IF YOU WANT TO SEE MORE DISCUSSIONS LIKE THIS, DROP A LIKE ON THIS VIDEO! Be sure to subscribe! We have new live events coming this fall. VANCOUVER! You're first! Tickets are selling fast for my discussion with Lawrence Krauss Oct 13th. Get your tickets here: www.ticketmaster.ca/the-edge-of-knowledge-with-lawrence-vancouver-british-columbia-10-13-2023/event/11005EA4E1634A30
"its easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle, than it is for a rich man to walk through the gates of heaven" Neither of these men have decoded the meaning in that previous phrase If they have not decoded that, then they have no right to pretend they have decoded Religion As the Ancients who left the messages about our narrative would say "dont let the cat out of the bag" And no ! that phrase has not echoed through history because its literally talking about a cat in a bag, "" FFS None of its literal you have to have FAITH that you and only you, with no guidance no direction, YOU can work it out, you can decode it, Because they left you all the tools to do it. and those tools were never in school Just because you cant build a microchip, does not give you the right to go around saying "I DONT UNDERSTAND THERFORE IT DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING" Idiots the lot of you
@usatamondomuni8763 you wrote a lot, but seem to have totally missed the point, ITS NOT LITERAL , Tell me what the following actually really means, "you cant see past the end of your nose" Then maybe you will prove that you actually know something or "are you as thick as two short planks ?"
Sam Harris: ....therefore 2 + 2 = 4 Peterson: Well hang on. The truthfulness of that statement can never be gauged because (12 minutes later) 2 + desk / 0 = infinity. (emotional pause) And infinity contains beauty which is incalculable in the substrate of the human experience. Harris: (waving around 2 pens in each hand counting them aloud) Peterson: Fair enough but what can't be accounted for is (12 minutes later) and the dreams of man.
On Peterson, I don't think I've ever seen anyone whose head is so filled with such useless knowledge. I'm glad all that isn't taking up space in my head. And I wish he would stop wiggling his fingers.
Peterson: ...and we can't just easily dismiss the metaphysics of 1 + 1. The narrative of two ones coming together is seen in the underlying fabric and metaphysical substrate of our human experience. It represents the Jungian archetype of the ruler creating order from chaos, suggesting that 1 + 1 is a meta-truth and doesn't just equal 2. It's not as simple as that.
Set aside what is being said, the breath of fresh air here for me is the calm, intelligent thoughtful discussion without people shouting over each other, which is far too common these days. You can actually hear what is being said and can therefore have space to think things through for yourself.
{Be not deceived by the mercantilistic wanderings of the unbelievers, on earth. Because it is a transitory enjoyment, and its abode will be hell. What a dismal abode. But those who feared their Lord will have gardens beneath which rivers flow, abiding eternally therein, as accommodation from God. And that which is with God is best for the righteous. And indeed, among the People of the Scripture are those who believe in God and what was revealed to you [O Mohammed, The Messenger of God] and what was revealed to them, being humbly submissive to God. They do not exchange the verses of God for a small price. Those will have their reward with their Lord. Indeed, God is swift in account. O you who have believed, persevere, endure, be patient, be ever vigilant, and fear God so that you will succeed and prosper.}
I think my main issue in this debate with JP and what I think Sam was trying to get across at times, is that JP often conflates useful with essential. Many tools have been used over time to help drive progress and we should celebrate those advances including the context. But in essentializing those things, Jordan turns them into sacred cows that can't be pulled apart and analyzed to determine which parts are worth keeping for their truth or other value. Sam even says that he doesn't mind keeping them around as useful narrative, much like Dawkins saying he doesn't mind parts of the Bible being taught in literature class to help understand other literary works. Narratives are useful learning tools, but if we can't separate them from their religious meaning, they become dogma that control our lives and thinking instead of helping to expand them.
I can cede that, but sam does the same attributing the atrocites of the 20th century to dogmatism. If you conflate every terrible event to a religious dogmatism of some sort then of course you land on his mindset. Our human propensity towards dogmatism does not inherently credit or discredit anything necessarily. I think the sacred cow of usefulness vs essentialism can be equated to the dogmatic vs useful/essential argument Sam makes. In both situations the two do not have to remain mutually exclusive, and i would argue there is a very gray area of the balance of these to make the whole.
@@jamersontobias3187 I actually mostly agree with you here and disagree with some of Sam's takes, like on the is-ought Hume problem and definitely the deflection you mentioned. He tried to push back on the Hitler / Stalin comparisons by saying they were really acting in a similar manner to religious people, which is falling into the same trap he says Jordan does when he claims Sam acts as if a god exists. While something can be said for Hitler and his party's literal religious affiliations, I think that it is better to just point out that all people perform all kinds of actions while also carrying various identifiers that may not be motivating factors for those actions. I admit that I am woefully uneducated to talk about Stalin, but I am not aware that his motivation was specifically that there was no God. And while religious people insist that atheism is inextricably tied to nihilism, I don't agree, nor is that his motivation either. As for the balance of the concepts, in another one of their discussions they talk about the idea of a meta-truth (possibly in the same way that Jordan often uses it but it's hard to tell). It's really about the idea that there can be times when a fiction about a situation may be more beneficial than reality. Specifically referencing a firearm, there is a highly useful, and even preferential, attitude based on the narrative that it is always loaded. While some ridicule those people by saying that is overly cautious and unnecessary, because after you've checked the firearm a bullet won't materialize inside, those who don't integrate this idea are often the ones who are involved in accidents. But Sam says that at the same time if you had to place a $1M bet on if it is loaded or not you would of course bet that it is not. You are still tied to the reality of the situation. You can integrate lessons in stories without believing they are literally true and in fact we do this all the time with things like fairy tales and Aesop's fables.
