very clear that it wouldn't gel because jordon doesn't see a difference between a fact and useful wishful thinking. No matter how useful a belief is that doesn't make it true. That argument went for 3 hours and it is the only thing I disagree with him on.
nathenism infatuated with power. Hmmm what does that remind you of?
This is a Gothic cathedral of gobbledygook. As a psychologist, this guy is a rigorously trained astrologer.
The question that Harris & Hitchens asked was: is this TRUE? And if it isn't should we believe lies and follow liars?
Peterson is a genius at appearing to be a genius. He has no other talent. He doesn't need one.
Thank you, the religious love Peterson because they can sound smart while still believing in non sense
@@superfarful this may be the wit of the staircase, but this is the way to deal with Peterson.
Sir, do you believe in the literal truth of the Gospels? If so, let's debate.
If you don't believe in the literal truth of the Gospels, please explain why we should believe lies and be ruled over by liars.
Peterson never answers either of those questions because they have no rational answer. The rest of it is pure rhetoric.
Bro says within the first 3 mins that someone who doesn't rob/rape/murder is necessarily acting out Christianity and thus can't speak against it. 🙄
Do yourself a favor and do not take JP seriously.
What he's trying to say is that if we were to ACTUALLY live like beings created on accident by nothing and going nowhere, then we would be completely self serving. But we all belive that we have value and the people around us have rights and values. This cant be justified by atheism.
Peterson and Harris is one of the best intellectual discussions I've ever seen. It was also one of the very few times I didn't see eye to eye with Jordan. The world needs more discussions like this.
Harris came up with so many arguments and questions towards Peterson, and Peterson couldn't answer a single one. From episode two on Peterson only repeated himself, and watched Harris in awe. To me, from a certain point on, the class difference was obvious. Well, at least Peterson had the better suit on.
It’s interesting. Every single time I’ve seen Peterson make the claim that people like Harris say they don’t believe in God but that they actually do because they live like they do due to the fact that they don’t kill, rape, etc. he always fails to explain why NOT doing those things means a belief in God has to exist. I don’t see that. Morality doesn’t inherently come from God. Matt Dillahunty explains this very well, and Peterson has never explained the basis for this claim in any meaningful way.
What a way to misrepresent Sam's views... Sam has never claimed any of the things Jordan just said he has.
Delta 07 I'd love to see someone that has a gripe with Sam Harris and not misrepresent him. That's not the way to argue and Jordan is smart enough to know that.
Can we agree that mass delusion is not beneficial to society?
He just argued against himself. Religion is dogma. Many forms of dogma exist to promote hierarchies. Religion is another dogma trap.
This guy nuts.
Look, i love Peterson, but when he says that Sam Harris is actually a believer (Just that Sam doesnt know it) because he doesnt rob banks, rape or murder people, then I really just scratch my head in frustration. For such an intelligent articulate man to say something so stupid is mind boggling. The fact he thinks that the human being would descend into complete chaos and irrationality without some religious underpinning is complete asinine. Look, he speaks very well, and more often than not i think he is easier to listen to than Sam, but when he speaks crap like this, imo he loses some credibility. HE's a highly intelligent man that makes alot of sense to me regarding free speech, life paths etc, but when the conversation turns to religion, he turns into some random street preacher.
he didn't say that sam believes in the christian god, he just pointed out that he follows christian culture and morals, which are not accidentally not only christian, but human values overall
this comment section is FILLED with people who have poor understanding of what JP is actually trying to convey...
Talar S enlighten us then enlightened one?
I didnt say he said he believes in the christian god.
This comment section is also FILLED with people commenting about misunderstanding Peterson, yet form no rebuttals themselves to arguments made.
