If you enjoyed this episode, you might like our new online learning course where Justin Brierley guides you through Jordan Peterson's arguments! www.thebigconversation.show/jordan-peterson-god-course/
I enjoy everything else but the premise of life having to have a sense, is the biggest lie and an unfulfillable truth that no religion or philosophy can deliver. Anyone preaching they have the path to the answer other than “there is no meaning to an inevitable accident of life”, is selling a story to those who were conditioned for generations to be dependent on that lie for other questions it created to manipulate them away from facts. A journey of personal truth is not at all anything like factual truth. Search for meaning in meaningless is the rabbit, pulled out of a hat without a magician where the act itself is build on a lie.
If free will does not exist then God cannot exist. God would have no preferences, no ability to choose and could intentionally do nothing. All that would be left is nature which has no preferences, no consciousness and no ability to choose. Nature is only what it is. Most religious people deny free will conceptually, but don’t appreciate that this negates the existence of God. If God existed then prove that free will exists. They won’t because they don’t believe inGod, just in their own bullshit ingenuous arguments.
Jordan B. Peterson: "My message to the Hungarians. Do not rebel against your dear prime minister! What your leader is trying to restore the metaphysical foundation of the Hungarian culture" Another well payed guest of Fűrer Orban in the Nazi eagle nest, the Fűrer-Castle of Buda, Father Jim Blount from the USA: "I would like to tell you a secret about Jesus and a secret about your prime minister. Another name for Jesus is Viktor."
@@rezadaneshi look around yourself and you will immediately see that there are lessons about order and beauty... Nature teaches you to observe and learn... Nature has order and therefore it's not unreasonable to conclude on the idea of meaning and ultimately an absolute fact or truth.
This is how conversations should look and sound. Two informed and honest people opposing each other on fundamental concepts with respect and patience. This should be shown in schools.
The only unfortunate thing is the fact that the moderator, whenever the discussion gets really interesting, cuts them short due to time constraints. :-( These two could have gone into so much more detail. I hope Jordan invites her on his channel for an in-depth discussion someday.
Ace of Goats : I could not agree more with your comment. My conclusion on why most people cannot have conversation at such interesting level even ideology/concept are different/indifferent, without yelling and become destructive, because we still possess the conquering mentality. Able to respect, appreciate and understand opposing perspective and willing to explore beyond their realm of knowledge. Eventually learn something from each others are rare and far in between.
I don't agree with Saint Augustine in this. It sounds like he's trying to say that you must believe in the totality of the Gospel or you don't believe in it at all. The statement is an endorsement of blind faith. Firstly, any 'Gospel' from any religion is complex, with stories and meanings that repeat itself in other stories. Believing parts of it is a natural thing, and perhaps with time and experience you may end up rejecting or accepting the other parts of it. And secondly, man is a rational being with the ability to question. Blind faith is in my opinion, a refusal to opening yourself up to a deeper understanding of existence. You simply surrender yourself to an ideal. If we exist with the ability to question, then why shouldn't we question things? Now, I'm not saying having blind faith is wrong. It gives a lot of people comfort, especially those who cannot articulate certain truths and values they wish to embody, or those who are too busy with the exigencies of living to wrestle with the 'why's.' For many people these value systems work and aren't broken and don't need fixing or questioning. However I, and a lot of other people, don't want to live that way. That's part of the reason why we look for stuff like this video on youtube.
@@geburah8319 If you read St. Augustine's quote care fully .........it doesn't actually mean the way you interpret it to be. There is an element of Faith in it. That's why he uses the word "Believe" . If you "Believe" that the Bible is the Word of God .....and Jesus is the Word .....and you still reject certain aspects of the Gospel (i.e. the Word itself), then you reject Christ himself. Which means you did not believe that Jesus Christ is God in the first place. This might be the sense in which he used the word "believe" in the quote. The word "believe" is not limited to the historical or scientific or philosophical aspects of the Gospel. Having Blind Faith is not wrong if your Faith is right thing. Assuming that people blindly believe in the Gospel is because they are weak or because they can't articulate certain truths is a misconception. Faith is a gift form God(1 Corinthians12:9) The purpose of the Written Word is actually for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.(2 Timothy 3:16-17) and is not for Comfort alone.
@@sedacemohammed2146 The Gospel is this: Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe the gospel. What is fulfilled? Gods promise to redeem man from our sins. Why did Jesus say this? Because HE is the fulfilment of God's kingdom and the Gospel is the fulfilment of that promise God made to save sinners THROUGH HIM. Jesus DIED for OUR sins, He was buried, and RAISED on the 3rd day, defeating sin and death, and providing a way for us sinners to go to Heaven. The Gospel message is a COMMAND from God for us to respond in repentance and faith in the savior Jesus. it is NOT some exercise of philosophy, or some archetype of biology. It is God providing us a RESCUE and if you look at it from a worldly point of view you will only get a worldly description of the Gospel. The Gospel is God's promise fulfilled in Jesus to RESCUE US FROM OUR SINS. Without it. we ARE ALL GOING TO HELL.
Most atheists are like her and most believers are like him, they just don't have the gift of expression they do...the balance of mind to say how they feel, rather than reacting to those around them at any given time. Don't confuse how they think, to the actions and reactions of conflict. Remember that what we see is more the polarized cusp of defense and offense brought to our senses in conflict.
@@alldadsunited Jordan Peterson isn't a Christian, but he speaks about Christianity and the Bible a lot, and he has even described himself as being "deeply religious", so I understand how many people have been led to believe he is religious.
How wonderful and amazing witnessing an intellectual and civilized conversation like this. If only people could be like this... This world could have been in a better state.
If only people would converse together you would get reasoning such as this rather than REAL SPEAK....Garbage in - garbage out...Using our own minds instead of parroting the government
I watched 10 minutes and quickly realised the meme they're talking about has nothing to do with funny pictures spread on the Internet. Maybe I'm out of my depth.
Well actually they are. Just on a different level of analysis. The concept is still the same. Richard dawkins came up with the term to describe those exact funny pictures and the psychology behind them more or less
@@mikementzer9292 Dang. Are you looking for a fight, huh? If so, you should keep looking because I don't have energy to waste on petty internet arguments. Good luck.
I had the same experience when I first listened to Peterson talk about God. Then I started analyzing whatever it was in my head that made me doubt atheism. Took me down a very interesting road...hope it does the same for you.
I loved this. Intelligent interaction with gentle debate, that doesn't degrade into hatred and yelling. This is growth and understanding. Both sides learn, and are able to make adjustments to one's hehaviour with others.
I noticed they are both doing something that shows they are very skilled communicators. They both often verbally acknowledge each others points and let the other know when they agree with something the other said. I cannot tell you how important and powerful this skill is when you are debating someone. It keeps the other person from going on the defense and they will be much more receptive
I noticed it too. The amount of respect was big. And the man in the middle kept pulling them back to the question asked. Very challenging to watch, very interesting, too.
It just shows two very good and very polite people they respect each other they don't put each other's ideas down I wish it could be like that more often I disagree with a lot of people I do not dislike them for disagreeing with me I wouldn't call him names for disagreement with me but they'll call me names for disagreeing with them I think we should take a great example from these two people and I do believe they are friends
Absolutely!!! I think that's nearly my favourite part of this. I love how neither of them seems remotely interested in point-scoring. Excellent stuff 👏👌👍
Jesus is Truth. He said he is. He told us we can do nothing without him. Take, eat this is my body broken for you? Who? Those who devower his word and and believe him and in so doing take his yoke and follow him in love gentleness and prayer for other lost souls to follow to make the world a better place.
The magic word is belief, also known as opinion. People's opinions rule their lives and many others in what is said and done. With a man's heart, he decides what is right. A good heart is good. An evil heart is evil. What attitude will you choose? Good feelings come from a good attitude. Bad attitudes cause anger followed Uncontrolled emotions cause actions, sometimes mayhem and murder at worst and most build a Background report that rules your life and all life around you.
Cheap try. ...Does sex exist? Well if you trust science than yes but if you are emotional snowflake trying make a world a magic place without getting up off your sofa than probably no... Just like you've never had a discussion with any SJW =p
Dr. Jordan Peterson said one profound idea that "We are not happiness seeking creatures because it is a low goal. What we seek is a deep meaning that can sustain us through tragedy". Dr. Peterson is so intelligent and eloquent that it is just blows my mind.
Many of his principles and teachings are based on Buddhism i.e. he says in another interview that "life is suffering" - this is the First Noble Truth of Buddhism
SB: I feel gratitude. JP: Towards what? SB: Just gratitude. JP: Well, even your diffuse nothingness is “something” - and that’s God SB: I feel gratitude towards the universe JP: The universe doesn’t care about you, you just said life was meaningless. Why do you feel grateful towards it? SB: I don’t know.
Hm. The universe feels for me, sure it does. It observes itself through my eyes, as well as those of others. I cannot count the human race outside of the Universe. Does not make sense to me. Even my thoughts, the silliest ones, belong to the Universe.
Martti Suomivuori So, that seems to just be applying the characteristics of certain things with all things. You wouldn't say a rock feels for you, would you? Yet, you cannot count a rock outside of the universe, and the universe "feels" for you, because the human race is part of the universe. It seems you are just saying that the *universe* sees, and the *universe* feels, because humans are *part* of the universe. Would you say the universe grows from a seed, into a tree, and makes apples? Is the universe an apple tree, or does the universe contain apple trees? To go with that, and to go back to feelings, the universe has sociopathic and psychopathic humans in it as well, who don't feel. Does that mean the universe also does *not* feel for you? Because those people are also the universe, and they don't feel. So, the universe simultaneously feels for you, and does not feel for you, because you want to refer to the "universe" as the specific things *within* the universe. What about percentages? Does that come into play? What percentage of the universe is the group of humans that cares about you? If the tiniest of fractions of a whole does something, that makes it reasonable to say that the whole does something? By example, if all but one person in a group of people have never tried key lime pie, but that one person in the group loves key lime pie, does that mean the group loves key lime pie?
She might be referring to universe as a more abstract thing than you are describing. Not the physical manifistation of the universe, but maybe think of it more as life it self or all the random events that lead to the thing you show gratitude towards.
True. So was the basis the moderator opened with, God as a mechanism to explain the parts of the world we don't understand yet. We are just identifying aspects of God according to our own experiences. So these things are true, a source of understanding, a haven in our life's storms, and beyond all those "mechanisms" of God is . . . well . . . God. I loved this conversation and Mrs. Blackwell's points, she is so close to understanding that I feel excited for her. I think next in her meditations she'll see her association of her childhood experience with religion, I think there will be a separation of those things soon. Then a separation of the idea that God is only the mechanism we need when we need it, to the idea that God just is. Fascinating to see how this opens up.
Tesla referenced human energy 🌬👻jesus christ referenced living 💎👨🎓science described water memory 🌊👨💼existence reflecting psychologically, psalms16:24 k,j 👻💎👨🎓🤍🗽💖🗡🛡🧮⚖🌬🧮☄🌪
@@richardlearn3686 Or she could do none of that. There are many people leaving religion today, finding no need to subscribe to an overarching religious ideology. Religion offers clear benefits - in-group identity, security in a chaotic world, clear answers to (thus far) unanswerable metaphysical questions of the how, why and where of existence, supposedly unequivocal meaning and purpose given by a perfect deity - but none of this demonstrates an actual god, let alone a personal religious god. A sense of community is natural to humans, and religion provides a common base of beliefs linking people together. However, this says nothing about the truth of those beliefs.
@@blossom5831 Tesla referenced human energy 🌬👻jesus christ referenced living waters 💎👨🎓science described water memory 🌊🤵existence reflecting psychologically, psalms16:24 k,j 👻💎👨🎓🤍🗽💖🛡🗡🧮⚖🌬🌪🧮☄
This has genuinely been one of the most interesting conversations/interviews with Dr. Peterson I ever watched. Respectful, intelligent, and non-aggressive. No matter how much Susan disagreed with him, she never attacked him or tried to put words in his mouth. I really respect that and appreciate it in comparison with other interviews. Really great!
Respectful exchange . Never competing. OPEN mindedness - both sides truly listening. One never waiting for the other to finish speaking simply so they can TRUMP the discussion. V refreshing.
I went to the comment section literally looking for some explanation about that exact answer. Please help as English is not my first language nor that I am good at it.
@@akliluaberra7949there’s a passage in the bible where someone gives Jesus a coin with the face of Cesar on it, and asks him a question about wether they should or shouldn’t pay taxes. It’s a trap to trick him into saying something that would allow them to turn him in to the authorities. Jesus answers with the phrase Jordan said; what he means is that some things are god’s, in other words religious matters, and others are Cesar’s; political matters. The phrase is a essentially an analogy of the division between church and state
@@akliluaberra7949I'll try :) he's saying whatever you value the most in life is equivalent to god. It's either God or something else (e.x. fame), which becomes your god.
Store-I think JBP did fine and didn't budge from his thesis. She challenged him very well, but in the end, she is the one "acting" as if God exists according to JBP, to find meaning.
Store Patter! i think the Cathy Newman interview wasnt as deep as this. these are very deep concepts and i also think that peterson knows that he doesnt have time to really explain every single detail like he does in his lectures or books. i do agree that some of his ideas can be summarised a bit better. and i think over the past 20 years he has been working on it. i think the problem is that people just want the pork chop without seeing how it gets made. but then the problem is that if people get the pork chop, they wont just believe its a pork chop without knowing the details. this is the problem i know peterson sees now very well. people need simplicity but they also need TRUE understanding, and thats not an easy balance to get right. which is why im not criticising him at all because i know that with my ability to simplify this stuff comes at a great price of people really understanding them.
+streglof there is the difference between discussions and debates. In debates one party wins the other looses, in discussions both parties win, or both just loose time.
"We seek a meaning deep enough to sustain us through tragedy". I very much resonate to just this. It was felt deep within my bones when Peterson uttered the words.
Yes, but that doesn't make a religion true. You can believe that the ghost of your dead husband is still in your house if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't make it true.
whenever very intelligent people are asked a question, their first reaction is the need to clarify the wording of the question, in order to better give you a complete answer. very interesting conversation.
@@donaldmokgale3123 Both and, I would say. The purpose is both to fully understand the question before answering, in order to provide a more complete answer.
@@robertpreisser3547 only works though for some people. Most people would complain why they can't get a straight answer. Especially when mking a sales call
pccalcio, which is one reason Jesus taught with parables. It's only human nature to *_misunderstand wisdom_* and then to *_reject their own misunderstanding, never having received the wisdom in the first place._*
I just came across this wonderful show. My goodness it is lovely to hear an actual conversation between two opposing viewpoints and moderated by someone who has clearly taken the time to learn enough to ask questions and properly host. Really enjoyed it and will check out more. Thank you for your work!
Yes, her attitude prevents her from falling into the pseudoscience trap. Jordan dares to tell her that she is actually a believer because she unconsciously acts as a believer because she meets Jordan's definition of Logos (and therefore she believes in Jesus, who is the embodiment of the Logos). This is a typically non-falsifiable claim in Popper's sense. She simply responds with a fact: She is consciously atheist. And she avoids responding in the same terms as Jordan. She could define the Logos as the cosmos, or natural laws, and that therefore Jordan is actually an atheist. But that would be falling into the same fallacy.
@@gazagxrlx2974 Ha, ha. Yes, it is a weird term invoked by Peterson in the video. The Gospel of John identifies the Christian Logos, through which all things are made, as divine (theos), and further identifies Jesus Christ as the incarnate Logos. See in Wikipedia.
People accept the spirituality of Christianity but reject its moral accountability and so they run away from it to find a spirituality that does not demand any moral accounts.. It just so sad.
People acept the spirituality of Christianity but they don’t touch with a finger. Moral isn’t judge other people Morality is acept the Spirituality Christianity and show to the Christian how to live with accountability. People judge but do not live by higher standards of what they judge. It is a false judgement. They live the same or worst than those who judge.
@Disfatt Bidge so you are agreeing with me. I agree that morality is subjective. Even within the same religion people have widely different moral codes, so either god has failed or more likely he doesn’t exist and morality is just people trying to live their life’s in community.
Many examples here in this discussion are surrounding the unfaithfulness of various Christians primarily in the United States. This is always a horrible way of judging whether or not it is good to follow God. The whole story of history is man’s disobedience towards their maker and does not hold any weight on whether or not that reveals following God is more beneficial than not.