I think it is fairly clear that everyone and I mean everyone operates their life with a larger level of dogmatic beliefs than most, if not all, would like to admit. The levels of dogma differ wildly from person to person. Sometimes, it is easy to tell(why is it easy to tell, though?) . I also think that when you get down to ethical behavior, it's nearly impossible to realize that your belief system is just that a belief system. Most of the time, a frankenstein of ethics from multiple sources that in themselves are hard to "prove" or give validation to from a logical stance. I will admit that I am fairly warm to the idea of God that given the universe set laws on how to operate and also set principles that are objectively superior to others. Does this make my belief system any more or less crazy than another's? I'm not sure. If I am wrong and there's nothing concrete about ethics does it make me more are less dogmatic than my neighbor. if I am more dogmatic, then on what basis can I use as proof to realign myself. Maybe I should just trust my own internal dialog, my issue would be that I know my brain has spit out many things that were wrong before so why wouldn't I be wrong now? I also realize I can make that argument backwards as use it against my own beliefs. Maybe the collective would be better, I'm also not so sure that the 20th and 21st century are good arguments for collective beliefs. Anyways, these arguments are why I ended up heavily leaning toward the possibility of God existing. I guess I just find satisfaction in that.
@@colemantanner9360 I pretty much agree with what you said, if you just substitute the word dogmatic with irrational. I'm reading "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt, and he analogizes our thinking as an elephant with a rider on top. The emotional elephant is really in control and the rational rider is only able to guide. And if the elephant is already leaning, there's nothing the rider can do. The point of my top level comment really hits on one of the points you made. You said that it's nearly impossible to realize that our belief systems are simply belief systems. Extending the term belief systems to cover non religious/spiritual beliefs, I think everyone has a belief system. The issue is that when you give your belief system religious or divine foundations axiomatically, you make it nearly impossible to evaluate and change. And in fact, it can sometimes go against your own internal compass. I like to jokingly adapt a Rick and Morty line to something like, "You evaluate your religious teachings against your own internal beliefs? That's just secular humanism with extra steps!" As for the foundations, people like Harris try to base it off of well-being. While I don't think we can ever have an objective set of ethics (as while you may be able to find objective measurements to quantify well-being, defining well-being as the variable to maximize must be stated axiomatically), I think it's hard to argue that well-being isn't a good measure until we can get a better one and it seems to ring true to most people. But seriously though, I always say that I think people should be able to believe whatever they choose to believe. I just want to be sure that they believe it for good reasons. And I suppose taking it a step further here, believing in the possibility of something is fine, just don't actually believe it until sufficient evidence has been presented. It's bad generally, and in this context it brings on a ton of baggage that you probably don't want to carry around.
So if you hire someone to write your book are they the author of the book or did they just write it? Bible is a combination of letters and experiences. There are many Bible writers. That's why Christians say the Bible is inspired of God. It contains people's personal experiences and dealings with God and the history of the time. But the Bible is God's book. It does not belong to the writers.
Sam is what one calls "smug", and he has no reason to be. His humor is childish and I could see him one day looking back with regret on his mode of communication.
In my view, Sam is the one trying to work his way around by not answering Jordan's critique of his pure rationality framework for leaving a hellish life and aiming for the good life. Jordan, since the first discussion, has been trying to find ways to help Sam understand his critique. But Sam is unable to give an answer because he has none. When asked the question about how pure rationality can motivate people to pursue the good life and leave behind the hellish life, he just keeps on mentioning the atrocities made by people in the name of religion. He said that we should be motivated by love and guided by reason (1:22:40). But just like Peterson said, you can say things like that in a sentence or two. But it does not have the kind of motivating power which the "stories" we have inherited have. And, if Sam Harris says "we should be motivated by love and be guided by reason", one can ask "Why should I do that?" or "Why should I follow Sam Harris?" "Is he the embodiment of truth that I should follow him?" Someone about two thousand years ago claimed to be the embodiment of truth. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bxzuh5Xx5G4.html
@@JackPullen-Paradox I'm neither religious nor Christian but I surely find atheists tedious to listen to. Sam mocks all Christian thought as though all Christians are simple-minded idiots. Even I find that offensive and narrow.
It seems to me that both Harris and Peterson recognize the value of stories and traditions but Harris, rightly so, wants to draw a sharp line between the fact and fiction while Peterson wants to blur the line so people can believe literally or metaphorically.
Categorizing the biblical accounts as either historically accurate vs. purely mythological is different than assessing the value of the account in terms of the virtue that is on display. Personally I think investigating their historical accuracy is a less valuable pursuit than extrapolating the inherent moral teaching or parabolic virtue of scripture. That being said, there are biblical accounts which have a high degree of historicity and can be corroborated with multiple accounts, and there are those that are intended by the author to be allegorical or parabolic or poetic. You can’t take something like the Bible and claim it’s either entirely true or entirely false. That’s like walking into a library and saying every book on the shelf is either entirely true or entirely false. Furthermore, Harris demonstrates a weak understanding of scripture and asserts this straw man version of scripture that promulgates child sacrifice, genocide and all kinds of immorality, when in actuality the biblical teachings of Christ (in the Gospel accounts) were so radical at that time because of how they challenged those structures of power and old ways of thinking during that point in history.