It is a strange thing to say that since Harris doesn't commit crimes that he is acting like a Christian, while "acting like Christian" is more like acting like a Buddhist, which is older than Christianity. But I wouldn't use that argument, morality was not founded by religion of any kind, morality evolved just like our civilization has. I wouldn't even say morality was created, I think it was natural for us to form these ideas based on how our brains were structured, our ability for sympathy and compassion. Some guys just wrote stories intertwined with morals , threw a god in the mix, and fearmongered the population into submission. Though I'm an Atheist I do believe you can believe whatever you like as long as you don't hurt anybody, but it is strange thought that religion on some monopoly on morality.
Antonio Jr buddhism has no morality. It simply teaches detachment. Pain is weakness.
Antonio Jr Buddha was never tortured and killed for his virtue. A small difference.
As an atheist I can only confirm. He is a wise man. I know that many people need religion to function. Personally, I know many people who would be helpless without religion because they cannot lead themselves. I don't want to put anyone down, but simple people need simple guidelines that they can follow. Not everyone has the capacity to think for themselves (without God) and help or understand themselves and the world around them. So he's right, religion is a necessity. As a non-believer, you have to deal with your remorse and feelings of guilt on your own, for that you need a certain strength, and not everyone is strong.
"I act if god exists" - Jordan Peterson!!! After watching so many Jordan Peterson videos, this is what I understand: It is not about God actually, it is about Religion. It is not about whether god is true or not, it is about the book, and the feeling it gives you, it is about hope. It is not about finding truth.
Many people are not strong enough to deal with the truth! And that's a scientific fact! 😜
There is nothing irrational about Catholicism
There is supernatural but not unnatural
I agree with Mark Twain. Religion started when the first con man met the first fool.
How empty and sad must be the inside of your head.
@@22grena i see we have found the fool.....congratulations.
luna I am glad you agree with me
@King Jew ahh, another simpleton pretending to know things that he does not know.
I was wondering, when i awoke this morning, what your opinion was. Now my day is complete. Thanks
@King Jew Technically Eve was the first fool :)
What is he talking about? By and large, and all through history, religious people have proven themselves to be the least moral of all. Their hypocrisy alone is astoundingly amoral.
Hermlock Gnomes And that is based on your morals.
Wait so you think the Atheist Communism movement was peaceful?
@@christopherlamberson1242 Reasonable people would say that the communists in the USSR didn't do the things they did, because they were atheist and did not believe in god. When you take a doctrine and you start to believe it.. (be it political or religious) you fall into a deadly mousetrap of convictions based on faith. You'll have all sorts of crazy ideas taking hold like Germans believing they were of a superior breed. Hitler went even as far as thought different races of men were created apart from each other by a creator god. Stalin built himself a cult of personality that persists to this day in some corners of Russia. (Hitler did this also.. and he was a staunch creationist)
Jordan Peterson was thoroughly destroyed on this topic by Matt Dillahunty when J-P made a claim that Soviets were secular humanists and by that extension, atheist. Of course, that claim did not hold up very well.
Being a Christian is different from adopting Christian social principles of guidelines while not following Christian religious practices.
I usually love Peterson’s points but these arguments in the name of religion are some of the weakest arguments I’ve ever heard.
True af. He's absolutely brilliant but he's trying so goddamn hard to hold on to his beliefs. Whereas sam harris doesn't even try. He plays the most basic cards and wins everytime
@@Mura-yk8qp Dont mention "God" without any needs. Jesus is real. Thinking that everything came from nothing requires so much more faight. Jesus came, and I believe there is a lot of *evidence* about it
@@QankoIvanov there's absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever to prove the existence of god. I'm not saying we can prove that it doesn't exist. But to base your whole belief system on a random claim about a random diety that it's existence is completely questionable, is not the right choice for the right mind
@@QankoIvanov ‘dOnT mEnTiOn gOd bla bla bla’
Your the reason some of us atheists are atheists. The possibility that god created everything is just as possible as literally any other answer and isn’t backed up by science. Do we tell you that to feel superior than you? No! We say that because we have to fight back to get people like you off our fucking backs when we say “I am an atheist” leave me be and I’ll leave you be! Is that so hard to ask!