@@villarrealmarta6103 Religion - history based on man’s disobedience to their maker. Relationship with Jesus Christ - what Jesus did for us/ mankind. Question: How would you feel if when “the end” happens - you realize that God has has been God ? So here’s how I see it - I believe in God & in fact if the entire Bible is just a story, I’m okay with that because building my relationship with Christ has helped me. 2nd point - when you love someone - do you love them based on what they do for you ? If so, what if one day they aren’t capable to do those things anymore, will you stop loving them ? It’s a love relationship when you invite The Holy Spirit into your life and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord & Savior. It’s not I do this for Christ & He does that. It’s I love Him and He so love me - so I want to do things that please Him. Because He knows what’s best for me. Is it easy - No. Is it explainable - No. Will you have doubt - yes. But it’s so worth the journey….
@@Ten8sious Distracting ones self from tragedy is a recipe for disaster when the distractions do not work anymore. When is enough, enough for humans like us? Better to face your demons head on than to hide from it
I've always sought happiness but never meaning - love, happiness and truth have always been important to me. However, I have now many people who feel the need to seek meaning
Marek, that’s just not true. I’m sorry if you have been hurt, but that is why we live in a world with others, that we may be reminded of perseverence and goodness.
It took me awhile to understand JP. Initially, it was difficult for me to follow him because of the many words he uses. But as I watch him in other videos my opinion has shifted to much adoration. His thoughts are so precise and extremely thoughtful. JP was great in this video.
So annoying how the interviewer repeatedly insisted on talking about the book instead of memes, which Jordan and Susan were very interested in talking about. Jordan has a hundred videos in his interview tour talking about his book. The conversation they were having was more interesting and important.
the whole concept of a moderator seems more and more ridiculous these days. Is this TV? Is this like a chemical reaction that needs a controlling agent? No, That‘s not how natural conversations work. A moderator should introduce and step in when discussion gets stuck or escalates, but other than that he should be invisible and silent that you quickly forget he‘s even there. That would be a perfect moderator.
T J , even for business media it must be of much more value to their audience (and therefor their business) to let their guests carry the discussion. I mean that‘s why we are here, lol. We care about the guests, not in what way this business wants to curtail or direct the very people we came here for. So again, how archaic and obsolete a format that is, LMAO. And they really think we are going to subscribe to get „extra content“ after a show like that. Really, fuck those middlemen that interject themselves and then even assume that we owe them something for that, hahaha.
This is Peterson's rhetorical trick. When Peterson twiddles his fingers and says "metaphorical substrate", those with confirmation bias say "Wow, how eloquent, that proves it." Those who are actually trying to get at what he means say "I really don't understand what you mean by that." and then Peterson falls back on his high school book report of Crime and Punishment.
@@papermachevolcano psychology? ? simple to debunk Psychology is by definition, the study of the mind. Now you can’t study everybody’s mind without the ability to know another man’s heart. I don’t know about you, but I don’t even know myself very well at all times. I have introspected my motivations correctly, and at times, they can change a day later. A psychology researcher, if they could, might after years of self-analyzation, know themselves. Are we clones? Of course not. He can project, but not know what, how, and why we are. Man’s inclinations are not always logical, and we are individually unique. Now, the fathers of psychology all practiced introspection to see how their own minds worked, as they could not infiltrate the minds and behaviors of others. They figured out their motivations and inner workings, and developed theories on how the mind functions. Then they claimed to understand how others think and process thoughts. The practice of many people of thinking that other people act and behave and react to situations like they do, is called in teachings of psychology: “projecting” and is a cognitive distortion; in layman’s’ terms, a thinking error. By the definition of psychology and its discoveries, all of psychology is based on thinking errors. Much psychology is valid however, but only works dependent on the recipient. We are products not only on choices we are given, but also on those taken, and the decisions we make. Reverse psychology and other modalities are successful when wise choices are made. Many counselors of the mentally ill bounce any question back to the patient. “What do you think?” That would be fine for a normal person, but for somebody with serious mental illness, just maybe. A serious mental illness means you have faulty cognitive abilities. It is kinda stupid to bounce back questions to a person who has difficulty using their brains correctly. I am now quite capable of making decisions wisely. Yet for me, and it would be a wise idea for everyone, is this response to questions; “What is the most righteous choice, for the general good of all parties, and considered carefully and with counsel and introspection and insight.” Kahn, Michael Lewis. EXPOSING THE MONEY MACHINE: TYRANNY THROUGH GOVERNMENT, RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, AND MEDIA DECEPTION (pp. 40-41). Kindle Edition.
(Edit: Internet) Memes are nothing special. They have been around for ages with the use of caricatures. They are used to try make others look ridiculous. They often are funny but can be pointing at a complete lie or misunderstanding. Memes influence the sheeple strongly.
@@davycrockett8886 She doesn't mean "internet memes", she means Dawkins's original meaning of "cultural memes", that develop and spread through a society like genes, religion is a meme.
@@christopherbloor3901 Thanks for the clarification. The problem with the emphasis on Gene's and memes is the concept that the fittest will always survive and no personal responsibility is really needed. The idea that the fittest idea will win is not guaranteed. If no one puts in the personal effort to acquire the truth - the better ideas could just die from neglect. Also having better genes probably has less influence in our lives than the choices, desires and effort we put into life. There is way too much fatalism locked up in purely materialistic ideas. I know Jordan Peterson doesn't believe in pure genetic determinism though, he believes more in a system of stasis and change.
@Doug Merriman And no one produced any god-thing in reality, much less a manic Peterson. Words words words, that's all it ever was. Cut the crap and just show your god-thing.
@Doug Merriman The science in the Bible is incorrect, starting Genesis chapter 1verse 1. The existence of a creator god can't be proved or disproved, however the Christian Bible is patently false.
@@KevlarShrek For some, happiness. Experiencing "happiness" even temporarily is better than understanding it. Ignorance is bliss. No accountability needed. For others, they can't be happy knowing of their own ignorance and knowingly choosing it. Only truth leads to lasting happiness.
She says 'there's been terrible things in the name of God and communism and atheism and I don't want to weigh them up' and Jordan says... I WILL, no problem.
I will, as well. There is no debate here. The terrible things done in the name of God, by 'God', and for God far outweigh all terrible things done by atheism and/or in the name of atheism and so on. It's more a case of 'atheism' has killed 100 million people, yet God people/religion have killed 1 billion at least (plus God himself is said to have killed almost every living thing at least once).
As soon as Atheism can be compared to any of the Major Religions, Atheism itself will be categorized as a religion. So the comparisons are faulty from the beginning.
Retro. According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, from 1700+ wars, only 123 were somehow influenced by religion. The data is out there, yet you reject it because of your bias (when I say "your" I mean anti-religion groups). You also made a statement about God killing almost every living thing yet you don't believe in God or what He has to say... sigh...
I assume you're using the Wiki which states: 'Some commentators have concluded that only 123 wars (7%) out of these 1763 wars were fundamentally originated by religious motivations.' Note that it states *some commentators have concluded* and *originated by religious motivations.* Well, I can assure you, many more were via religious motivations more indirectly and secondly, 'some commentators' is nowhere near proof.
I don't have to believe in God in order to state what he is meant to have done. If God exists, which many believe, then, he has killed everybody at least once. Note the world flood, for example. I was not talking for myself, but rather, regarding all the people who actually do believe God exists/killed everybody. So, it is still an argument I can give.
I’d say she talked a lot and listened very little. That’s why he interrupted her. Jordan asked stuff, she started answering for a length of time until she had to be interrupted because Jordan didn’t get the chance to confront her way of thinking,
She didn’t have her argument lined up. Circular, callable and provides no clear evidence or enough research. She also contradicts hers self and raises more than one point every time she speaks. The mediator has to interfere in that instance, so that the opposing can have time to respond.
5 min into the video, and the body language of the interviewer, the way he introduced JBP but not her, and the way she is put in a position to grab attention with JBP going full ape psycho arena domination was IMO really disappointing
"We are not creatures who will just not do anything" . We are driven by meaning and purpose. My mom committed suicide because she had nothing in life that would give it meaning. She was looking after my sister which has learning disability. After she was taken from her because my mom couldn't care for her anymore, she fell into a state of depression. She had the time and she was physically healthy. She could just enjoy her life by wasting it on things that would've brought her pleasure and joy, at least that how I thought about it. She had all the time in the world and there was enough money for her not to worry about it. But that's not what happened. Everyday her depression became more severe and one morning I found her hanging herself from the stairs. She could do anything in life and wait till she dies naturally but now that I think about it, her life ended the moment my disabled sister was taken away from her because caring for her was what gave her life meaning. That was everything for her. We need meaning in our life and our actions need to be meaningful in the long term or short term otherwise we will lose interest in life and feel like a machine. We will stop feeling anything positive because our life has became mechanical.. The lack of meaning in our life will put us in a perpetual state of emptiness.
At the end of the day, while suicide or insanity waits, we must conclude that our lives are worth living. Worth implies accomplishing some purpose. Without some real purpose in life, distraction, i.e. keeping busy, is about our only defense.
Sorry about your loss. I once heard a psychologist on the radio who stated three indicators that were conducive to predicting whether one might achieve a happy life. 1. Whether there were abuse in a child's upbringing. 2. Whether there was mental illness. 3. Whether someone had someone or something to live for. The first two can be mitigated with therapy and the second with therapy and medication. The third gives the mechanism to pursue happiness.
Hamid Hosseini Your story is tragic. Mental illness and depression affects many people.. I’ve had this condition for many years. I’m a member of The Humanist Association. We don’t believe in god but we believe in humanity and it’s social morals. I justify my life by painting pictures. I give many to charity shops so they can raise money for their cause. I just have a talent for art. It is a great way of expressing your emotions. I’m always encouraging people to draw and paint At least when I die I have left something in a frame that generations will enjoy. Everyone can draw and paint. As children we all enjoyed splashing colour and drawing stick people. It’s great therapy. I wish you well.
This is one of the very best "debates" JBP has been a part of. I wish it went on another hour. Both had great points and thoughts, they took each other's thoughts and responded to them. I feel I developed in my own thoughts equally from both. So glad that there are still some places where real disagreements can be discussed with civility and respect.
JBP, the Einstein of reason See this as you do Eric, this was a delightful conversation of all three of you, engaged and inspiring, no wonder, JBP is a little Einstein, an introextrovert in one person, who is not a right winger, nor a leftie, he went very deep, harvested there honestly and carefully gold, hammered his findings from all sides and has now a very well founded idea about many things and shares these with us. His train started long ago and is coming now out of the tunnel of learnig. His reason makes far left and far right crazy, cause he makes their false ideologies implode. He is a gift for our time.
Michael : We have to support JBP's causa wherever we can, all of us, to brake this poisonous ideology of victimhood and postmodernism, he is by far the strongest argument the globe has. Never seen someone like him, though not perfect, but aiming for the better, with all he can, not shying away from fire, confronting it, a true fighter against the dragons of madness.
Believers and unbelievers could talk for years without resolving anything. What are you hoping for? To convert somebody with an argumentative discussion?
Finally, someone to properly test Jordan Peterson's views, someone who doesn't resort to aggression and abuse. Great conversation. Get them together again for a series of discussions! I felt uplifted by these 47 minutes.
I feel like Jordan Peterson is trying to prove that we're doomed without religion, like we would'nt have moral values or meaning without it wich may be true, but i prefer nihlism to an imaginary friend in the sky who made us the way we are... that just doesnt make sense and i don't understand how a smart man like peterson believe in god.. id like to ear him talk more deeply about it, someone should ask him why do he believe in god
ExpiAigle funny that you can't make sense out of why he belives, saying God is some imaginary friend in the sky, you like so many other may never really make sense out of it if this is the way you think, you can't criticise something you don't really know well knowledge of, that statement is proof of your ignorance blinding you from what the concept really is.
As someone who has gone down the road of “positive” nihilism, its actually a deeply empty depressing void of existence and we are seriously not wired to live in that way of perceiveing the world.
"As someone who has gone down the road of “positive” nihilism, its actually a deeply empty depressing void of existence and we are seriously not wired to live in that way of perceiveing the world." how do you know how we are wired? did you hear someone tell you how we are wired? Does the lion in the jungle know it is a lion? We humans seek out higher power out of fear and love. The need for a God is merely a search for meaning without finding meaning for most people unless they lie themselves. This God never speaks back.
@@martinvanburen4578 Yes exactly, but the question is: do we act on this impulse and live like gods were real, even if we know they are not, or do we accept that "happy" and "meaning" is fictive and the universe has no intent of making us feel good about our selves and because we are intelligent, should not fall for evolutionary mind tricks?
@@martinvanburen4578 They are just assumptions. And what do you mean, "God" never speaks back. How do you know that? And even if he did, you wouldn't believe it. A belief in "God" is no less ridiculous than the antithesis.
I can't even keep up with what Jordan is saying, let alone imagine what it would be like to have the cognitive ability, knowledge, and insight to articulate it in real time. I'm always stunned.
@@alanbarrett2876 It doesn't matter whether he got dismantled by so and so. The sheer intellectual capability people such as Jordan have is really amazing and how they can talk about such things quickly is just amazing to me.
It looked like Susan was in a therapy session under Jordan. To have a professor for young minds, telling them nothing matters, that everything is meaningless... I think it all boils down to defense mechanism, believing everything is meaningless shields you from pain, disappointment, despair. Like they are coping with something wrong in their life. To young minds, I hope you bravely face the world, accept the struggle and be strong in the most difficult times. And through those sacrifices, I pray happiness comes your way rewarded from a life of meaning and responsibility.
Indeed. As we hear her, sometimes it felt like she was struggling a lot herself to deal with her own ideas. Furthermore, it seems that as soon as she understands or accepts what is going on inside her body, her own ideas about memes will evolve. Bottom line, it was really good to hear them both, because many people today are going through the same conflicts I think she is facing now.
That seems like such backwards logic! Surely the ultimate defense mechanism is faith in an unseen creator, and claiming to 'know' why we're here when there's no unanimous evidence
THIS is one of the best debates I’ve seen Peterson in. It’s so civil and interesting. They’re both very precise, so it was rather easy to follow BOTH viewpoints which I find to be a rarity. Not to mention how deep the topic is. It’s like a philosophers wet dream 😂 they were both amazing, fair play.
Its simple ..GOD gave us the bible to answer all life's questions . Matthew 6 21 for where your treasure is, there your heart [your wishes, your desires; that on which your life centers] will be also.
I have been looking for someone on the other side of the aisle to follow up on their arguments as opposition to Peterson's and u think u have found it in Susan Blackmore
She said, i gave up on Christianity because it didnt make sense to me, but then she adopted evolution but she accepts it although it doesnt have all the answers.🤔
@@choloneressurected i think that's the entire point. The fact that there are even more questions enforces the belief that nothing is entirely sure. Religion is usually made to seem like it has all the answers
I mean.. I'm on Jordan Peterson's side but this mediator cuts Susan Blackmore off constantly to give Jordan 5x longer to speak and never interrupts him.. Need a new mediator for these debates..
@@JeanAlesiagain3 I don't see how it's "being nice" to have a mediator that's so clearly biased. It doesn't help either side in the debate. It would have been more interesting if they got equal time to actually debate topics.
@@Zlysium I understand your point, and obviously a mediator should be impartial. I think the problem is that Susan did not have much to say that was of any substance. Even I can tell she does not understand much about ethical philosophy. The mediator clearly also understands the subject and quicly became bored with anything she had to say after some point... I don't blame him... at one point Susan even said "Don't you think it's offensive to call me religious if I don't see myself that way?", as if it mattered. If you ask me: was he a good mediator?, I would say "not the best". He could have been "nice" and ensured she also spoke just as much even though what she had to say seemed less interesting.
I noticed that; which wasn't fair. I wish they would've had more time for JP to address why SB wasn't really an atheist. She was visibly annoyed at his comments. She probably understood what he was saying but was frustrated at the thought for not noticing. Everyone who is knowledgeable says they are willing to learn but secretly believe they are in the right and need to sway others. Either way, I'm so impressed with people that take time to study deeply and have deep conversations.
15:40 why do you have to talk about the book? I've heard enough about that already, you cut off a deep conversation they were having to talk about his book, just why?
I hope they read this comment. It was a catastrophic mistake. It took what could have been one of the greatest conversations ever uploaded to RUclips to making it into one that's in many ways a dime a dozen.
Few minutes before that happend I was thinking "what a great moderator, he leads the conversation to unwind it into such interesting fields with a grace" and then: "could he really just try a little bit harder to hide his tendentiousness?"
Eh it would have turned into a fight as Susan's lack of clear values would let a storm of cognitive dissonance emerge as Jordan gets increasingly more insane.