@@theonly764hero1 I'm not sure if i completely understand you (not a native English speaker) But the problem that Jordan has, is that the stories are true in his eyes. I do think they have value and a lot of teaching in the stories, but the same holds true for stories like harry potter or lord of the rings, or any other story. 1 is more interesting then the other, they all touch certain topics which are interesting to think about and to put value on, hidden lessons so to speak. Jordan sees the psychological value of it and he deems it as very important. But certain things Jordan claims doesn't make sense. I am an atheist for example, i don't believe in any god, but if i compare myself with other people from religious to none religious. I can assure you that my values are more developed. (not saying that i know it all and understand it all, but i do think that i have given more thought about these subjects) Things like money, value of a life, value of having a life, the value of family or nature and it's animals. What is important, what isn't important and etc. I guess, i don't like the illusion, or the lie.. that i have to lie to myself (believing in some deity), to give meaning to life. I don't need that (also think that people don't need that, we don't need to believe in those fairy tales). It's a miracle our earth, all animals on the planet are our distant family members. There is beauty and love and divinity all around, it's us.. we are all here. For me, no need for a god, to fill in that gap. An example of religion and believing in things, years ago i was traveling, met this random dude. And he said: "my god is more powerful then yours" (he assumed i was christian) Now.. what can i say to this? How can we solve this dispute? This is a beautiful example of an eternal debate, there are no answers to this. Even if we assume that gods are real. It's a yes or no debate and quickly can result into a war.. Because both parties are so convinced in their own 'idea', resulting in; that all other ideas are nonsense. It might be even seen as something insulting, because i don't believe in the same thing. I see a big problem with religion. Believe what you will, but as soon religion because pushy, want's to enforce their truth upon others, that's when the fighting begins. And i am 100% against that and for those reasons i don't mind religion to be banned. It's a shame, beautiful traditions will get lost, but as long we keep fooling ourselves, i don't see any other option.
@@Daeva83B I replied but I’m not seeing the reply anymore so forgive me if this is a duplicate. Great points and it’s quite a bit to unpack so if you’re sincerely wanting answers, I have them. In the interest of my own time and the amount of information I would have to provide, I linked a couple of truly amazing videos if you’d be so inclined to check them out at least in part. Harris has a tepid understanding of Religion and God, while Peterson, though he is knowledgeable when it comes to sociology and psychology, is a terrible Christian or Catholic apologist. Jonathan Haidt is able to quite easily dismantle and correct Sam’s misconception of religion, and since you enjoy Sam this video can be relevant to you. Bishop Barron is a phenomenal Catholic apologist, which is why I recommend that other video because he goes into a detailed discourse on the rationality of both theism and religion. Would love to hear your thought on both video. God bless! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--WmmcTUkdVM.htmlsi=ddJXF8Isz-eAyueh ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--NMex7qk5GU.htmlsi=41oQKgFBweWsRYmt
@@rustyshadow7 hahaha, somebody is offended. Well, hate to break it to you, but evolution makes more sense than religion, also we have more evidence. As a matter of fact, we are doing it.. think bananas for example, that have been bred by us, by cross breeding it and now we have bananas with no seeds, thats evolution for ya. It evolved we just selected it. (Seedles bananas wouldn't survive, but we like to eat bananas without seeds.)
He does it intentionally with the specific intention of winning the crowd with humor instead of reason. All atheists do this, and its a cheap psychological trick
@terryhopp645 Sam's the joke? Ask Jordan what his favourite colour is and he'll spend 3h talking about what the definition of "favourite" is. Jordan is one of the most pompous "intellectuals" alive
It’s more than 20% at this point. Peterson should stick to personality research. When he opens his mouth about almost anything else he comes across as crazy haha
I'll never understand how Peterson is allowed to sit down with some of humanity's smartest people, listen to their insightful thoughts, their brilliance, their wisdom, and reply with absolute horseshit
I am Atheist from the top of my head to the bottom of my feet. Endless road shows. In which the gods lover usually retreats back to it being a matter of faith. Ultimately back to the same old bedrock of faith. The well-paid jousts continue around the country I feel like I'm watching a 14th century debate on the philosopher's stone. If only it had the potential to turn Jordan Peterson into a base metal I recently returned one of his posts Only for him to relay to me that he had a very good financial advisor that could help me.. Seems like the law of Luca is equally divided with God in his mindset
One thought I always had and is why I believe most people are truly agnostic.- If I TRULY believed in a religion I would devote my entire life to it. I would become a priest. I would lock myself in a room and live stream myself reading whichever religious book. I wouldn’t take the slightest chance of sinning and burning for existence. You’re telling me won’t devote this sliver of time to ensure endless bliss??- i don’t think YOU even believe.
Even priests are sinners. All Christians are sinners. The only man without sin was Jesus. So locking yourself in a room and reading scripture on a live stream isn't going to prevent you from committing sins. And you just used the no true Scotsman fallacy. The bar is ankle high in Christianity for salvation it is simply the belief in Jesus as your savior. So get good and have more intelligent thoughts.
@@torn314that's what most evangelical christians in the US want tl believe: that they'll be saved by faith without works. But that's not what the Jesus of the gospels say. You just want the easy, lazy road.
@@eprd313 “I am the way the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the father but by me.” “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Our works or “good fruits” do not save us, they mearly are a reflection of our salvation. When one is truly saved the scripture says that he is given a new heart and new mind and is a new creature. A new creature who now has a heart and mind to serve the Lord rather than to follow the world and his own hedonistic whims. This seems to be your misunderstanding of the message of Christ. We are utterly unable to uphold the Law of Moses to the degree that God expects and demands of us, and knowing this (even from the foundation of the world) He sent His only son, the third person in the Trinity, to take on flesh and die to pay our sin debt. In believing in Him and His sacrifice for us we die to our flesh (meaning we turn away from or repent of our sins) and live through Him (as He overcame death) and thus are given eternal life.
Ya, I've always thought that there's NO WAY they REALLY believe in hell, especially when all sin is supposedly equal (lying is just as bad as murder). If they really believed in hell they'd be a whole lot more stressed about the situation. My dad was Catholic and died fearing hell; although, for whatever reason, he was OK with me being atheist. We debated about it a lot but he didn't seem too worried about my fate 😅.
Mind boggling the number of people who will tell you they believe the Bible to be the direct, flawless, divine word of the creator of the universe, the one perfect instruction book of wisdom. Yet... they've spent more time reading comic books or romance novels... never actually read God's only direct communication they will ever receive cover to cover even once.
It's very clear that people in general have a hard time with uncomfortable truth. JP had to dodge in all kinds of ways in this debate, because it's a fact that most of his followers are only smart to the point of being atheists to all other gods that ever existed and were described in holly books, except the one that they decided to pick and stick to no matter what. To make the courageous effort of rejecting one more God and accepting the hard truth of how we are vulnerable in the universe is just too difficult for the large majority, no matter how smart you are.
@@DuGStppeople like to pretend that they are smart by throwing sophisticated gibberish instead of answering dirrectly simple questions.not everything us shades of grey.but some are too coward and hypocrite to admit and say the obvious.muddying waters is not a sign of intellectual honesty.
You have to listen closely when Dr. J.P. gets going ! 😉.... Complicated mind, trying to help us make sense of our confused human history..... These 3 gent's always bring so much to discussions. Never mind the chores , this is far more important ! 😊 🇬🇧😊🌱🏞️🦉🥀🌿🇬🇧
@@rosemariemann1719 Wrong. He’s doing the opposite. He isn’t trying to make sense of anything. He’s purposely blurring the lines between reality and metaphors so that he can retain a fanbase of people who consider themselves intellectuals, and his biggest fanbase of Christians. He refuses to actually say anything and only obfuscates.
@@rosemariemann1719bullshit. Anyone with a decent vocabulary and a critical thinking capacity beyond the depth of a puddle sees right through JP. It's embarrassing.
I wish that the titles of this series were more broadly drawn. There is so much good woven into these discussions that to cast them as religious debates or dialog diminishes their power substantially.
Harris is talking about the societal insistence on extending antiquated beliefs into the modern world, and Peterson is talking about the importance of the history of astrology. The fact is no one is mocking the ancients for their beliefs. Many of us are aghast that 21st century humans still accept the validity of these ancient beliefs being surrounded by much better explanations.
DNA, the intricacies of the human eye, the earth being the perfect distance away from the sun to support life, I think all these things show the amazing works of a highly intelligent designer. What's a more ludicrous thing to believe in? That all the orderliness in our universe was designed and constructed, and the supernatural is a reality, or that absolutely nothing exploded into absolutely everything? I dont think evolution is a better explanation. There are many things science can not account for.
I think we are still seeking answers to questions that have allways been asked and not answered. I dont think we have better explanations now than we did 300 years ago.
@steelcom5976 Isaiah 40:28 The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable. (ESV) The Bible claims that he has always been around and created time itself. Exodus 3:13-14 Then Moses said to God, If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them? God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM. And he said, Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ (ESV) I AM has the idea of self existence. The original pure existence that relies on nothing else
@@sethary9698 Your problems become exponentially more complex when you then have to explain what we know to be true, e.g. the geologicial strata clearly shows that the further back in time we go living organisms become less and less complex. Why would a designer do that?
if you take out all the tautological, adjectival, and adverbial words from Jordan's utterances, most of his arguments are superficial. I think he has been trying to be the top intellectual but his mannerism when facing Sam demonstrates his incompetency somehow.
it seems like jordan’s objective is to avoid clarity, like someone wanting to get to the light but who is in love with the shadows, with considerable unrelenting intensity. deeply wants freedom, but loves attachment too much.
My problem is,in my 20s, i was short tempered and full of hate, and it made life very rough. Everything was a battle. I have never believed in a god, but i looked inward and found that kindness, patience, and understanding make life far more enjoyable. My point is the bible teaches that to have a good life, and to be a good person, to know the difference between right and wrong, you must accept god. My thought is that belief takes away peoples self responsibility. it's us that choose our life and how we live it.we choose whether to be kind or a mean person.We choose whether to accept things we can't change or to let them break us.. Find strength in yourself and those that you love and love you.