Define ultimate meaning... I can say the universe has no ultimate meaning, but the universe is meaningful to me. Like meaning to who? A christen would say the universe is meaningful because god gave it to it. You need a consciousness to give something meaning. Stars die all the time, yet is the sun dies... we die. The sun is very important... only to the inhabitants of the planets around it. If There was no one depending on it... it would have no meaning/value. I live as if I have meaning... to myself. Others don't have to care about me.
If there is no ultimate meanin then there is no value in anything and everything is equally meaningless. Nihilism is the ultimate irrational position an individual can take, the suspension of all value judgement that will always degenerate into impulsive irrational behaviors. This woman's cognitive dissonance is astounding.
You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Just because there is no reason to believe in ultimate meaning/value... doesn't mean individuals don't give things meaning/value. You can't say something has value, without saying value to whom? Plain and simple... cognitive dissonance... where is the contradiction between her ideas? You can make a value judgment... for your self, and you can learn other peoples subjective values and judge contradictions in actions and values... as in their cognitive dissonance in values. Like valuing health over pain... yet they won't workout, because it's too much hard work.
She proved herself wrong on numerous points: Religion = poverty can't be true if the US is religious and also the most luxurious nation ever in existence. Then she doubles down by claiming that non-american bullshit like ObamaCare is a good thing... She's blaming the results of her atheistic bullshit on religion, and then stripping the glories of religion away from their benefits. Bitch is nuts
You can have both great luxury and great poverty in a country. She was refering the chasm between the rich and the poor in the US (religious) comparing it to people being generally well off in scandinavian countries (secular). And it does seem there's a corellation in the religion-inequality example she's using but she doesnt quite make a strong enough argument for causation. On the other hand having a discussion with Peterson is like having a discussion with a dictionary ;) Every topic eventually devolves to juggling definitions.
Wow, this debate was fantastic. Susan Blackmore engaged very deeply with Peterson’s points, and I had several “oh, that’s a really good point” as a result with several of her standings. I’m definitely going to look up some more material she’s contributed to.
I was positively surprised to see her here along with JP. I knew about her long time ago, many years before I even started to watching such podcasts with JP and others. She was one of the few atheists debunkers with a very open mind and good spirit. I remember that she started researching into some paranormal stuff like a true scientist, to come after many years and admit honestly that she couldn't find/replicate any credible results. Compared to many skeptics who try to debunk things out of zealotry without putting the effort or really caring about the subject. That's what I liked about her back then, she is the total opposite of a polemic.
Sue Blackmore changed my life in so many positive ways with her work... she is a thoroughly engaged fascinating and awesome human being ... Her work on compiling and examining all the theories of consciousness is amazing, I remember buying her first edition of "Consciousness: An Introduction" it's a textbook and it literally change the way I think forever I'd recommend it to anyone who's really interested in getting into the subject... It's easily the most unbiased and balanced overview of the topic out there...
It is baffling to me that out of 3.5 million views, there are only 60k likes, this is such a refreshing and interesting engagement of intellectual debate. Personally, I crave these types of conversations so much, but unfortunately opportunities for meaningful discourse are often thwarted by personal attacks and other divisive tactics these days. So nice to see platform promote this type of content.
She's exactly what Dr. Peterson is talking about; A compassionate liberally minded person who embraces the spirituality of religion, but rejects the structure, and dogma.
I had a really tough time being convinced by Peterson that she embraces the spirituality of religion :) It came across more to me that he just couldn't imagine someone being non-spiritual and still choosing to live peaceful, productive lives. Was there a stronger reason?
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Jordan's point is that "peaceful and productive life" is an idea which is solely based on Christianity. Therefore we can't deny the underlying structure and just skim off the top what seems to be "good" because then you'd have to find another underlying structure on which to base your existence and lets say "tastes". You can't base the concept of "good" and "peace" without involving religion and no one has succeeded in extracting virtues completely out of thin air - meaning atheistic or rational virtues.
@@andyuchi *"which is solely based on Christianity"* -- I think he doesn't quite go that far - it's only Christianity for people who were raised in predominantly Christian cultures (by current population too, but mostly during formative periods of history). You do go on to say "religion" later, rather than specifically Christianity though, so we may not need to struggle over this point. *"no one has succeeded in extracting virtues completely out of thin air - meaning atheistic or rational virtues."* -- Has anybody had the opportunity to try? Peterson's own points that everyone is deeply influenced by religion makes it clear to me that he can't say much about what it would be like if someone wasn't. There's no evidence, because according to him, there are no examples. Creating a religion which dictates virtues _doesn't actually extract them out of thin air_ either. It's make believe, or more charitably, virtues and value by convention only. That IS something done in completely secular ways. Money, laws, national borders, there are lots of 'imagined realities' outside of religion. Basically, the premise quoted above wouldn't get you to this conclusion: *"You **_can't_** base the concept of "good" and "peace" without involving religion"* People haven't, therefore people can't? It might be a strong inference if people had lots and lots of opportunities. Peterson denies this. And if you don't know what values coming from non-religious thinking would look like, you can't tell how many are swimming around us, having arisen alongside religious thinking. That makes the premise dubious too, not just the inference from it.
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke I really love how you've structured your points!!! You're right about the first paragraph, I just think Christianity is the most complete religion out of the ones I know. Lets say I'm a Christian and move on :) People have tried to form a completely atheistic set of lets call them "rules". That example is the Marxist ideology. Its axiom is that there is no God or a human "spirit"/"soul", meaning man is a material being only and therefore people's happiness depends solely on the outside circumstances. Therefore Marxism claims that as long as people have their material belongings in check - starting with "bread and water for everyone" - they will be happy and won't need that much more. This is a quite rational and scientific way of approaching the problem of a person's place in life and it excludes religion or God as a whole. They seek happiness through unity (religious idea) but fail to keep human nature in mind - humans are also irrational and spiritual beings. The Marxists don't resist the temptation which Satan proposes to Christ - if Christ turns stones into bread, then all people are going to obey Him. But Christ wants people to willingly follow Him, not obey Him because of His power which casts fear in people. Anyway, getting off track... It's not that there are no atheists and atheistic ideas (he said explicitly that atheists do exist, or at least people who act like it), it's that most people and ideas which claim to be atheistic more often than not fail to consider what ground they're stepping on and calling their "base" for living. Money, laws and national borders are ideas which have evolved with time and yet "laws" are largely based on religion. The Declaration of Independance was written under the enormous influence of John Locke, who was a devout Christian and based a lot of his political ideas on the Bible. I'm sure laws are very tightly connected with religion, but I haven't researched deeper, so I might be wrong. Money and national borders stem from laws and laws were first thought up in extremely religious societies. Yet I say again - I may be wrong. Peterson doesn't deny that people can't try basing values on their atheism. Hell, the man's been researching totalitarian regimes for maybe 20 years, he surely has come upon many ideas. I am genuinely curious on what the "values from non-religious thinking" are, so I'd like to hear the rest of your side, too.
Because the “structure” Jordan claims was made through those values was made in spite of them. Look at the constitution or technology/scientific advancement or very individualist ideology. All of which are hallmarks of America values. I can go more into detail if you want, but for now I’ll leave it at that considering I don’t know if you want to read a novel 😅
As a Christian I respect Susan's demeaner in this interview. She is respectable even in the face of disagreement. Plum of the crop people here. I pray we all find truth.
This really is a great conversation. Jordan and Susan acted so respectfully and allowed the other to elaborate her/his points, that even if you disagree with whoever is currently speaking, it invites you to take a fresh look at your beliefs and solidify or change them. A nasty argument tends to not offer that opportunity. This is beautiful.
@@gregcantaberry7525ell yes. Though perhaps she merely suggests his methods are snake like. I think though he’s referencing a mode of thought most atheists aren’t engaging in. So when he answers they don’t really understand how the idea moved like it did within the conversation. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesars, and unto God what is Gods.” That’s miraculous. She doesn’t understand why. She thinks the memes, which is merely a description of one mode of shared thought, are descriptive of the realm of thought. However descriptions of cognition, are older than time, and compiled in those scriptures. Others may argue the divinity of other religions, that’s fine. Until they start answering these questions, you live with your God and object of worship chosen, but unable to touch or change consciously. That scripture is miraculous because it illustrates a truth about truth. The truth and fealty which serves a true god, is not the same as the money and fealty payed to your leaders. So a division was forged between matters of state, and matters of religion. In the place of either.
@@gregcantaberry7525 I'm a big JP fan so don't take this the wrong way because I respect JP enough to pay for VIP tickets for my father and I to attend one of his upcoming lectures this month. He did suggest she may indeed be a coward lol. I thought they both did very well in explaining each of their positions. Was a good, mostly civil debate that should have been greater in length. It's not often that we get to hear JP debate near peer individuals.
Susan Blackmore is a lady who I respect her in many ways. Very interesting to find a atheist that doesn't have to bully her way around the conversation. She and Jordan would have better off without the mediator.
Well said. Shes a respectful atheist. Most atheist think they're so morally high. I guess maybe they think the same about us. Regardless, we need to treat eachother values with respect.
That said (and agreed with) ... there remains clear video evidence of her tendency to interject her opposing thoughts midway into Jordans' sentences. But, certainly much more controlled than the average athiest.
Far better to respect and bow down to the King of the Universe who humbled Himself even to the point of dying the death of the most vile on a cross about 2000 years ago so WE could escape the punishment for sin that is coming.
@@chanimarie6753 while I agree some atheists can act like that, I have to say by far the average Joe Christian almost always without a doubt when pushed about belief or confronting someone else's disbelief retreats the the moral high ground (I'll pray for your soul for example) and to common threats of things along the lines of you'll knell in the end or repent of burn etc etc. Either this or the you really know of the truth of god but you just love to have an excuse to revel in your sin. Rarely and I mean extremely rarely I've had a religious person continue a debate without resorting to this irregardless of how polite I'm being.
@@marshalllhiepler my other reply could also apply to you along with the adage that that's hardly an atheistic trait, that would be an individualised trait that effect all manner of people.
I hope you all notice the deepness of this man's thoughts when he says "what makes you think that the question I'm answering is the same one you're asking?" Think profoundly about this and you will get to the bottom of it all.
That is exactly his schtick. He doesn't address the questions in a conversation he just takes his opportunity to pontificate on what he believes without actually defending it from criticism. I have not watched this one yet but that has been his mo in the ones I have watched. That is not "deep", that is disingenuous.
I've just come across this, but wow this might be Jordan's best dismantling of atheism I have ever seen. He clearly has thought through this far, far deeper than Susan has.
@@holzhausholz8215atheism dismantles itself. Based on religious principles without the depth. Asking any questions under the surface enrages atheists and only produces an unraveling of atheism and circular arguments.
This is funny, because he is just disqualifying her arguments. There is no logic in attacking. He is tricky, though, much talk to go to something that he seems not to understand because he is too much a believer, and there is no way he can imagine the possibility of God not existing.
I've no idea how you concluded that based on what we've just listened to. He obfuscates whenever challenged or finds himself on shaky ground. Susan was very patient with him imo.
@@djunamgbprojecting😷 much? 🤣 At least make that decision for yourself, without all the emotional strawman arguments and misinterpretations😂 It doesn’t mean whatever you want to misinterpret it as - it means what it actually means
@@The1927Bluebirdfalse - watch it again And look up that word in the dictionary - you’ll see it was the opposite (both of your possible assumptions) What😷? - Yes😎
The way I view it...Is that man was made in Gods image. Just as Caesar's image was on the money. We are the creation of a Being we so misunderstand in our minds.. We make ourselves so far from God that we don't know Him and that we truly are His and He is ours. God is love.
Well Peterson has several biblical talks where he describes the amazing feat the it is to convey ideas into words, and the first phase is to put it into stories. Back when humans did not know what a state or what a church was (they did not exist as words) they still found a marvellously clear way to convey the same idea through the metaphor of Caesar's coins. It's a miracle that the human mind is capable of doing this.
Meditation: seeking God in receptive silence. This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
@@idiotsandwhich8073 a couple of the examples given in that passage have "always" been true, sure. To put the whole list together it only applies now, or not even quite yet.
@@idiotsandwhich8073 To a degree, yes, but those who were prophets knew that the world would continue to exist, somewhat as is, for some period of time. Why else all the prophecies about latter days that had not yet been filled in their time, when if you know the history, John and Paul prophesied things that had not yet happened in their life, knowing as Paul wrote, that he was soon to be martyred. Some of these prophesies marking the last days have come to pass, but at least a handful that I'm aware of, are yet to take place, and will not happen in a day, year, or month, but will take years, as Jesus said, that those who know the signs of the times, in the latter days, will know roughly when it will occur. And yes, many early Christians did believe it would happen in their time, and many that followed them, for they were commanded to prepare themselves for that day. It was in their best interest, and of all of Christianity, that they act, if not believed that the second coming was near. In the ultimate sense, it was, and still is, as the time that we will be judged, will occur in the incredibly short span, in the grand scheme of things, of a mere lifetime, roughly 40 years during the first century AD. Jesus told them that He would come like a thief in the night, and that many would not be prepared.
HAThEistic arrogance...claiming a meaningless universe...yet extolling the value of literacy, compassion, "good" vs "bad", even humility...a complete intellectual mess...outwardly denying Christendom, and inwardly too "dum" to acknowledge her huge debt to Christendom...
Yes and no. How intelligent can a person really be if they believe that absolutely nothing created everything? One just has to do a study of DNA to realize that an intelligent all powerful eternal Creator would have to exist. Denying a painting needs a painter and a building needs a builder does not scream intelligence
@@CaveCanem74 agreed. I was not impressed with Susan Blackmore's thought, but I was blown away by Peterson's deeper dive into the necessity of acting out of religious archetypes.
@saber not almost but absolutely! Keep in mind its very easy to point to a god and give up to find out actually how? It takes much more bravery to think you are alone and sole responsibility gor you and your actions are yours, rather than believe everything is predetermined by an omnipotent being…. There is a reason that believers are happier- and that is everything comes from god so there is no reason strive or fight for or against anything
BLOODY MARVELOUS INTERACTION TO ALL 3 OF YOU !!!!! WELL DONE, I ENJOYED IT BIG TIME !!! Kind regards from New Zealand. Dr Andries Maritz .(Retired & 81)
@@Mick0722MX I mean to say that Feynman would probably see through a lot of what Jordan says. I find what Jordan says interesting but a lot of it is subjective and philosophical, not really based on much evidence or proof
@@godallowsuturns679 Well whether or not we think about God, whether or not we give God his due, God remains unaffected by our thoughts for, against or without him: God keeps on being God! That's at least a part of the answer.
@@godallowsuturns679 But more generally, 'gods' are those things that overide our will or logic. strong emotions such as anger and love and so on are examples and they are considered gods because they void our (sober-minded) will and we can't simply take back the reins.
@@godallowsuturns679 But more specific to JP's claim, God can be described (for him) as the highest ideal to which we hold ourselves, to which we aspire... And whether or not we acknowledge, revere or otherwise consciously conceive of what that is our actions, decision-making and how we orient ourselves in the world are cordoned, driven and guided by this composite ideal, God.
@@godallowsuturns679 P.s. For the God of Christans, "The God who made the world and all things in it...", Acts 17:22-25 may suggest an interesting angle for viewing the biblical perspective on a statement like this.
@Matt that’s due to a brilliant mind allowing itself to venture into the depths of thought without repercussions. If you find fault with his critical thinking complexity then you clearly don’t have the mental attention required to keep up with him.
Part of the issue is that Peterson views religion as something much more fundamental than the belief in a supernatural God who came down and created everything. As he's said religion isn't a materialist explanation in whole, part of it is much deeper. Blackmore is saying "look I don't believe in God" and Peterson is saying "yeah, but your definition of God and religion are way too shallow". Was interesting for sure
Peterson believes in a supernatural god, no matter how deep and pragmatic he is he still believes in a god who created the universe without having any evidence to back this belief up. I don't care how deep he goes in how a religion affects people and nations. He is a christian and yes he is probably a christian with way more understanding of religion than your average believer but he is still a believer, faith not evidence. Pretty arrogant of JB to say - Hey, your understanding of religion and god are way to shallow for you to question this, im much smarter than you so im right by default. Thats like saying, the bible is true because the bible says that the bible is true. Either something is true or it isn't and i know that this debate is not zoomed in on gods existance or not but that is what religion and belief in a god boils down to in the end. You can always talk about if belief makes a person better or not but you can't build a strong foundation on quicksand.