1:13:31 This is an interesting point... Revolutionary movements look back and break down horrible structures. But if you don't have a plan for how to move forward, isn't it just destruction? Rituals, wisdom, cheer, consolation, dealing with adversity... these are an important part of religions. That attitude of: "it is what it is, you deal with it an then you die" is too cold. Individualism is such a great move we made, but when it tuns into something where egotistical and egocentric people start all of their sentences with "I", we've lost the plot. I get what Peterson is getting at. Not a fan of his religious musings, but the way he expresses his views is more compelling than guys like William Lane Craig or Dinesh D'Souza have ever put them. They are apologists, whereas Peterson seems to feel the hurt in society. Discussions like this one, between Harris and Peterson, might point the way forward. So thank you!!!
2 Peter 3:3-7 [3]Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, [4]And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. [5]For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: [6]Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: [7]But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Sam is far too kind. JP does not believe what his listeners (mis)understand his words to mean. That is a critical issue. It comes back to the lack of accountability shown by some social media presenters - intent does not matter, when many misinterpret your words. JP would never argue in favour of the God that is believed in by 'believers'. Even though he specifically used the term 'God smuggling ', if you pressed him on it, he would just return with "well it depends on what you mean by God"... I absolutely understand his points, the ability for 'religion' to tell good stories for 2 millennia is unbelievable. The point he skips over is that that unbelievable'ness really doesn't mean anything. It certainly doesn't prove anything.
When he knows he's being backed into a logical certainty on a topic, he'll always question his opponents definiton of said topic, as a way of deflecting the question. He always seems like he's on the edge or reason, but he's desperately fighting against it.
JP is like a woman🤣. When he is right, he will stick to the point and make sure everyone stays on point. When he is wrong, he will take you to a vast variety of complications which are all unrelated, but too tiring to even argue against, so that you will just give up on the topic.
I love JP but he isn’t equipped in any sort of real apologetics to go toe to toe against Harris in that domain. Now if we had an actual apologist or theologian worth their salt on stage I believe Harris would be systematically deconstructed and corrected in all of his flagrantly wrong assertions. Harris has a childlike understanding of theology and religion. I’ve heard debates on theology and religion that actually get to the heart of these issues when both parties have a keen understanding of theology and religion.
If you want to debate a Christian, you have to start with this premise: They have to begin everything with the idea that you don't own yourself. Your thoughts aren't your own. Your body is not your own. Your self-determination is not your own. Your destiny is not your own. There is even the point in this debate where Jordan angrily says to everyone there that they don't even know their own minds. Well there you go. But here's the great thing about living in the 21st century. We have the luxury of looking back on history and we have the advancements of science and philosophy and psychology which has revealed to us that all of that religious stuff from history was nonsense and needed to be made up. We don't need it anymore. We never really needed it and we used it as a security blanket to deal with a world that we didn't know about yet. Don't let religion or anyone take away your self-actualization and self-determination. If you start with that premise, they'll never get you and they'll never get the rest of us. They'll still get customers but not as much as they used to.
Peterson exhausts so much of his intellectual capacity, desperately trying to convince himself to believe in god, it's exhausting to watch. Imagine if that energy what used elsewhere. He could achieve so much.
Romans 2:14-16 [14]For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: [15]Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) [16]In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Yes, he is patiently waiting for the universe will conspire and give him an answer to Jordan Peterson's critique of his idea that pure rationality has the power to motivate us to pursue the good life and leave the bad life (that includes selfishness, being unloving, etc. not just material poverty) He said that we should be motivated by love and guided by reason (1:22:40). But just like Peterson said, you can say things like that in a sentence or two. But it does not have the kind of motivating power which the "stories" we have inherited have. And, if Sam Harris says "we should be motivated by love and be guided by reason", one can ask "Why should I do that?" or "Why should I follow Sam Harris?" "Is he the embodiment of truth that I should follow him?" Someone about two thousand years ago claimed to be the embodiment of truth. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bxzuh5Xx5G4.html
Listening to JP is like nails down a chalkboard. I genuinely can't understand how anyone can debate him without laughing in his face or how anyone could sit and listen to the whole debate without fast forwarding past his insanity. He seems unhinged.
your comment is the same to me. he's clearly not insane.. i mean he's talking to sam harris and sam understands him. not understanding would be understandable, but nails on a chalkboard? really? seems a little intense.
Been thinkin that a few years and now 2023 maybe certain he is. I said he thinks he s the new messiah the suffering servant of OT the saviour of the world.
@@ruprecht9997 i enjoyed the cordial warm-hearted line of discussion. Globally there is a need for more of it. I'd like to learn how to be more like this way of being as well too, myself.
The concern should be people like Peterson, who should know better, insist on promoting antiquated beliefs and make money doing so. It falsely legitimizes sustaining such beliefs. People hear this dialogue and go away more entrenched in that belief. In turn, people like Harris come on to counter Peterson types with a dose of rationality. Ironically, debating Peterson unintentionally legitimizes religion by elevating these ridiculous ideas into a conversation as if they even qualified for debate. And yet…
So to prove rationality, one must never confront hypotheses that may be false? Simply interacting with an idea doesn't instantly give it credence unless this is how your mind operates. One might call this intentional ignorance and be antithetical to rationality.
The amount of unearned arrogance one must possess to spout nonsense like this is utterly mesmerizing. You should spend more time in (actual) thought, and much less time assuming your own perception of your intelligence is anywhere near accurate. Mark Twain’s quote always rings true, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so”.
I am so glad that the void is my friend! And it's really no void at all, because there is a presence there at all times. I'm grateful for my younger years that I spent in psychotherapy with a Jungian for the gift of that realization. I find it sad that some people are so afraid of the void that they must cling to archaic holy books. Divinity is constantly reflected back to me by life itself... and what divinity is that? It is the divinity inside, which, ultimately, is the only divinity there is. My thanks to Sam for this: "You can’t go very far wrong if you are motivated by love and guided by reason."
The whole religious(Christian) debate in a nutshell. If I can throw enough big words at the problem then I can win. The whole religious(Christian) problem in a nutshell. There is no real practical evidence to demonstrate a Christian God.
This has to be the dumbest take I've seen here. Are the words too big for you? Also, there is no "christian" problem. It's called a human problem. There are good and bad in every group. Open up your mind a little
@@wiemerhoekstrathat's bad thinking, there's equal evidence for an infinite amount of different gods. Demonstrate why we should take your god claim more seriously than Cthulhu.
Nor to discard ANY other Imaginary Sky Dude. Nothing can be done, on earth, among 8+B humans... if individuals and groups endless sky dudes are held up to be moral, ethical, holy, and divine beings NOBODY could or should challenge, question, or criticize.... with every groupd needing special schools, special lunches, special prayer space, etc. for their holy stuff on a daily basis.... "But WE ARE REALLY, REALLY SPECIAL... the real deal.... (insert "Christians" or any other such group there)..." is NOT making any thing better or easier. EVERYONE and every group could say that and say with a solemn, serious, honest face. NO ONE and NO GROUP pretends to be religious, into these fairy tales, just so they could giggle behind all the others back, for some strange, comedic take on life & living. FACT IS, Stone, Iron, and Bronze age sky gods and the fairy tales about them.... have NO RELEVANCY at the Dawn of the Age of Quantum Computation. People can be and SHOULD BE as king, moral, ethical, tolerant, and decent as possible, because we all depend on others for things, ideas, and our well being, in the various ways.@@wiemerhoekstra
Jorden: The only reason to read the bible from the point of view of thinking ''you don't understand it'' is if in fact you already assume it has some devine origin or value that means you must not let the words speak for themselves. Otherwise, why treat these texts any different?
I've watched every one of these debates and Sam actually admitted his main flaw that drives open minded, intelligent, and curious people crazy. He explicitly says that he is unwilling to follow Jordan's logical progression because he's worried it will encourage people in their religious belief. Forgive me, but I want to hear every logical progression through to it's end. When Sam refuses to answer head on the question of where he finds an objective basis for his moral framework, he's robbing us of the most interesting and essential question in their whole debate. This whole jesus smuggling fear that these new age athiests talk about is so disingenuous. Plato and Aristotle used logic to arrive at the conclusion that there must be a prime mover aka a creator. Both were before Christ or the Bible, so clearly a debate with them would have to address the argument for what it was, not for what an athiest is worried it will sneak in at the end. I don't like it when fundamentalist Christians put limits on what they're willing to question in regards to their beliefs and i hate it when athiests do it. Athiests are just never willing to admit they have beliefs, which makes them so frustrating to listen to.
Listen to Jordan's lecture on it. Cain and Abel are within all of our minds. There is a part of us that is willing to offer our best to something greater than ourselves and there is a part of us not willing to offer our best. And how jealousy can turn a man to the point of murder - Even if it's your own brother. It's about having the fortitude and integrity to live your best to life rather than never fully trying and blaming everyone else except yourself. And you won't live your best life everyday so it's important to remember the consequences of taking the wrong path. We should aim our vision upwards in order to develop the best life for ourselves our family and society.
@torn314 yer but it's just a deep story. There's nothing about that that indicates a human couldn't have written it. We have endless examples of brilliant writers. There's no reason to think that there were no intelligent and deep thinkers thousands of years ago.
@@3brenmYes and imagine if these brilliant writers throughout thosands of years collaborated over time to write such an important story that holds so many in captivation today. That's the simple yet powerful story of Cain and Abel. It speaks to an understanding each of us has.
0:29: 🗣 The speakers acknowledge the fun they have had in their series of dialogues and discuss their common goal of figuring out how to live the best lives individually and collectively and build societies that safeguard that opportunity for everyone. 9:59: 💭 The video discusses the relationship between fantasy, fiction, and reality, and the importance of distinguishing between them. 20:02: 📖 The speaker discusses the mystery and impact of religious texts, particularly the Bible. 28:43: 🤔 The challenge is that some people believe that those of low intelligence are best placed in a conservative paradigm, but this view should not be summarized as 'religion is good for stupid people'. 37:57: 🌍 We are all dependent on each other, regardless of our position in the hierarchy. 48:08: 🤔 The problem with atheists is not that they assert there is no God, but rather that they are not convinced by any of the Gods on offer. 57:18: 🔑 The elevation of an ideal represented by the image of Christ on the Dome of a cathedral. 1:06:54: 📚 The video discusses the issue of ranking literature and the hierarchy of wisdom and revelations it presents. 1:16:38: 🔑 The speaker discusses the incremental erosion of religious answers to terrestrial questions and the need to reincorporate a religious substructure to defend what is valuable in the West. 1:25:31: 🔑 Different religious beliefs are irreconcilable and cannot be watered down as an alternative to Western culture's founding myths. 1:35:04: ! Love is a state of consciousness that anchors us to a positive commitment to the well-being of other conscious systems. 1:44:45: 😡 The speaker discusses the absence of evidence and consistency in ancient religious beliefs and transitions to a discussion on present hates. 1:55:39: 😔 Empathy can be misleading and is not a reliable basis for complex foreign policy decisions. Recap by Tammy AI
Whether or not they are being honest with themselves, and even know if they are or not, most people can still articulate what they hold to be literally true when it comes to the claims of this or that religious text. JBP’s response for Sam’s question is absolutely an evasion, and just about as bad faith of one as it gets. He descends into obfuscation and indignation, and knowingly stokes his acolytes in the crowd to applaud down the questioner. As the years have gone on, especially in light of his later tribal hollering, Jordan’s argumentation has become more and more stark in its pandering.