Where do you get the assertion that he's a believer from? As far as I'm aware, he was an athiest for several years after he initially disavowed religion. He now doesn't believe in god creating man, but man creating god. His idea of religion is essentially the collected and distilled wisdom that has been passed down generationally. He very well be arrogant, as most professors tend to be, but it isn't for the reason you say.
By looking at other videos where he talks about himself being a christian, talks about Jesus and his teachings and his belief in god. He is sceptical when it comes to the resurrection and things like that. I like JB alot but he is very careful with words once someone asks him about his religion. He doesn't always want to give you a straight answer because as he puts it himself he doesn't want to be boxed in. He has fans from both sides and doesn't want to take a strong position one way or the other but if you look at different videos where he talks about this subject and you fend of his good way with words it is easy to see that he is a believer. He is not your typical religious guy but you can't deny that he is one. I don't care what he is i still like him.
This would have been much better without the interviewer - he constantly cuts the conversation off at interesting points and certainly did not allow an equal input from both participants.
@@StellaLovesMusic25 huh, I kind thought that he has a certain amount of time to discuss a certain topics and can't possibly cover everything they have to say. Given that opinion, I wouldn't mind at all watching a discussion that lasted for 3 hours hahaha
i feel like the interviewer is there to straighten the conversation, there's time where he cut awkwardly in the middle of the interesting conversation but he done a decent job at guiding the conversation so it does not float away...
He actually does a great job of distilling concise points that he can steer the conversations back to, especially when people go off on tangents that don't address the question at hand.
This was hands down the greatest debate I've ever seen. The timelessness and pure intelligence of this interaction gave me chills at times. Thank you to everyone involved in this video ❤️🙌
And when we succeed in doing this, we feel more positive/robust which is less miserable. This is more pleasant but is it the same as happiness? Unclear, shades of grey on how individuals interperate their state of emotion.
Ian Buttery What we describe as 'happiness' encompasses two different things: joy, a passionate and temporary state of appreciation for a moment, and peace/contentment, a stance towards life which causes everything to be emotionally conquerable and meaningful to the story of your life. Joy is one part of life, while peace is the truth behind all things, my brother.
It baffles me how few people understand the fundamental importance of semantics in a debate like this. People are chucking out cookie cutter terms like 'God' as if it's self evident what parameters that idea is limited to. So when Peterson continually questions this by saying "depends what you mean by 'God'" it's not only a valid statement, but very necessary to clarify a conversation like this one.
Semantics are dealing with words meaning if i'm not mistaken. And it is indeed is important to talk first on the meaning of the words used. But when the meaning discussed and definitions set in the beginning are so vague and chaning - the argument is pointless. And the definition of god and religion Peterson gives are very elusive, that's what is annying. At least for me. It's the strongest position because you can't disprove it but as meaningless.
It was a bit sad that she didn't have the same interest and time from the moderator to allow her for elaborating her points. Really admire her composure and attitude towards the not very easy interview environment that was set
Carlos Andrés Franco Q. I feel as thought they both were allowed their respective time for a response but Jordan’s were just naturally longer and Susan chose not to have a lengthy response.
I agree with Keith and Jeremiah's stance on this comment. In short, it's more complicated than that. But I do agree that the moderator was restrictive in an unfortunate manner, by my opinion.
It's a miracle we exist.. and people say they do not believe in God. I do not too in literal form, scientists assume that Gods were aliens who had super technology and powers who were far advanced than us. And I think that is what God is. But I'm not sure. And yes there must be a deeper meaning for our existence rather than just saying there is no God. But there is something, that's what JP is trying to say, but from the evidence all he knows is Jesus Christ and Christianity. But there is something deeper than there is This God above the sky or not. Okay lets assume God's were aliens with super power and technology but why did they exist in the first place, why did this universe exist. If it's a simulation as supposed by Elon Musk. Who is simulating us. And the simulators origin?!?! So there is something deeper and some cannot handle that so it's better for some to not ponder about it or they might go crazy and some should go crazy to find the deeper meaning behind the mystery that is this universe through means of Science, spirituality, meditation, reasoning, discussing and astronomy all sorts.
Billionaire e You say JP only knows Jesus Christ and Christianity but I disagree, he’s clearly a deep thinker and from my experience you can tell he has thought of all possibilities, religions and arguments, he is very shrewd on facts and empirical evidence, but I think he is ultimately amazed at the story the bible tries to tell, from it’s beginning to end, even if the early (or all) books in the bible are to be “fables” or “myths” he acknowledges that it provides a deep meaning to the chronological existence of mankind and doesn’t or hasn’t formed its ideologies and beliefs in the 19th-21st century (mainly due to the improvements in science), which kinda gets to me because I think science and the evidence it’s holds now is clearly superior and can dispel many historic ideas. But JP is very specific about the Dogmatic and Spiritual concepts of religion, he talks about prophecy and I think he talks about getting stuck onto this verse here I think, but yeah I think this is why he’s so confident in arguing religion against atheists. “Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.” Colossians 2:8 NLT
Most of these things flew over my head. Jordan has a way to articulate his complex and profound thoughts in such am impressive way. I hope some day I can do such thing myself.
You could watch 2 hour debates between JP and and Sam Harris, that are published on RUclips by Pagburn. Those are even more complicated and sophisticated. Still the part that you do understand, you will find extremely enjoyable
It’s impressive to you but for a lot of people (see the comments here) he is an intellectual masturbator who loves the sound of his voice and is a world class obfuscater as per his opening comments which make absolutely no sense except perhaps to him.
I'd say that makes him not articulate, being able to explain yourself in a clear, concise manner and ensuring that the audience gets it is a huge part of being articulate.
WOW !!!! , Mr. Peterson has a incredible educated heart, he'll understand. And Ms. Blackmore has being helped. God bless you all. OsoYolo, Antigua Guatemala.
well done.. Well done by both participants, and the moderator. How rare it is, for two people to be so opposite, and yet so respectful and collegial. Thank you!!
Disagree with your assessment of the moderator. I am a huge Jordan Peterson fan, but the moderator showed clear favoritism. Count the times he cut off Susan Blackmore vs. the times he cut off Jordan Peterson. In spite of that, a thoroughly encouraging and insightful discussion
She's watched the Cathy Newman video. Search her discussions with Dawkins and you will get a sense of what she thinks when she isn't scared of looking bad.
The first person I ever saw in my life, who said Life has no meaning, we are meaningless, Evolution have no meaning? Then why do we evolved? Religion is different perspective,
I like her. I wasn't sure when I saw her hair. =) But that turned out to just be a familiarity bias. This was an enjoyable conversation because they weren't threatened by each other. That led to to polite listening, and a willingness to engage with ideas.
6 лет назад+5
I know, a strange decision for someone of her standing; to risk immediately turning the right kind of people off by dying your hair blue and green.
Even though I'm a big fan of JBP, and as a Christian, I wish Susan had more of a chance to speak. The moderator asked her significantly less questions and gave her less chance to speak than JBP, and I have his book, and am still reading it, so it was best that it was left out of the discussion as a talking point. I wished there was just more discussion between just Peterson and her. It just seemed as though it was an interview between JBP and the moderator as Susan was a bystander that was being indirectly talked to.. and also I wished it was longer, like everyone else
Mia A-W to be fair, I think some of this may have actually been the interviewers fault. If you'll notice most of his questions were directed at Jordan Peterson. It's true that Jordan Peterson can be a bit long-winded, but his statements are always insightful. At least in this case they were actually able to have a peaceful dialogue. And, they seem to be able to disagree and still communicate..
i agree with jordan peterson. and i usually dont agree with comments like this but i think ur right. seems like he knew though that jordans view is a lot harder for people to wrap their minds around. and it seems like the moderator was kind of a fan of jordan, or at least interesting to the moderator. i think it could have been a more balanced back and forth if he didnt cut her off so much for starters. at the same time again her argument us easy to understand for most people. peterson however, i agree with for the most part, and understand exactly what he is saying to the best of my ability. i know that this idea is very complicated to get a hold of because most of us are brought up thinking from a materialistic framework of the world and "god"
Mia A-W I was sort of thinking the same thing, until she began speaking. When she speaks she doesn’t do her argument much justice imo. JBP has done his homework and Susan at times tried too hard to be somewhat comical. There were times I felt that even Susan was impressed with the professor.
If you enjoyed this episode, you might like our new online learning course where Justin Brierley guides you through Jordan Peterson's arguments! www.thebigconversation.show/jordan-peterson-god-course/
I enjoy everything else but the premise of life having to have a sense, is the biggest lie and an unfulfillable truth that no religion or philosophy can deliver. Anyone preaching they have the path to the answer other than “there is no meaning to an inevitable accident of life”, is selling a story to those who were conditioned for generations to be dependent on that lie for other questions it created to manipulate them away from facts. A journey of personal truth is not at all anything like factual truth. Search for meaning in meaningless is the rabbit, pulled out of a hat without a magician where the act itself is build on a lie.
Love it
If free will does not exist then God cannot exist. God would have no preferences, no ability to choose and could intentionally do nothing. All that would be left is nature which has no preferences, no consciousness and no ability to choose. Nature is only what it is.
Most religious people deny free will conceptually, but don’t appreciate that this negates the existence of God. If God existed then prove that free will exists. They won’t because they don’t believe inGod, just in their own bullshit ingenuous arguments.
Jordan B. Peterson: "My message to the Hungarians. Do not rebel against your dear prime minister! What your leader is trying to restore the metaphysical foundation of the Hungarian culture"
Another well payed guest of Fűrer Orban in the Nazi eagle nest, the Fűrer-Castle of Buda, Father Jim Blount from the USA: "I would like to tell you a secret about Jesus and a secret about your prime minister. Another name for Jesus is Viktor."
@@rezadaneshi look around yourself and you will immediately see that there are lessons about order and beauty... Nature teaches you to observe and learn... Nature has order and therefore it's not unreasonable to conclude on the idea of meaning and ultimately an absolute fact or truth.
This is how conversations should look and sound. Two informed and honest people opposing each other on fundamental concepts with respect and patience. This should be shown in schools.
The only unfortunate thing is the fact that the moderator, whenever the discussion gets really interesting, cuts them short due to time constraints. :-(
These two could have gone into so much more detail. I hope Jordan invites her on his channel for an in-depth discussion someday.
Exactly. Debates can be civil and respectful without resorting to mean slurs or superiority complex or unnecessary sarcasm
Ace of Goats :
I could not agree more with your comment.
My conclusion on why most people cannot have conversation at such interesting level even ideology/concept are different/indifferent, without yelling and become destructive, because we still possess the conquering mentality. Able to respect, appreciate and understand opposing perspective and willing to explore beyond their realm of knowledge. Eventually learn something from each others are rare and far in between.
yes i like how the conversation is going im in the middle of the video is very profund
true dat!
“If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.”
― Augustine
I don't agree with Saint Augustine in this. It sounds like he's trying to say that you must believe in the totality of the Gospel or you don't believe in it at all. The statement is an endorsement of blind faith.
Firstly, any 'Gospel' from any religion is complex, with stories and meanings that repeat itself in other stories. Believing parts of it is a natural thing, and perhaps with time and experience you may end up rejecting or accepting the other parts of it. And secondly, man is a rational being with the ability to question. Blind faith is in my opinion, a refusal to opening yourself up to a deeper understanding of existence. You simply surrender yourself to an ideal. If we exist with the ability to question, then why shouldn't we question things?
Now, I'm not saying having blind faith is wrong. It gives a lot of people comfort, especially those who cannot articulate certain truths and values they wish to embody, or those who are too busy with the exigencies of living to wrestle with the 'why's.' For many people these value systems work and aren't broken and don't need fixing or questioning. However I, and a lot of other people, don't want to live that way. That's part of the reason why we look for stuff like this video on youtube.
Wow, a great quote. Totally agree. 👍🏻
@@geburah8319 If you read St. Augustine's quote care fully .........it doesn't actually mean the way you interpret it to be. There is an element of Faith in it. That's why he uses the word "Believe" . If you "Believe" that the Bible is the Word of God .....and Jesus is the Word .....and you still reject certain aspects of the Gospel (i.e. the Word itself), then you reject Christ himself. Which means you did not believe that Jesus Christ is God in the first place. This might be the sense in which he used the word "believe" in the quote. The word "believe" is not limited to the historical or scientific or philosophical aspects of the Gospel.
Having Blind Faith is not wrong if your Faith is right thing. Assuming that people blindly believe in the Gospel is because they are weak or because they can't articulate certain truths is a misconception. Faith is a gift form God(1 Corinthians12:9) The purpose of the Written Word is actually for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.(2 Timothy 3:16-17) and is not for Comfort alone.
But that would be being sheep
@@sedacemohammed2146 The Gospel is this:
Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe the gospel.
What is fulfilled? Gods promise to redeem man from our sins.
Why did Jesus say this? Because HE is the fulfilment of God's kingdom and the Gospel is the fulfilment of that promise God made to save sinners THROUGH HIM.
Jesus DIED for OUR sins, He was buried, and RAISED on the 3rd day, defeating sin and death, and providing a way for us sinners to go to Heaven.
The Gospel message is a COMMAND from God for us to respond in repentance and faith in the savior Jesus.
it is NOT some exercise of philosophy, or some archetype of biology. It is God providing us a RESCUE and if you look at it from a worldly point of view you will only get a worldly description of the Gospel.
The Gospel is God's promise fulfilled in Jesus to RESCUE US FROM OUR SINS.
Without it. we ARE ALL GOING TO HELL.
I wish more atheists were like her and I wish more believers were like him.
Most atheists are like her and most believers are like him, they just don't have the gift of expression they do...the balance of mind to say how they feel, rather than reacting to those around them at any given time. Don't confuse how they think, to the actions and reactions of conflict. Remember that what we see is more the polarized cusp of defense and offense brought to our senses in conflict.
@@lewisjbh Expression only?
"meaningless, empty, pointless...." how terrible - the end then in Susan's world is just a meaningless black hole? How sad....
Jordan isn't a believer
@@alldadsunited Jordan Peterson isn't a Christian, but he speaks about Christianity and the Bible a lot, and he has even described himself as being "deeply religious", so I understand how many people have been led to believe he is religious.
How wonderful and amazing witnessing an intellectual and civilized conversation like this. If only people could be like this... This world could have been in a better state.
If only people would converse together you would get reasoning such as this rather than REAL SPEAK....Garbage in - garbage out...Using our own minds instead of parroting the government
Amen!
Jordan Petersons marriage, 30 years ago
“Jordan Peterson, do you want to marry this woman?“
- Well, depends on what you mean by 'marry'
ChoskarChulian Ya how horrible to clarify definitions
that's a meme right there
Well, depends on what you mean by 'woman'
Hahahaha
You want simple answers to exceptionally complex questions?
I watched 10 minutes and quickly realised the meme they're talking about has nothing to do with funny pictures spread on the Internet. Maybe I'm out of my depth.
They're talking scientifically. This conversation is not your average one.
"out of my depth." 😂 that's hilarious 😂 I don't know if you're trying to be but it was 😁
Well actually they are. Just on a different level of analysis. The concept is still the same. Richard dawkins came up with the term to describe those exact funny pictures and the psychology behind them more or less
@@colts8146 you couldn't be more wrong
@@colts8146 he came up with the term way before the internet even existed
bro. i was an atheist thirty minutes ago and now i'm clueless.
Don't worry, there is not much difference between the two.
@@mikementzer9292 Dang. Are you looking for a fight, huh? If so, you should keep looking because I don't have energy to waste on petty internet arguments. Good luck.
I had the same experience when I first listened to Peterson talk about God. Then I started analyzing whatever it was in my head that made me doubt atheism. Took me down a very interesting road...hope it does the same for you.
Then you weren't a very good atheist :)
@@edgepixel8467 Perhaps. Or maybe I am just open-minded and eager to learn.
I loved this. Intelligent interaction with gentle debate, that doesn't degrade into hatred and yelling.
This is growth and understanding. Both sides learn, and are able to make adjustments to one's hehaviour with others.
I noticed they are both doing something that shows they are very skilled communicators.
They both often verbally acknowledge each others points and let the other know when they agree with something the other said.
I cannot tell you how important and powerful this skill is when you are debating someone. It keeps the other person from going on the defense and they will be much more receptive
Yes.
I noticed it too. The amount of respect was big. And the man in the middle kept pulling them back to the question asked. Very challenging to watch, very interesting, too.