People who believe everything in the bible as historical fact are kidding themselves. People who believe the Bible has no significant historical significantance are also kidding themselves.
JB's wife is it Catholic so I wouldn't be surprised if he actually believed in God but he cannot admit to that for obvious reasons I would assume. Evading the question about his actual belief you are referring to right?
Jordan has decided to defend the indefensible. No wonder he needs to sidestep and duck and obfuscate. There is no proof of God, that should be well known by now. And as long as he refuses to admit he believes, he tries instead to drone on about the usefulness and literally qualities of Christianity. And a whole lot of general babble, showing off his vocabulary. It gets a bit tiresome at length. Sam has an easy match looking straight through this, as do most everybody else.
There is a very unpalatable arrogance about Jordan Peterson that diminishes his credibility. He is often so dogmatic about his own conclusions that he dismisses other people’s opinions out of hand… I respect him but have come to the point of not wanting to listen to him anymore…
You could argue the same about Sam Harris. He's just less - much less - animated. Admittedly I'm making this comment prior to watching the debate, and I have both enjoyed and cringed listening to them both in other discussions/debates.
This debate is an example of the beauty of human nature to want to come together for mutual understanding on a common ground of needing to find what is best for humanity for its survival despite the different values each participant holds. It is the love of the fellow man that has made this possible and is witnessed here. God is not needed for this to have occurred.
If a short story is really, really good to Jordan, it’s God 😂 to this day I still do not understand how this man is held up as an intellectual hero to some people. He gives cover and thin veneer of intellectualism, and half the population eats it up. “He said something loudly with confidence!” 👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻
JP asks really good questions. He can stimulate thought in a lot of non thinkers. He is a good middle ground between great thinkers like Jung and the common man who have never opened a philosophy book.
@@jakenbake9878 To me that’s a generous way of saying he’s a pseudo intellectual. What he says makes a modicum of sense to people who can’t think deeply enough. I will say he’s better as a podcast interviewer than a debate opponent. Personally I think he’s rude (prone to constantly interrupting others onstage), deeply insecure with his masculinity, overly obsessed with Jung and the Bible to the point of not seeing his irrational bias, can’t or refuses to distinguish a story’s meaningfulness from its veracity, is completely evasive and emotional in debates, and prone to word salad. I feel like he’s in over his head whenever he debates Sam and tries to overcompensate with histrionics and theatrics. “What do I believe? NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THEY BELIEVE, SAM! NOBODY DOES! WE’RE NOT CONSCIOUS OF 99% OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THE BRAIN!”, he huffily tells the literal neuroscientist who studied what belief is, to the applause of idiots. Ridiculous.
@@acslater017 That’s your opinion and that’s fair. I feel the same way about Sam Harris. Sam can be so disingenuous and insulting at times. Not to mention he contradicts himself as much as anyone. But I was simply adding some perspective as to why JP has the following that he does. He can relate information to the layman in better ways than most.
@@jakenbake9878 this is true insofar as he sticks to this sort of ‘just asking questions’ area. But he doesn’t ..? He comes out and makes assertions and positive statements that have actual impact on society and individuals. The problem I find with him, is that he never actually engages with the academic literature written around a certain area. It’s all strawmen and invented conspirators etc etc.
I would love to have a conversation with Sam Harris - my hero. He talks so knowledgeably about society and religion historically, but I want to study is the future of religion. I started with studies in hermeneutics and Bible study because, the community I lived in is most deeply effected by the Judea/Christian traditions. More recently, I am studying Islam, again, because of its effects on my society. What I wish to ask him is that; could there be a tipping point in Islam. This religion has become so violently extremist - they are not just a terrorist threat to the world at large but, and I think more importantly for the future, the threat is to their own people and their own societies. We recently saw one woman in Iran murdered, with impunity, by a state that did not approve of her scarf. Did we also see the beginnings of the rejection of this extreme violence - a tipping point. Or, is the ignorance of that people (I'm not being prejudicial in saying this because more than half of their population is denied education. Girls are taken out of school and married to the age of 12. Ignorance is passed from generation to generation from these mothers through their children for generation after generation,) capable of perpetuating this religion.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by foundation? The man has a phd in neuroscience. Then again, perhaps you are correct; I don't know his background. Does he have an autobiography? @@nmr3647
needed to hear or wanted to? logic and critical thinking is the foundation of all our decision-making, yet when it comes to religion, pious people completely forsake it so they can follow what they want to be true...