This has to be the most valuable comment ever. I hope many get to read it and help them Improve in their debates
It just shows two very good and very polite people they respect each other they don't put each other's ideas down I wish it could be like that more often I disagree with a lot of people I do not dislike them for disagreeing with me I wouldn't call him names for disagreement with me but they'll call me names for disagreeing with them I think we should take a great example from these two people and I do believe they are friends
Absolutely 💯
I love when Peterson is talking to people who aren’t out to get him... the convos get very productive.
Yes, you can finally start seeing why he is wrong.
@@numbo655 that's the problem, in this type of conversation it's not about right or wrong, thats a good thing.
@@numbo655, no I can't..
I agree. The globe is full of people out there to get him.
@@numbo655 lmao, really unintelligent you are. Even Carl Jung supports Jordan's religiosity.
Thank you for showing 2 people can disagree at the extreme, yet still converse with each other and walk away showing a mutual respect.
Agreed
Agreed
Absolutely!!! I think that's nearly my favourite part of this. I love how neither of them seems remotely interested in point-scoring. Excellent stuff 👏👌👍
There's plenty of civilised debates online, y'all just aren't watching em.
@@Dyljim ok. Good to know 🤷♀️ 🙂
This is how “debates” should be. More of a discussion. A discussion between two people who genuinely want to know the truth.
Jesus is Truth. He said he is. He told us we can do nothing without him. Take, eat this is my body broken for you? Who? Those who devower his word and and believe him and in so doing take his yoke and follow him in love gentleness and prayer for other lost souls to follow to make the world a better place.
The magic word is belief, also known as opinion. People's opinions rule their lives and many others in what is said and done. With a man's heart, he decides what is right. A good heart is good. An evil heart is evil. What attitude will you choose? Good feelings come from a good attitude. Bad attitudes cause anger followed
Uncontrolled emotions cause actions, sometimes mayhem and murder at worst and most build a Background report that rules your life and all life around you.
JP goes to work at McDonald's
Customer: Can I get a happy meal
JP: well... That depends on how you define "happy"
Lol
Cheap try. ...Does sex exist? Well if you trust science than yes but if you are emotional snowflake trying make a world a magic place without getting up off your sofa than probably no... Just like you've never had a discussion with any SJW =p
😂😂
@Alexander Leblanc I love JP. This was a joke and idk why y'all can't take it as a joke
Lmao I can't stop laughing
It is a pleasure to see Jordan Peterson being challenged with respect, for a change...
She is a delightful debater!
So what you're saying is you want them to talk about lobsters.
@@benpeters5851 I don't know is anybody is in favor of mobsters.
its the only way to challenge him lol i dont think she had other choice...
@@benpeters5851 Indeed :)
Dr. Jordan Peterson said one profound idea that "We are not happiness seeking creatures because it is a low goal. What we seek is a deep meaning that can sustain us through tragedy". Dr. Peterson is so intelligent and eloquent that it is just blows my mind.
Many of his principles and teachings are based on Buddhism i.e. he says in another interview that "life is suffering" - this is the First Noble Truth of Buddhism
Except people do want to be happy.
@@PatrickWanisPHD That's present in the judeo-Chridtian Tradition too.
Eim Unbannable that’s not the point thoygh
@@drtomato Giving your life meaning ultimately makes you happy.
@32:33 “Gratitude to the universe”? And THERE, my fellow listeners, is her de facto “god”.
SB: I feel gratitude.
JP: Towards what?
SB: Just gratitude.
JP: Well, even your diffuse nothingness is “something” - and that’s God
SB: I feel gratitude towards the universe
JP: The universe doesn’t care about you, you just said life was meaningless. Why do you feel grateful towards it?
SB: I don’t know.
[inception quote about SB needing to go deeper]
And what do you think about this segment?
Hm. The universe feels for me, sure it does. It observes itself through my eyes, as well as those of others. I cannot count the human race outside of the Universe. Does not make sense to me.
Even my thoughts, the silliest ones, belong to the Universe.
Martti Suomivuori
So, that seems to just be applying the characteristics of certain things with all things. You wouldn't say a rock feels for you, would you? Yet, you cannot count a rock outside of the universe, and the universe "feels" for you, because the human race is part of the universe. It seems you are just saying that the *universe* sees, and the *universe* feels, because humans are *part* of the universe. Would you say the universe grows from a seed, into a tree, and makes apples? Is the universe an apple tree, or does the universe contain apple trees? To go with that, and to go back to feelings, the universe has sociopathic and psychopathic humans in it as well, who don't feel. Does that mean the universe also does *not* feel for you? Because those people are also the universe, and they don't feel. So, the universe simultaneously feels for you, and does not feel for you, because you want to refer to the "universe" as the specific things *within* the universe.
What about percentages? Does that come into play? What percentage of the universe is the group of humans that cares about you? If the tiniest of fractions of a whole does something, that makes it reasonable to say that the whole does something? By example, if all but one person in a group of people have never tried key lime pie, but that one person in the group loves key lime pie, does that mean the group loves key lime pie?
She might be referring to universe as a more abstract thing than you are describing. Not the physical manifistation of the universe, but maybe think of it more as life it self or all the random events that lead to the thing you show gratitude towards.
"we seek a meaning that's deep enough to sustain us through tragedy" 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
True. So was the basis the moderator opened with, God as a mechanism to explain the parts of the world we don't understand yet. We are just identifying aspects of God according to our own experiences. So these things are true, a source of understanding, a haven in our life's storms, and beyond all those "mechanisms" of God is . . . well . . . God. I loved this conversation and Mrs. Blackwell's points, she is so close to understanding that I feel excited for her. I think next in her meditations she'll see her association of her childhood experience with religion, I think there will be a separation of those things soon. Then a separation of the idea that God is only the mechanism we need when we need it, to the idea that God just is. Fascinating to see how this opens up.
Tesla referenced human energy 🌬👻jesus christ referenced living 💎👨🎓science described water memory 🌊👨💼existence reflecting psychologically, psalms16:24 k,j 👻💎👨🎓🤍🗽💖🗡🛡🧮⚖🌬🧮☄🌪
@@richardlearn3686 Or she could do none of that. There are many people leaving religion today, finding no need to subscribe to an overarching religious ideology. Religion offers clear benefits - in-group identity, security in a chaotic world, clear answers to (thus far) unanswerable metaphysical questions of the how, why and where of existence, supposedly unequivocal meaning and purpose given by a perfect deity - but none of this demonstrates an actual god, let alone a personal religious god. A sense of community is natural to humans, and religion provides a common base of beliefs linking people together. However, this says nothing about the truth of those beliefs.
Totally agree🤗
@@blossom5831 Tesla referenced human energy 🌬👻jesus christ referenced living waters 💎👨🎓science described water memory 🌊🤵existence reflecting psychologically, psalms16:24 k,j 👻💎👨🎓🤍🗽💖🛡🗡🧮⚖🌬🌪🧮☄
This has genuinely been one of the most interesting conversations/interviews with Dr. Peterson I ever watched. Respectful, intelligent, and non-aggressive. No matter how much Susan disagreed with him, she never attacked him or tried to put words in his mouth. I really respect that and appreciate it in comparison with other interviews. Really great!
Well compared to his other Interviewpartners she is an actual expert.
check out JBP's discussion with Camile Paglia (sp?) so good
Respectful exchange . Never competing. OPEN mindedness - both sides truly listening. One never waiting for the other to finish speaking simply so they can TRUMP the discussion.
V refreshing.
@@johntuohy1867 Yes,none of this "X" versus "Y" nonsense!
Well true to a degree but still used sneaky words like 'slithered' etc...
Beautiful answer by JP on that last question. It hit me to my core.
I went to the comment section literally looking for some explanation about that exact answer. Please help as English is not my first language nor that I am good at it.
@@akliluaberra7949there’s a passage in the bible where someone gives Jesus a coin with the face of Cesar on it, and asks him a question about wether they should or shouldn’t pay taxes. It’s a trap to trick him into saying something that would allow them to turn him in to the authorities. Jesus answers with the phrase Jordan said; what he means is that some things are god’s, in other words religious matters, and others are Cesar’s; political matters.
The phrase is a essentially an analogy of the division between church and state
@@akliluaberra7949I'll try :) he's saying whatever you value the most in life is equivalent to god. It's either God or something else (e.x. fame), which becomes your god.
This discussion was great. It would have been better if it was about 10 hours longer.
I like discussions where it's not about winning but rather it being a joint effort at getting closer to the truth.
Store-I think JBP did fine and didn't budge from his thesis. She challenged him very well, but in the end, she is the one "acting" as if God exists according to JBP, to find meaning.
Store Patter! i think the Cathy Newman interview wasnt as deep as this.
these are very deep concepts and i also think that peterson knows that he doesnt have time to really explain every single detail like he does in his lectures or books.
i do agree that some of his ideas can be summarised a bit better. and i think over the past 20 years he has been working on it.
i think the problem is that people just want the pork chop without seeing how it gets made.
but then the problem is that if people get the pork chop, they wont just believe its a pork chop without knowing the details.
this is the problem i know peterson sees now very well. people need simplicity but they also need TRUE understanding, and thats not an easy balance to get right.
which is why im not criticising him at all because i know that with my ability to simplify this stuff comes at a great price of people really understanding them.
Store Patter! That woman was clearly unsophisticated. Jordan Peterson was very clear
+streglof
there is the difference between discussions and debates. In debates one party wins the other looses, in discussions both parties win, or both just loose time.
"We seek a meaning deep enough to sustain us through tragedy". I very much resonate to just this. It was felt deep within my bones when Peterson uttered the words.
Yes, but that doesn't make a religion true. You can believe that the ghost of your dead husband is still in your house if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't make it true.
I don’t know that Jordan Peterson says we have to believe in religion. He doesn’t…
@@lsjt8924 : Christians are quick to read something into what Jordan is saying.
In their defence, he certainly tries to blur the lines of definitions for anything to do with god/faith.
@@collydub1987 If we all have a religious mindset as Jordan so eloquently states, how is that not evidence for a deeper metaphysical reality?
whenever very intelligent people are asked a question, their first reaction is the need to clarify the wording of the question, in order to better give you a complete answer. very interesting conversation.
no it's not in order to give you a complete answer, but instead to ensure that their understanding of the question is reflected in their answer.
@@donaldmokgale3123 Both and, I would say. The purpose is both to fully understand the question before answering, in order to provide a more complete answer.
@@robertpreisser3547 only works though for some people. Most people would complain why they can't get a straight answer. Especially when mking a sales call
Philosophy 101.
pccalcio, which is one reason Jesus taught with parables. It's only human nature to *_misunderstand wisdom_* and then to *_reject their own misunderstanding, never having received the wisdom in the first place._*
I just came across this wonderful show. My goodness it is lovely to hear an actual conversation between two opposing viewpoints and moderated by someone who has clearly taken the time to learn enough to ask questions and properly host. Really enjoyed it and will check out more.
Thank you for your work!
I love how this lady doesn’t attack Jordan when he disagrees with her
Yes, her attitude prevents her from falling into the pseudoscience trap. Jordan dares to tell her that she is actually a believer because she unconsciously acts as a believer because she meets Jordan's definition of Logos (and therefore she believes in Jesus, who is the embodiment of the Logos). This is a typically non-falsifiable claim in Popper's sense. She simply responds with a fact: She is consciously atheist. And she avoids responding in the same terms as Jordan. She could define the Logos as the cosmos, or natural laws, and that therefore Jordan is actually an atheist. But that would be falling into the same fallacy.
@@germanricaurteavella Jesus is what?
@@gazagxrlx2974 Ha, ha. Yes, it is a weird term invoked by Peterson in the video. The Gospel of John identifies the Christian Logos, through which all things are made, as divine (theos), and further identifies Jesus Christ as the incarnate Logos. See in Wikipedia.
That's the essense of dabating, attacking the arguments, not the person behind it
@@joe78man yes and that seems so difficult to find nowadays. What’s labeled a debate nowadays just seems like an argument or a fight lol
People accept the spirituality of Christianity but reject its moral accountability and so they run away from it to find a spirituality that does not demand any moral accounts.. It just so sad.
People acept the spirituality of Christianity but
they don’t touch with a finger.
Moral isn’t judge other people Morality is acept the Spirituality Christianity and show to the Christian how to live with accountability.
People judge but do not live by higher standards of what they judge.
It is a false judgement. They live the same or worst than those who judge.
christianity? moral? lmao.
@Disfatt Bidge because morality is based on culture and evolution and we recognize
@Disfatt Bidge so you are agreeing with me. I agree that morality is subjective. Even within the same religion people have widely different moral codes, so either god has failed or more likely he doesn’t exist and morality is just people trying to live their life’s in community.
It’s sad people believe there is a god that gave us morals
Happiness is a low goal. We seek a meaning that’s deep enough to sustain us through tragedy. Jordan THAT WAS GOD !!! So true
This needs to be preached to the rooftops however it’s not liked by the materialistic folks in power.
Many examples here in this discussion are surrounding the unfaithfulness of various Christians primarily in the United States. This is always a horrible way of judging whether or not it is good to follow God. The whole story of history is man’s disobedience towards their maker and does not hold any weight on whether or not that reveals following God is more beneficial than not.
@@villarrealmarta6103 Religion - history based on man’s disobedience to their maker.
Relationship with Jesus Christ - what Jesus did for us/ mankind.
Question: How would you feel if when “the end” happens - you realize that God has has been God ?
So here’s how I see it - I believe in God & in fact if the entire Bible is just a story, I’m okay with that because building my relationship with Christ has helped me.
2nd point - when you love someone - do you love them based on what they do for you ?
If so, what if one day they aren’t capable to do those things anymore, will you stop loving them ?
It’s a love relationship when you invite The Holy Spirit into your life and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord & Savior.
It’s not I do this for Christ & He does that.
It’s I love Him and He so love me - so I want to do things that please Him.
Because He knows what’s best for me.
Is it easy - No.
Is it explainable - No.
Will you have doubt - yes.
But it’s so worth the journey….
… we seek something we can do that’s substantial enough to distract us through tragedy.
@@Ten8sious Distracting ones self from tragedy is a recipe for disaster when the distractions do not work anymore. When is enough, enough for humans like us? Better to face your demons head on than to hide from it
"Alyosha wins the drama even though he loses all the arguments." Thanks to all three of these gems for the helpful and inspiring conversation.
Did u even watched the conversation?
Susan: “I think th-“
Moderator: “SHUT UP SUSAN WE WANNA HEAR JORDANS PERSPECTIVE!”
JP: “well... it depends on what you mean by perspective”
Such potential to have been a good debate without the moderator.
This was extremely funny and great way to condense what happened in the debate. She couldn't get a word in.
Felipe Ghost this comment is golden
Comment is on point lol
Felipe Ghost lol depends on what you mean by (fill in the blank) classic jp
It's so refreshing to see a civilised debate, between two intellectuals. Great job to the both of you 👏
refreshing? Seems like the argument was biased in Jordan Peterson's favor. I love Jordan but the host was clearly all about Jordan.
@@thecrashingtoaster And yet she was still respectful and civilized.
God created us
@@thecrashingtoaster Didn't know someone with a P.H.D degree from oxford could be a pseudo-intellectual. Really low of you.
How do you know that????????@@reginakernighan6990
"We don't seek happiness; we seek meaning that's deep enough to sustain us through tragedy" .. actually, yes 👍👏
I've always sought happiness but never meaning - love, happiness and truth have always been important to me.
However, I have now many people who feel the need to seek meaning
I agree
There isn't anything that can give you this support and sustain you in the hour of tragedy. Tragedy just breaks you. The rest is silent.
Marek, that’s just not true. I’m sorry if you have been hurt, but that is why we live in a world with others, that we may be reminded of perseverence and goodness.
Happiness and meaning are two different things.
It took me awhile to understand JP. Initially, it was difficult for me to follow him because of the many words he uses. But as I watch him in other videos my opinion has shifted to much adoration. His thoughts are so precise and extremely thoughtful. JP was great in this video.
So annoying how the interviewer repeatedly insisted on talking about the book instead of memes, which Jordan and Susan were very interested in talking about. Jordan has a hundred videos in his interview tour talking about his book. The conversation they were having was more interesting and important.
the whole concept of a moderator seems more and more ridiculous these days. Is this TV? Is this like a chemical reaction that needs a controlling agent? No, That‘s not how natural conversations work. A moderator should introduce and step in when discussion gets stuck or escalates, but other than that he should be invisible and silent that you quickly forget he‘s even there. That would be a perfect moderator.
you clearly don't understand how business media work
Ikr. They were really getting somewhere I think 15min in. SHEESH!
T J , even for business media it must be of much more value to their audience (and therefor their business) to let their guests carry the discussion. I mean that‘s why we are here, lol. We care about the guests, not in what way this business wants to curtail or direct the very people we came here for. So again, how archaic and obsolete a format that is, LMAO. And they really think we are going to subscribe to get „extra content“ after a show like that. Really, fuck those middlemen that interject themselves and then even assume that we owe them something for that, hahaha.
@@georgemargaris hahaha? oh boy here we go. Do I have to even explain whats wrong here?
Even though Jordan speaks far over my head and I am usually lost, I always feel more intelligent when it's over. Thank you Sir.
Ah ah lmao
@@papermachevolcano That's literally the funniest thing I've ever read. Assuming it was sarcasm. Otherwise it's just disturbing,
So you're biased? Uhm okay
This is Peterson's rhetorical trick. When Peterson twiddles his fingers and says "metaphorical substrate", those with confirmation bias say "Wow, how eloquent, that proves it." Those who are actually trying to get at what he means say "I really don't understand what you mean by that." and then Peterson falls back on his high school book report of Crime and Punishment.
@@papermachevolcano psychology? ? simple to debunk
Psychology is by definition, the study of the mind. Now you can’t study everybody’s mind without the ability to know another man’s heart. I don’t know about you, but I don’t even know myself very well at all times. I have introspected my motivations correctly, and at times, they can change a day later.
A psychology researcher, if they could, might after years of self-analyzation, know themselves. Are we clones? Of course not. He can project, but not know what, how, and why we are.
Man’s inclinations are not always logical, and we are individually unique. Now, the fathers of psychology all practiced introspection to see how their own minds worked, as they could not infiltrate the minds and behaviors of others. They figured out their motivations and inner workings, and developed theories on how the mind functions. Then they claimed to understand how others think and process thoughts.
The practice of many people of thinking that other people act and behave and react to situations like they do, is called in teachings of psychology: “projecting” and is a cognitive distortion; in layman’s’ terms, a thinking error. By the definition of psychology and its discoveries, all of psychology is based on thinking errors.
Much psychology is valid however, but only works dependent on the recipient.
We are products not only on choices we are given, but also on those taken, and the decisions we make. Reverse psychology and other modalities are successful when wise choices are made. Many counselors of the mentally ill bounce any question back to the patient. “What do you think?”
That would be fine for a normal person, but for somebody with serious mental illness, just maybe. A serious mental illness means you have faulty cognitive abilities. It is kinda stupid to bounce back questions to a person who has difficulty using their brains correctly.
I am now quite capable of making decisions wisely. Yet for me, and it would be a wise idea for everyone, is this response to questions; “What is the most righteous choice, for the general good of all parties, and considered carefully and with counsel and introspection and insight.”
Kahn, Michael Lewis. EXPOSING THE MONEY MACHINE: TYRANNY THROUGH GOVERNMENT, RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, AND MEDIA DECEPTION (pp. 40-41). Kindle Edition.
A true intellectual isn’t afraid to say “I don’t know.”
Tyler Buckner "i know nothing" - socrates.
Tyler Buckner exactly.
Perhaps because he/she realizes that such lack of knowledge is something certain at that time...
If they say they don't know, then they are not true intellectuals.
Socrates at least knew 1 thing, that he knew nothing. So he really did know something.
Jordan is a true Saint and I am grateful to be Alive at the same time and to br able to experience his works.
Susan Blackmore: "Have you heard of memes?"
Peterson: "forget about memes, have you heard of Archetypes?" 😂
Words
Forget about Archetypes, have you heard of Bullshit?
(Edit: Internet) Memes are nothing special. They have been around for ages with the use of caricatures. They are used to try make others look ridiculous. They often are funny but can be pointing at a complete lie or misunderstanding. Memes influence the sheeple strongly.
@@davycrockett8886
She doesn't mean "internet memes", she means Dawkins's original meaning of "cultural memes", that develop and spread through a society like genes, religion is a meme.
@@christopherbloor3901 Thanks for the clarification. The problem with the emphasis on Gene's and memes is the concept that the fittest will always survive and no personal responsibility is really needed. The idea that the fittest idea will win is not guaranteed. If no one puts in the personal effort to acquire the truth - the better ideas could just die from neglect. Also having better genes probably has less influence in our lives than the choices, desires and effort we put into life. There is way too much fatalism locked up in purely materialistic ideas. I know Jordan Peterson doesn't believe in pure genetic determinism though, he believes more in a system of stasis and change.
@@johnlopperman2161 yeah, and your full of it!
Susan is the first woman that doesn't try to cut off Jordan's head in the first 3 seconds
Walt
But you shouldn't think less of her for that neglect. 🙄
@@The-Myned 😆
Walt
Shouldn't blame her for such short term, momentary failures.
@Doug Merriman
And no one produced any god-thing in reality, much less a manic Peterson.
Words words words, that's all it ever was.
Cut the crap and just show your god-thing.
@Doug Merriman The science in the Bible is incorrect, starting Genesis chapter 1verse 1. The existence of a creator god can't be proved or disproved, however the Christian Bible is patently false.
This needed to be a 3 hour session!
Agreed. It ended just as it was getting good!
Or one hour per topic. man there was about 500 hours crammed into 57 minutes.
So we can hear him butcher Nietzsche some more? No thank you. Lol
Susan is on a happiness quest. Peterson is on a truth quest.
Peterson is an atheist who pretends religions he doesn't believe in are true. Sounds like the opposite of a truth quest.
Best comment.
which one has more meaning
@@KevlarShrek For some, happiness. Experiencing "happiness" even temporarily is better than understanding it. Ignorance is bliss. No accountability needed. For others, they can't be happy knowing of their own ignorance and knowingly choosing it. Only truth leads to lasting happiness.
Seems that is Susan’s personality to truth. Peterson is just a knowledge geek who is devoid of joy
She says 'there's been terrible things in the name of God and communism and atheism and I don't want to weigh them up' and Jordan says... I WILL, no problem.
I will, as well. There is no debate here. The terrible things done in the name of God, by 'God', and for God far outweigh all terrible things done by atheism and/or in the name of atheism and so on. It's more a case of 'atheism' has killed 100 million people, yet God people/religion have killed 1 billion at least (plus God himself is said to have killed almost every living thing at least once).
As soon as Atheism can be compared to any of the Major Religions, Atheism itself will be categorized as a religion. So the comparisons are faulty from the beginning.
Retro. According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, from 1700+ wars, only 123 were somehow influenced by religion. The data is out there, yet you reject it because of your bias (when I say "your" I mean anti-religion groups). You also made a statement about God killing almost every living thing yet you don't believe in God or what He has to say... sigh...
I assume you're using the Wiki which states: 'Some commentators have concluded that only 123 wars (7%) out of these 1763 wars were fundamentally originated by religious motivations.' Note that it states *some commentators have concluded* and *originated by religious motivations.* Well, I can assure you, many more were via religious motivations more indirectly and secondly, 'some commentators' is nowhere near proof.
I don't have to believe in God in order to state what he is meant to have done. If God exists, which many believe, then, he has killed everybody at least once. Note the world flood, for example. I was not talking for myself, but rather, regarding all the people who actually do believe God exists/killed everybody. So, it is still an argument I can give.
I'm no fan of Blackmore's but it annoyed me how often the mediator interrupted her. Clear bias toward Peterson (who I am a big fan of) imo.
Exactly my thought. He interrupted her all the time
Exactly what I was just thinking.
I’d say she talked a lot and listened very little. That’s why he interrupted her. Jordan asked stuff, she started answering for a length of time until she had to be interrupted because Jordan didn’t get the chance to confront her way of thinking,
She didn’t have her argument lined up. Circular, callable and provides no clear evidence or enough research. She also contradicts hers self and raises more than one point every time she speaks. The mediator has to interfere in that instance, so that the opposing can have time to respond.
5 min into the video, and the body language of the interviewer, the way he introduced JBP but not her, and the way she is put in a position to grab attention with JBP going full ape psycho arena domination was IMO really disappointing
I love civil discourse like this and will never take it for granted. Thank you Susan and Jordan.
6th time watching this.. it never gets old.
"We are not creatures who will just not do anything" . We are driven by meaning and purpose. My mom committed suicide because she had nothing in life that would give it meaning. She was looking after my sister which has learning disability. After she was taken from her because my mom couldn't care for her anymore, she fell into a state of depression. She had the time and she was physically healthy. She could just enjoy her life by wasting it on things that would've brought her pleasure and joy, at least that how I thought about it. She had all the time in the world and there was enough money for her not to worry about it. But that's not what happened. Everyday her depression became more severe and one morning I found her hanging herself from the stairs. She could do anything in life and wait till she dies naturally but now that I think about it, her life ended the moment my disabled sister was taken away from her because caring for her was what gave her life meaning. That was everything for her. We need meaning in our life and our actions need to be meaningful in the long term or short term otherwise we will lose interest in life and feel like a machine. We will stop feeling anything positive because our life has became mechanical.. The lack of meaning in our life will put us in a perpetual state of emptiness.
Hamid Hosseini So sad to hear your story. Thank you for sharing.
Amen brother. I'm so sorry that happened to you and your Mom. Blessings to you and thank you for the comment
At the end of the day, while suicide or insanity waits, we must conclude that our lives are worth living. Worth implies accomplishing some purpose. Without some real purpose in life, distraction, i.e. keeping busy, is about our only defense.
Sorry about your loss. I once heard a psychologist on the radio who stated three indicators that were conducive to predicting whether one might achieve a happy life.
1. Whether there were abuse in a child's upbringing.
2. Whether there was mental illness.
3. Whether someone had someone or something to live for.
The first two can be mitigated with therapy and the second with therapy and medication. The third gives the mechanism to pursue happiness.
Hamid Hosseini
Your story is tragic. Mental illness and depression affects many people.. I’ve had this condition for many years.
I’m a member of The Humanist Association. We don’t believe in god but we believe in humanity and it’s social morals.
I justify my life by painting pictures. I give many to charity shops so they can raise money for their cause.
I just have a talent for art. It is a great way of expressing your emotions. I’m always encouraging people to draw and paint
At least when I die I have left something in a frame that generations will enjoy. Everyone can draw and paint. As children we all enjoyed splashing colour and drawing stick people.
It’s great therapy. I wish you well.
This is one of the very best "debates" JBP has been a part of. I wish it went on another hour. Both had great points and thoughts, they took each other's thoughts and responded to them. I feel I developed in my own thoughts equally from both. So glad that there are still some places where real disagreements can be discussed with civility and respect.
Absolutely! This discussion is SO much more interesting than his debates on political correctness.
JBP, the Einstein of reason
See this as you do Eric, this was a delightful conversation of all three of you, engaged and inspiring, no wonder, JBP is a little Einstein, an introextrovert in one person, who is not a right winger, nor a leftie, he went very deep, harvested there honestly and carefully gold, hammered his findings from all sides and has now a very well founded idea about many things and shares these with us. His train started long ago and is coming now out of the tunnel of learnig. His reason makes far left and far right crazy, cause he makes their false ideologies implode. He is a gift for our time.
Agreed. That munk debate with Stephen Frey was a joke.
J. H So well put, it's the comment I wish I coulda written first..Lol.
Michael : We have to support JBP's causa wherever we can, all of us, to brake this poisonous ideology of victimhood and postmodernism, he is by far the strongest argument the globe has. Never seen someone like him, though not perfect, but aiming for the better, with all he can, not shying away from fire, confronting it, a true fighter against the dragons of madness.
Would be nice to see Jordan and Susan having a 3 hour conversation uninterrupted.
I pray not! Listening to Jordan sidestep every question and drag people down unnecessary rabbit holes for 3 hours would be hell
@@SamuelAko okay
Agreed! Both really seemed to have enjoyed the dialogue too!
She would become a religious fanatic by the end of that conversation. Speaking in tounges and what not.
Believers and unbelievers could talk for years without resolving anything. What are you hoping for? To convert somebody with an argumentative discussion?
That was great. I think a part 2 is in order
Finally, someone to properly test Jordan Peterson's views, someone who doesn't resort to aggression and abuse. Great conversation. Get them together again for a series of discussions! I felt uplifted by these 47 minutes.
see Dillahunty debate too.
I feel like Jordan Peterson is trying to prove that we're doomed without religion, like we would'nt have moral values or meaning without it wich may be true, but i prefer nihlism to an imaginary friend in the sky who made us the way we are... that just doesnt make sense and i don't understand how a smart man like peterson believe in god.. id like to ear him talk more deeply about it, someone should ask him why do he believe in god
ExpiAigle funny that you can't make sense out of why he belives, saying God is some imaginary friend in the sky, you like so many other may never really make sense out of it if this is the way you think, you can't criticise something you don't really know well knowledge of, that statement is proof of your ignorance blinding you from what the concept really is.
I feel like the pair of you could have an interesting discussion...but let's do that as civilly as Professors Peterson and Blackmore.
Eh seriously ?Blackmoore is so full of it .No im not going to sit and try to explain why but if you cant see it .......
As someone who has gone down the road of “positive” nihilism, its actually a deeply empty depressing void of existence and we are seriously not wired to live in that way of perceiveing the world.
Yes reality is tough. However occasionally we forget about it and enjoy life, but being a thinking animal has a high cost.
same buddy✌🏼🙏🏼
"As someone who has gone down the road of “positive” nihilism, its actually a deeply empty depressing void of existence and we are seriously not wired to live in that way of perceiveing the world."
how do you know how we are wired? did you hear someone tell you how we are wired?
Does the lion in the jungle know it is a lion? We humans seek out higher power out of fear and love. The need for a God is merely a search for meaning without finding meaning for most people unless they lie themselves. This God never speaks back.
@@martinvanburen4578 Yes exactly, but the question is: do we act on this impulse and live like gods were real, even if we know they are not, or do we accept that "happy" and "meaning" is fictive and the universe has no intent of making us feel good about our selves and because we are intelligent, should not fall for evolutionary mind tricks?
@@martinvanburen4578 They are just assumptions. And what do you mean, "God" never speaks back. How do you know that? And even if he did, you wouldn't believe it. A belief in "God" is no less ridiculous than the antithesis.
I can't even keep up with what Jordan is saying, let alone imagine what it would be like to have the cognitive ability, knowledge, and insight to articulate it in real time. I'm always stunned.
Maybe watch how Stephen Fry dismantles the crap that Peterson spews, leaving him looking like an immature emotional amateur.
@@alanbarrett2876 It doesn't matter whether he got dismantled by so and so. The sheer intellectual capability people such as Jordan have is really amazing and how they can talk about such things quickly is just amazing to me.
It really isn't that difficult.
The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do. Thomas Jefferson
@@alanbarrett2876 its easy to make a video about someone. Unless somebody debates him in real time and dismantles him live its all pointless
It looked like Susan was in a therapy session under Jordan. To have a professor for young minds, telling them nothing matters, that everything is meaningless... I think it all boils down to defense mechanism, believing everything is meaningless shields you from pain, disappointment, despair. Like they are coping with something wrong in their life. To young minds, I hope you bravely face the world, accept the struggle and be strong in the most difficult times. And through those sacrifices, I pray happiness comes your way rewarded from a life of meaning and responsibility.
Indeed. As we hear her, sometimes it felt like she was struggling a lot herself to deal with her own ideas. Furthermore, it seems that as soon as she understands or accepts what is going on inside her body, her own ideas about memes will evolve. Bottom line, it was really good to hear them both, because many people today are going through the same conflicts I think she is facing now.
Wow that’s actually makes lotta sense amen bro
I couldn't agree more👍
Beautifully said!
That seems like such backwards logic! Surely the ultimate defense mechanism is faith in an unseen creator, and claiming to 'know' why we're here when there's no unanimous evidence
THIS is one of the best debates I’ve seen Peterson in. It’s so civil and interesting. They’re both very precise, so it was rather easy to follow BOTH viewpoints which I find to be a rarity. Not to mention how deep the topic is. It’s like a philosophers wet dream 😂 they were both amazing, fair play.
Its simple ..GOD gave us the bible to answer all life's questions .
Matthew 6 21
for where your treasure is, there your heart [your wishes, your desires; that on which your life centers] will be also.
You were watching an entirely different discussion. There was nothing precise in the woman's chatter at all.
I have been looking for someone on the other side of the aisle to follow up on their arguments as opposition to Peterson's and u think u have found it in Susan Blackmore
She said, i gave up on Christianity because it didnt make sense to me, but then she adopted evolution but she accepts it although it doesnt have all the answers.🤔
@@choloneressurected i think that's the entire point. The fact that there are even more questions enforces the belief that nothing is entirely sure. Religion is usually made to seem like it has all the answers
I mean.. I'm on Jordan Peterson's side but this mediator cuts Susan Blackmore off constantly to give Jordan 5x longer to speak and never interrupts him.. Need a new mediator for these debates..
That may be true.. but you should watch Jordan's lecture on "being nice"
@@JeanAlesiagain3 I don't see how it's "being nice" to have a mediator that's so clearly biased. It doesn't help either side in the debate. It would have been more interesting if they got equal time to actually debate topics.
@@Zlysium I understand your point, and obviously a mediator should be impartial. I think the problem is that Susan did not have much to say that was of any substance. Even I can tell she does not understand much about ethical philosophy. The mediator clearly also understands the subject and quicly became bored with anything she had to say after some point... I don't blame him... at one point Susan even said "Don't you think it's offensive to call me religious if I don't see myself that way?", as if it mattered.
If you ask me: was he a good mediator?, I would say "not the best". He could have been "nice" and ensured she also spoke just as much even though what she had to say seemed less interesting.
@@Zlysium jordan is the bright one there.
I noticed that; which wasn't fair. I wish they would've had more time for JP to address why SB wasn't really an atheist. She was visibly annoyed at his comments. She probably understood what he was saying but was frustrated at the thought for not noticing. Everyone who is knowledgeable says they are willing to learn but secretly believe they are in the right and need to sway others. Either way, I'm so impressed with people that take time to study deeply and have deep conversations.
15:40 why do you have to talk about the book? I've heard enough about that already, you cut off a deep conversation they were having to talk about his book, just why?
Arcane Alchemist I felt that way too.. this made the moderator seem too biased against the discussion
God...that jarring interjection really ticked me off.
Agree 100% - the moderator got in the way of a great conversation.
I hope they read this comment. It was a catastrophic mistake. It took what could have been one of the greatest conversations ever uploaded to RUclips to making it into one that's in many ways a dime a dozen.
Few minutes before that happend I was thinking "what a great moderator, he leads the conversation to unwind it into such interesting fields with a grace" and then: "could he really just try a little bit harder to hide his tendentiousness?"
This is make us all wiser men and women
Thank you very much Mr Jorden Peterson
One of the best conversations I've ever seen and it's about 25 hours too short
Eh it would have turned into a fight as Susan's lack of clear values would let a storm of cognitive dissonance emerge as Jordan gets increasingly more insane.
Define ultimate meaning... I can say the universe has no ultimate meaning, but the universe is meaningful to me. Like meaning to who? A christen would say the universe is meaningful because god gave it to it. You need a consciousness to give something meaning. Stars die all the time, yet is the sun dies... we die. The sun is very important... only to the inhabitants of the planets around it. If There was no one depending on it... it would have no meaning/value. I live as if I have meaning... to myself. Others don't have to care about me.
If there is no ultimate meanin then there is no value in anything and everything is equally meaningless. Nihilism is the ultimate irrational position an individual can take, the suspension of all value judgement that will always degenerate into impulsive irrational behaviors. This woman's cognitive dissonance is astounding.
You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Just because there is no reason to believe in ultimate meaning/value... doesn't mean individuals don't give things meaning/value. You can't say something has value, without saying value to whom? Plain and simple... cognitive dissonance... where is the contradiction between her ideas? You can make a value judgment... for your self, and you can learn other peoples subjective values and judge contradictions in actions and values... as in their cognitive dissonance in values. Like valuing health over pain... yet they won't workout, because it's too much hard work.
not really... but i lik JP response most of it
That was good. Came to watch Peterson, left liking both of them.
Agree. Great conversation and feel Susan Blackmore won on points.
She did reasonably well, but mostly because of her demeanor. There was very little content.
Peterson riffed on his usual stuff.
She proved herself wrong on numerous points: Religion = poverty can't be true if the US is religious and also the most luxurious nation ever in existence. Then she doubles down by claiming that non-american bullshit like ObamaCare is a good thing...
She's blaming the results of her atheistic bullshit on religion, and then stripping the glories of religion away from their benefits.
Bitch is nuts
You can have both great luxury and great poverty in a country. She was refering the chasm between the rich and the poor in the US (religious) comparing it to people being generally well off in scandinavian countries (secular). And it does seem there's a corellation in the religion-inequality example she's using but she doesnt quite make a strong enough argument for causation.
On the other hand having a discussion with Peterson is like having a discussion with a dictionary ;) Every topic eventually devolves to juggling definitions.
Isn't that wonderful? That's like the ideal result of listening or participating in a serious conversation
Wow, this debate was fantastic. Susan Blackmore engaged very deeply with Peterson’s points, and I had several “oh, that’s a really good point” as a result with several of her standings. I’m definitely going to look up some more material she’s contributed to.
Oh .. she is brilliant! They both were btw. And the moderator was good too.
I was positively surprised to see her here along with JP. I knew about her long time ago, many years before I even started to watching such podcasts with JP and others.
She was one of the few atheists debunkers with a very open mind and good spirit. I remember that she started researching into some paranormal stuff like a true scientist, to come after many years and admit honestly that she couldn't find/replicate any credible results. Compared to many skeptics who try to debunk things out of zealotry without putting the effort or really caring about the subject. That's what I liked about her back then, she is the total opposite of a polemic.
Meme machine is a great book
Sue Blackmore changed my life in so many positive ways with her work... she is a thoroughly engaged fascinating and awesome human being
... Her work on compiling and examining all the theories of consciousness is amazing, I remember buying her first edition of "Consciousness: An Introduction" it's a textbook and it literally change the way I think forever I'd recommend it to anyone who's really interested in getting into the subject... It's easily the most unbiased and balanced overview of the topic out there...
Erick Murphy there's no such thing as an unbiased book.
Especially coming from an atheist.
It is baffling to me that out of 3.5 million views, there are only 60k likes, this is such a refreshing and interesting engagement of intellectual debate.
Personally, I crave these types of conversations so much, but unfortunately opportunities for meaningful discourse are often thwarted by personal attacks and other divisive tactics these days.
So nice to see platform promote this type of content.
She's exactly what Dr. Peterson is talking about; A compassionate liberally minded person who embraces the spirituality of religion, but rejects the structure, and dogma.
I had a really tough time being convinced by Peterson that she embraces the spirituality of religion :)
It came across more to me that he just couldn't imagine someone being non-spiritual and still choosing to live peaceful, productive lives. Was there a stronger reason?
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Jordan's point is that "peaceful and productive life" is an idea which is solely based on Christianity. Therefore we can't deny the underlying structure and just skim off the top what seems to be "good" because then you'd have to find another underlying structure on which to base your existence and lets say "tastes". You can't base the concept of "good" and "peace" without involving religion and no one has succeeded in extracting virtues completely out of thin air - meaning atheistic or rational virtues.
@@andyuchi *"which is solely based on Christianity"*
-- I think he doesn't quite go that far - it's only Christianity for people who were raised in predominantly Christian cultures (by current population too, but mostly during formative periods of history). You do go on to say "religion" later, rather than specifically Christianity though, so we may not need to struggle over this point.
*"no one has succeeded in extracting virtues completely out of thin air - meaning atheistic or rational virtues."*
-- Has anybody had the opportunity to try?
Peterson's own points that everyone is deeply influenced by religion makes it clear to me that he can't say much about what it would be like if someone wasn't. There's no evidence, because according to him, there are no examples.
Creating a religion which dictates virtues _doesn't actually extract them out of thin air_ either. It's make believe, or more charitably, virtues and value by convention only.
That IS something done in completely secular ways. Money, laws, national borders, there are lots of 'imagined realities' outside of religion.
Basically, the premise quoted above wouldn't get you to this conclusion: *"You **_can't_** base the concept of "good" and "peace" without involving religion"*
People haven't, therefore people can't? It might be a strong inference if people had lots and lots of opportunities. Peterson denies this.
And if you don't know what values coming from non-religious thinking would look like, you can't tell how many are swimming around us, having arisen alongside religious thinking. That makes the premise dubious too, not just the inference from it.
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke I really love how you've structured your points!!! You're right about the first paragraph, I just think Christianity is the most complete religion out of the ones I know. Lets say I'm a Christian and move on :)
People have tried to form a completely atheistic set of lets call them "rules". That example is the Marxist ideology. Its axiom is that there is no God or a human "spirit"/"soul", meaning man is a material being only and therefore people's happiness depends solely on the outside circumstances. Therefore Marxism claims that as long as people have their material belongings in check - starting with "bread and water for everyone" - they will be happy and won't need that much more. This is a quite rational and scientific way of approaching the problem of a person's place in life and it excludes religion or God as a whole. They seek happiness through unity (religious idea) but fail to keep human nature in mind - humans are also irrational and spiritual beings. The Marxists don't resist the temptation which Satan proposes to Christ - if Christ turns stones into bread, then all people are going to obey Him. But Christ wants people to willingly follow Him, not obey Him because of His power which casts fear in people. Anyway, getting off track... It's not that there are no atheists and atheistic ideas (he said explicitly that atheists do exist, or at least people who act like it), it's that most people and ideas which claim to be atheistic more often than not fail to consider what ground they're stepping on and calling their "base" for living.
Money, laws and national borders are ideas which have evolved with time and yet "laws" are largely based on religion. The Declaration of Independance was written under the enormous influence of John Locke, who was a devout Christian and based a lot of his political ideas on the Bible. I'm sure laws are very tightly connected with religion, but I haven't researched deeper, so I might be wrong. Money and national borders stem from laws and laws were first thought up in extremely religious societies. Yet I say again - I may be wrong.
Peterson doesn't deny that people can't try basing values on their atheism. Hell, the man's been researching totalitarian regimes for maybe 20 years, he surely has come upon many ideas. I am genuinely curious on what the "values from non-religious thinking" are, so I'd like to hear the rest of your side, too.
Because the “structure” Jordan claims was made through those values was made in spite of them. Look at the constitution or technology/scientific advancement or very individualist ideology. All of which are hallmarks of America values. I can go more into detail if you want, but for now I’ll leave it at that considering I don’t know if you want to read a novel 😅
As a Christian I respect Susan's demeaner in this interview. She is respectable even in the face of disagreement. Plum of the crop people here. I pray we all find truth.
I agree
This really is a great conversation. Jordan and Susan acted so respectfully and allowed the other to elaborate her/his points, that even if you disagree with whoever is currently speaking, it invites you to take a fresh look at your beliefs and solidify or change them. A nasty argument tends to not offer that opportunity. This is beautiful.
Except when she referenced that he was a snake, twice. Other than that, I agree.
@@gregcantaberry7525ell yes. Though perhaps she merely suggests his methods are snake like. I think though he’s referencing a mode of thought most atheists aren’t engaging in. So when he answers they don’t really understand how the idea moved like it did within the conversation.
“Render unto Caesar what is Caesars, and unto God what is Gods.” That’s miraculous. She doesn’t understand why. She thinks the memes, which is merely a description of one mode of shared thought, are descriptive of the realm of thought. However descriptions of cognition, are older than time, and compiled in those scriptures. Others may argue the divinity of other religions, that’s fine.
Until they start answering these questions, you live with your God and object of worship chosen, but unable to touch or change consciously.
That scripture is miraculous because it illustrates a truth about truth. The truth and fealty which serves a true god, is not the same as the money and fealty payed to your leaders. So a division was forged between matters of state, and matters of religion. In the place of either.
@@gregcantaberry7525 I'm a big JP fan so don't take this the wrong way because I respect JP enough to pay for VIP tickets for my father and I to attend one of his upcoming lectures this month.
He did suggest she may indeed be a coward lol. I thought they both did very well in explaining each of their positions. Was a good, mostly civil debate that should have been greater in length. It's not often that we get to hear JP debate near peer individuals.
Susan Blackmore is a lady who I respect her in many ways. Very interesting to find a atheist that doesn't have to bully her way around the conversation. She and Jordan would have better off without the mediator.
Well said. Shes a respectful atheist. Most atheist think they're so morally high. I guess maybe they think the same about us. Regardless, we need to treat eachother values with respect.
That said (and agreed with) ... there remains clear video evidence of her tendency to interject her opposing thoughts midway into Jordans' sentences. But, certainly much more controlled than the average athiest.
Far better to respect and bow down to the King of the Universe who humbled Himself even to the point of dying the death of the most vile on a cross about 2000 years ago so WE could escape the punishment for sin that is coming.
@@chanimarie6753 while I agree some atheists can act like that, I have to say by far the average Joe Christian almost always without a doubt when pushed about belief or confronting someone else's disbelief retreats the the moral high ground (I'll pray for your soul for example) and to common threats of things along the lines of you'll knell in the end or repent of burn etc etc. Either this or the you really know of the truth of god but you just love to have an excuse to revel in your sin. Rarely and I mean extremely rarely I've had a religious person continue a debate without resorting to this irregardless of how polite I'm being.
@@marshalllhiepler my other reply could also apply to you along with the adage that that's hardly an atheistic trait, that would be an individualised trait that effect all manner of people.
I have always considered myself to be quite an intelligent person. The beginning of this conversation marked the end of that delusion 😅
I love when smart people sit down together and have conversations.
Sadly it’s a rarity but I think it’s makes it that much better 🧐
Sorry, she seems very nice but Jordan outclassed her intelectualy.
This requires two open minded intellectuals. Willing to listen as well as speak.
she is not smart she is over rated at best.
This conversation should be 3 hours longer
6 hours longer
I would say 1h30, but I agree on the principle. It was too short. And great :)
agree. felt like a speed date.
Without a guy interrupting
I hope you all notice the deepness of this man's thoughts when he says "what makes you think that the question I'm answering is the same one you're asking?" Think profoundly about this and you will get to the bottom of it all.
Nop, that just confirms he is a pseudo-intellectual quack and you think you are smarter than what you are
How so?
Thats called whataboutism
That is exactly his schtick. He doesn't address the questions in a conversation he just takes his opportunity to pontificate on what he believes without actually defending it from criticism. I have not watched this one yet but that has been his mo in the ones I have watched. That is not "deep", that is disingenuous.
@@MsReasonableperson you're just jealous...
I've just come across this, but wow this might be Jordan's best dismantling of atheism I have ever seen. He clearly has thought through this far, far deeper than Susan has.
@@holzhausholz8215atheism dismantles itself. Based on religious principles without the depth.
Asking any questions under the surface enrages atheists and only produces an unraveling of atheism and circular arguments.
This is funny, because he is just disqualifying her arguments. There is no logic in attacking. He is tricky, though, much talk to go to something that he seems not to understand because he is too much a believer, and there is no way he can imagine the possibility of God not existing.
I've no idea how you concluded that based on what we've just listened to. He obfuscates whenever challenged or finds himself on shaky ground. Susan was very patient with him imo.
@@djunamgbprojecting😷 much? 🤣
At least make that decision for yourself,
without all the emotional strawman arguments and misinterpretations😂
It doesn’t mean whatever you want to misinterpret it as - it means what it actually means
@@The1927Bluebirdfalse - watch it again
And look up that word in the dictionary - you’ll see it was the opposite (both of your possible assumptions)
What😷? - Yes😎
"'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" -- that's a miracle. That's the separation of church and state in one sentence.
-JBP
The way I view it...Is that man was made in Gods image. Just as Caesar's image was on the money. We are the creation of a Being we so misunderstand in our minds.. We make ourselves so far from God that we don't know Him and that we truly are His and He is ours. God is love.
Brilliance in a sentence.
i did not undestand why its a miracle... Maybe i dont fully know what the definition of miracle is
Well Peterson has several biblical talks where he describes the amazing feat the it is to convey ideas into words, and the first phase is to put it into stories. Back when humans did not know what a state or what a church was (they did not exist as words) they still found a marvellously clear way to convey the same idea through the metaphor of Caesar's coins. It's a miracle that the human mind is capable of doing this.
@Necronoxxx I think you may be taking for granted the way in which we think.
Susan’s Reaction when being told she’s acting in a Religious Manner was hilarious 😂
Meditation: seeking God in receptive silence.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
@@idiotsandwhich8073 you would fall under verse 5, so I'll turn away. Keep studying idiotsandwhich
@@idiotsandwhich8073 a couple of the examples given in that passage have "always" been true, sure. To put the whole list together it only applies now, or not even quite yet.
@@idiotsandwhich8073 To a degree, yes, but those who were prophets knew that the world would continue to exist, somewhat as is, for some period of time. Why else all the prophecies about latter days that had not yet been filled in their time, when if you know the history, John and Paul prophesied things that had not yet happened in their life, knowing as Paul wrote, that he was soon to be martyred. Some of these prophesies marking the last days have come to pass, but at least a handful that I'm aware of, are yet to take place, and will not happen in a day, year, or month, but will take years, as Jesus said, that those who know the signs of the times, in the latter days, will know roughly when it will occur. And yes, many early Christians did believe it would happen in their time, and many that followed them, for they were commanded to prepare themselves for that day. It was in their best interest, and of all of Christianity, that they act, if not believed that the second coming was near. In the ultimate sense, it was, and still is, as the time that we will be judged, will occur in the incredibly short span, in the grand scheme of things, of a mere lifetime, roughly 40 years during the first century AD. Jesus told them that He would come like a thief in the night, and that many would not be prepared.
HAThEistic arrogance...claiming a meaningless universe...yet extolling the value of literacy, compassion, "good" vs "bad", even humility...a complete intellectual mess...outwardly denying Christendom, and inwardly too "dum" to acknowledge her huge debt to Christendom...
the level of intellect these two have. This is such a healthy informative conversation. Love every minute of it
Yes and no. How intelligent can a person really be if they believe that absolutely nothing created everything? One just has to do a study of DNA to realize that an intelligent all powerful eternal Creator would have to exist. Denying a painting needs a painter and a building
needs a builder does not scream intelligence
@@CaveCanem74 yes absolutely!
@@CaveCanem74 agreed. I was not impressed with Susan Blackmore's thought, but I was blown away by Peterson's deeper dive into the necessity of acting out of religious archetypes.
@saber not almost but absolutely! Keep in mind its very easy to point to a god and give up to find out actually how? It takes much more bravery to think you are alone and sole responsibility gor you and your actions are yours, rather than believe everything is predetermined by an omnipotent being…. There is a reason that believers are happier- and that is everything comes from god so there is no reason strive or fight for or against anything
@@CaveCanem74 96% of the National Academy of Scientists are non-believers. Your comment is a fine example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
BLOODY MARVELOUS INTERACTION TO ALL 3 OF YOU !!!!! WELL DONE, I ENJOYED IT BIG TIME !!! Kind regards from New Zealand. Dr Andries Maritz .(Retired & 81)
"I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned. " ~Richard Feynman
Woah, fuck man, what a great quote!!
Here here
Feynman would dismiss Peterson
@@AB-et6nj With this subject matter, absolutely.
@@Mick0722MX I mean to say that Feynman would probably see through a lot of what Jordan says. I find what Jordan says interesting but a lot of it is subjective and philosophical, not really based on much evidence or proof
"What you think about God has very little impact on how God is acting within you." JBP
Mathieu Blake what does that mean? I really want to know.
@@godallowsuturns679 Well whether or not we think about God, whether or not we give God his due, God remains unaffected by our thoughts for, against or without him: God keeps on being God!
That's at least a part of the answer.
@@godallowsuturns679 But more generally, 'gods' are those things that overide our will or logic. strong emotions such as anger and love and so on are examples and they are considered gods because they void our (sober-minded) will and we can't simply take back the reins.
@@godallowsuturns679 But more specific to JP's claim, God can be described (for him) as the highest ideal to which we hold ourselves, to which we aspire... And whether or not we acknowledge, revere or otherwise consciously conceive of what that is our actions, decision-making and how we orient ourselves in the world are cordoned, driven and guided by this composite ideal, God.
@@godallowsuturns679 P.s. For the God of Christans, "The God who made the world and all things in it...", Acts 17:22-25 may suggest an interesting angle for viewing the biblical perspective on a statement like this.
One of the most intellectual and respectful discussions I've seen so far.
That tends to happen when JBP is involved.
@Matt that’s due to a brilliant mind allowing itself to venture into the depths of thought without repercussions. If you find fault with his critical thinking complexity then you clearly don’t have the mental attention required to keep up with him.
I dont find it intellectual to say to an atheist that they do believe in a god....
This debate was the catalyst which made me revert back to Christianity after 14 years as an de facto atheist.
Wow amazing
What convinced you that a god exists, and the god of Christianity specifically
@@_.LZ._ Exactly
What was the most convincing evidence for you that the god of Christianity exists?
God works in mysterious ways. We will all come to him at the end. And that my friend I can guarantee.
I don't know how many times I had to pause the video to take a heavy breath over the ideas being exchanged. Powerful stuff.
Part of the issue is that Peterson views religion as something much more fundamental than the belief in a supernatural God who came down and created everything. As he's said religion isn't a materialist explanation in whole, part of it is much deeper. Blackmore is saying "look I don't believe in God" and Peterson is saying "yeah, but your definition of God and religion are way too shallow". Was interesting for sure
Kiran Prasad (possibly) The best comment here. I'm utterly shocked by the amount of comments that missed the meaning of the entire conversation.
EXACTLY!!!!THANK YOU!!!
Peterson believes in a supernatural god, no matter how deep and pragmatic he is he still believes in a god who created the universe without having any evidence to back this belief up. I don't care how deep he goes in how a religion affects people and nations. He is a christian and yes he is probably a christian with way more understanding of religion than your average believer but he is still a believer, faith not evidence.
Pretty arrogant of JB to say - Hey, your understanding of religion and god are way to shallow for you to question this, im much smarter than you so im right by default. Thats like saying, the bible is true because the bible says that the bible is true.
Either something is true or it isn't and i know that this debate is not zoomed in on gods existance or not but that is what religion and belief in a god boils down to in the end.
You can always talk about if belief makes a person better or not but you can't build a strong foundation on quicksand.
Where do you get the assertion that he's a believer from? As far as I'm aware, he was an athiest for several years after he initially disavowed religion. He now doesn't believe in god creating man, but man creating god. His idea of religion is essentially the collected and distilled wisdom that has been passed down generationally. He very well be arrogant, as most professors tend to be, but it isn't for the reason you say.
By looking at other videos where he talks about himself being a christian, talks about Jesus and his teachings and his belief in god. He is sceptical when it comes to the resurrection and things like that. I like JB alot but he is very careful with words once someone asks him about his religion. He doesn't always want to give you a straight answer because as he puts it himself he doesn't want to be boxed in. He has fans from both sides and doesn't want to take a strong position one way or the other but if you look at different videos where he talks about this subject and you fend of his good way with words it is easy to see that he is a believer.
He is not your typical religious guy but you can't deny that he is one. I don't care what he is i still like him.
This would have been much better without the interviewer - he constantly cuts the conversation off at interesting points and certainly did not allow an equal input from both participants.
@@StellaLovesMusic25 huh, I kind thought that he has a certain amount of time to discuss a certain topics and can't possibly cover everything they have to say. Given that opinion, I wouldn't mind at all watching a discussion that lasted for 3 hours hahaha
I got the sense that he didnt umderstand what was going on
MLG Frog he’s Canadian genius
i feel like the interviewer is there to straighten the conversation, there's time where he cut awkwardly in the middle of the interesting conversation but he done a decent job at guiding the conversation so it does not float away...
He actually does a great job of distilling concise points that he can steer the conversations back to, especially when people go off on tangents that don't address the question at hand.
This was hands down the greatest debate I've ever seen. The timelessness and pure intelligence of this interaction gave me chills at times. Thank you to everyone involved in this video ❤️🙌
"I don´t think we seek happiness, we seek a meaning that is strong enough to sustain us through tragedy"
And when we succeed in doing this, we feel more positive/robust which is less miserable. This is more pleasant but is it the same as happiness? Unclear, shades of grey on how individuals interperate their state of emotion.
Happiness can be a byproduct, but it's certainly not the 'goal'. Happiness is much too shallow and temporary to provide deep meaningful fulfillment.
Ian Buttery What we describe as 'happiness' encompasses two different things: joy, a passionate and temporary state of appreciation for a moment, and peace/contentment, a stance towards life which causes everything to be emotionally conquerable and meaningful to the story of your life.
Joy is one part of life, while peace is the truth behind all things, my brother.
Kissing Bandit so meaning ....you just tried to change the word lol
MyMaitetxu You really need to edit your comment, it's a mess.
It baffles me how few people understand the fundamental importance of semantics in a debate like this. People are chucking out cookie cutter terms like 'God' as if it's self evident what parameters that idea is limited to. So when Peterson continually questions this by saying "depends what you mean by 'God'" it's not only a valid statement, but very necessary to clarify a conversation like this one.
Krontok - the majority of people are too dumb to really understand semantics and language. it's a crazy rabbit hole once you look into it.
Semantics are dealing with words meaning if i'm not mistaken. And it is indeed is important to talk first on the meaning of the words used. But when the meaning discussed and definitions set in the beginning are so vague and chaning - the argument is pointless. And the definition of god and religion Peterson gives are very elusive, that's what is annying. At least for me. It's the strongest position because you can't disprove it but as meaningless.
yup!
Derrida in a nutshell
Exactly
It was a bit sad that she didn't have the same interest and time from the moderator to allow her for elaborating her points. Really admire her composure and attitude towards the not very easy interview environment that was set
Carlos Andrés Franco Q. I feel as thought they both were allowed their respective time for a response but Jordan’s were just naturally longer and Susan chose not to have a lengthy response.
May be because she made worse use of her time.
@@keithwilliams8342 and she did more jumping in. Had the interviewer not wrangled her, she would have dominated the talk time
I agree with Keith and Jeremiah's stance on this comment. In short, it's more complicated than that. But I do agree that the moderator was restrictive in an unfortunate manner, by my opinion.
She got owned that’s why lol
What a brilliant debate. This is how debating should be done. Congratulations to both for not evolving into personal attacks.
Just knowing that we, for some reason, exist already sends shivers down my bones.
Me too. And do you know what? Also the thought that mortality and eternity exist at the same time!
It's a miracle we exist.. and people say they do not believe in God. I do not too in literal form, scientists assume that Gods were aliens who had super technology and powers who were far advanced than us. And I think that is what God is. But I'm not sure. And yes there must be a deeper meaning for our existence rather than just saying there is no God. But there is something, that's what JP is trying to say, but from the evidence all he knows is Jesus Christ and Christianity. But there is something deeper than there is This God above the sky or not. Okay lets assume God's were aliens with super power and technology but why did they exist in the first place, why did this universe exist. If it's a simulation as supposed by Elon Musk. Who is simulating us. And the simulators origin?!?! So there is something deeper and some cannot handle that so it's better for some to not ponder about it or they might go crazy and some should go crazy to find the deeper meaning behind the mystery that is this universe through means of Science, spirituality, meditation, reasoning, discussing and astronomy all sorts.
Billionaire e You say JP only knows Jesus Christ and Christianity but I disagree, he’s clearly a deep thinker and from my experience you can tell he has thought of all possibilities, religions and arguments, he is very shrewd on facts and empirical evidence, but I think he is ultimately amazed at the story the bible tries to tell, from it’s beginning to end, even if the early (or all) books in the bible are to be “fables” or “myths” he acknowledges that it provides a deep meaning to the chronological existence of mankind and doesn’t or hasn’t formed its ideologies and beliefs in the 19th-21st century (mainly due to the improvements in science), which kinda gets to me because I think science and the evidence it’s holds now is clearly superior and can dispel many historic ideas. But JP is very specific about the Dogmatic and Spiritual concepts of religion, he talks about prophecy and I think he talks about getting stuck onto this verse here I think, but yeah I think this is why he’s so confident in arguing religion against atheists.
“Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.”
Colossians 2:8 NLT
I always question "why me?". This body of mine could be anyone else, but here I am, living, existing.
@Mark Anthony how about indulge in the conversation with substance and show your superiority
Liked Jordan, liked Susan, liked the moderator.
Perfect example of how constructive discussions should go!
Peterson is a freaking genius
I find it so refreshing and informative to listen to an entire conversation instead of rhetoric and comments out of context.
Most of these things flew over my head. Jordan has a way to articulate his complex and profound thoughts in such am impressive way. I hope some day I can do such thing myself.
You could watch 2 hour debates between JP and and Sam Harris, that are published on RUclips by Pagburn. Those are even more complicated and sophisticated. Still the part that you do understand, you will find extremely enjoyable
The key to his success is firstly Psalm 1, and secondly he's not doing this for himself only but as an act of service.
The most correct and profound answer in the world to any question related to God or his existence :
"I don't know"
It’s impressive to you but for a lot of people (see the comments here) he is an intellectual masturbator who loves the sound of his voice and is a world class obfuscater as per his opening comments which make absolutely no sense except perhaps to him.
I'd say that makes him not articulate, being able to explain yourself in a clear, concise manner and ensuring that the audience gets it is a huge part of being articulate.
I think we seek a meaning that’s deep enough to sustain us through tragedy
I adore both, they deserve to talk in private and without a mediator.
they could suck each other like Trump advises people to do. As a true beliver in god. God has much more sex than Christians have thought about.
@@heidikarinen563 Care to explain yourself?
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
@@heidikarinen563 You're watching the worng video. I don't think you have the capacity to understand any of this.
Heidi Karinen God doesn’t want us to commit any immoral sexual acts. What r u rambling about.
WOW !!!! , Mr. Peterson has a incredible educated heart, he'll understand. And Ms. Blackmore has being helped. God bless you all. OsoYolo, Antigua Guatemala.
well done.. Well done by both participants, and the moderator. How rare it is, for two people to be so opposite, and yet so respectful and collegial.
Thank you!!
Disagree with your assessment of the moderator. I am a huge Jordan Peterson fan, but the moderator showed clear favoritism. Count the times he cut off Susan Blackmore vs. the times he cut off Jordan Peterson. In spite of that, a thoroughly encouraging and insightful discussion
Love this lady, JP has finally debated with a female that is intelligent, respectful, graceful and has a sense of humor.
Idk if intelligent would be a good characterization
What is her name again?
She's watched the Cathy Newman video. Search her discussions with Dawkins and you will get a sense of what she thinks when she isn't scared of looking bad.
She called JP a snake twice. Unprofessional
The first person I ever saw in my life, who said Life has no meaning, we are meaningless, Evolution have no meaning? Then why do we evolved?
Religion is different perspective,
Jordan is brilliant as always! Makes me more a believer of God JESUS. More power!!
Thanks for organize this conversation and share it with us ☺
I like her. I wasn't sure when I saw her hair. =) But that turned out to just be a familiarity bias. This was an enjoyable conversation because they weren't threatened by each other. That led to to polite listening, and a willingness to engage with ideas.
I know, a strange decision for someone of her standing; to risk immediately turning the right kind of people off by dying your hair blue and green.
It's called two mature people talking
JBP should do a podcast with her.
I laughed out loud at this comment because I felt the exact same way.
Dirk DigDuggler but don't you like how it matches her blouse?
Even though I'm a big fan of JBP, and as a Christian, I wish Susan had more of a chance to speak. The moderator asked her significantly less questions and gave her less chance to speak than JBP, and I have his book, and am still reading it, so it was best that it was left out of the discussion as a talking point. I wished there was just more discussion between just Peterson and her. It just seemed as though it was an interview between JBP and the moderator as Susan was a bystander that was being indirectly talked to.. and also I wished it was longer, like everyone else
I wonder if it was because she's been on the show before.
Mia A-W to be fair, I think some of this may have actually been the interviewers fault. If you'll notice most of his questions were directed at Jordan Peterson. It's true that Jordan Peterson can be a bit long-winded, but his statements are always insightful. At least in this case they were actually able to have a peaceful dialogue. And, they seem to be able to disagree and still communicate..
She said nothing of substance, and JBP clearly pointed out the contradictions in her thinking.
i agree with jordan peterson. and i usually dont agree with comments like this but i think ur right. seems like he knew though that jordans view is a lot harder for people to wrap their minds around.
and it seems like the moderator was kind of a fan of jordan, or at least interesting to the moderator.
i think it could have been a more balanced back and forth if he didnt cut her off so much for starters.
at the same time again her argument us easy to understand for most people.
peterson however, i agree with for the most part, and understand exactly what he is saying to the best of my ability. i know that this idea is very complicated to get a hold of because most of us are brought up thinking from a materialistic framework of the world and "god"
Mia A-W I was sort of thinking the same thing, until she began speaking. When she speaks she doesn’t do her argument much justice imo. JBP has done his homework and Susan at times tried too hard to be somewhat comical. There were times I felt that even Susan was impressed with the professor.
This is a great discussion. Both have a high level of responsibility for putting their thoughts without destroying each other.
😊😊😊😊
That is very hard by the way. 😅 It takes a lot of patience, experience and intellectual energy.