@@MrBadintentionssthat’s a mirror for politics and humanism. Religious practice is a discipline not as you so elegantly put it what ever you want. You want society to be built on a standard of what comfort well-being good luck with that also, that’s not so inherently obvious that that is what we should do.
@@MrBadintentionss oh, yes, the paradox of intolerance subjective morality where the priest are droves of society. The only intolerance allowed is that of the intolerant.
@@bradicas5359 do you understand why logic and critical thinking are so important? even pious people use it to decipher right from wrong, good from bad, in their everyday life. but when it comes to religion, and people decide to right fight for something that has never proven to exist, all they are doing is sabotaging their own healthy belief system. why would you be combative about something that has never been proven to exist in over 2000 years?
1:04:50 JP sure gets triggered by SH asking him what he really believes. I don't buy his excuse that "we aren't transparent to ourselves." He really doesn't want to answer, and that's why he lashes out so defensively.
The claim that someone implemented the inquisition because they were instructed by a religious directive to do so is not in dispute. It's a fact. The claim that when someone does something bad that the reason was that they didn't think God was watching is conjecture. There is a massive difference.
Yeh honestly I thought the moderator was way out of line with those statements. They even discuss like 5 mins later about how atheism makes no positive claims, it has no positive beliefs, it is a position of refutation not of belief. How on earth do you marry these two opposed statements then ? Either people are being positively inspired by atheism, or atheism lacks the ability to positively inspire *anything* and that’s an issue. This moderator is so much worse than the one from the first two, I’ve thought this throughout.
Is Jordan Peterson saying that the biblical stories are written by humans and the wisdom is collective wisdom that has been passed down for thousands of years? Then what is the debate about? That is what comparative religion and scholars who study mythology agree upon. Sam Harris would agree to that. Peterson just uses a lot of words to cover up his spiritual beliefs. Yes, we don't know where inspiration comes from. That doesn't mean it's from a god. He is constantly using the god of the gaps fallacy. We are ignorant of many things, but the conclusion that "it must be divine, " has been proven wrong countless times. This debate is a waste of time.
as far as i am aware, rehabilitation centers exist to facilitate/expedite/provide resources for specific, perhaps a difficult to attain desired outcome/goal....and if/when that goal is successfully attained, the services of the center are no longer needed... one could reasonably speculate this would have also been the case for Mr. Peterson.
@@Andre_XX perhaps you are right, i for one am no doctor. what i will say is, i hope you personally or a loved one never has endure anything remotely similar... and you never have to feel what its like when realize profoundly, that as each day passes, any realistically attainable goals are that much fewer and the remaining are ever fleeting...
@@rustyshadow7 they’re making a point that if there was an all powerful, all good etc god, then it would be unlikely to find them in old books - and more likely to find them elsewhere. That we can’t find them elsewhere is a problem.
@@finndaniels9139 24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. Acts 17:24-27 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. Jeremiah 29:13
I wish they didn't stop to ask if they should take questions or not. Sam was about to push him on whether JBP's belief is that God is made up of many human stories or not, and the nature of its transcendence.
Jordan Peterson seem to deny materialist approach to analyzing civilization. He even pointed out, that Christianity didn't work as well for Russia. Well, maybe West has democratic institutions, because it is advanced in material realm, and Western type of Christianity in its development is at best ideas coming out from that advancement at certain period of time. Idea that other religion can't advance if its society had same material development comes from this idealist approach.
There's no denying the cultural impact of this series of debates in the philosophy of religion community! It was sooo impactful and both debaters gave great great arguments... Even Jordan's weird loooooong-winded explanation of what he considers God to be is ambiguous and confusing, but it's not all in vain. I could watch that series again and I'm sure I'll learn a lot and come to knowledge of the things I missed.
When you can better understand the underlying and fundamental principles in Jordan’s points, you’ll see things more and more clearly and definitively. Take his words at completely clear and for what they are at the most fundamental level and don’t make any assumptions other than to assume that what he says is true to a certain extent.
@@CaseyJay95 Jordan's interpretation of the biblical corpus changed my life in a significant manner. His perspective on the archetypes and ontological truths about the human condition to be found in the stories of the Bible are sumptuous. With that said, he reaalllllyy beats around the bush whenever he's asked about whether he believes in the existence of God and whether the biblical stories such as Exodus are historical. For a long time it was mind-boggling to me why he was so nebulous when it came to what are essentially yes or no questions. For someone who has a rule for life that says "Be Precise in Your Speech," he's awfully imprecise and evasive about giving a clear cut answer about whether God exists: "Well it depends what you mean by 'do', depends what you mean by 'you', depends what you mean by 'believe', depends what you mean by 'in'..." Eventually, I understood that he's likely agnostic in terms of the supernatural claims of the Bible and he doesn't believe that the Exodus and Noah's Ark were historical events. However, he does not want to clearly say this for three reasons: - Admitting agnosticism about the supernatural would undermine the crucial importance and impact of the metaphor in the Bible. Most people would not understand how to interpret the great principles from the Bible if they lost faith in the supernatural aspects. - He wants people to believe because religious belief comes pre-packaged with a set of ontology, epistemology, ethics and metaphysics. People need these philosophical bedrocks to function properly but many of us would not know how to build (or rather discover) our own logically-pristine philosophy from first principles. - If he admits his agnosticism, he will alienate a good bunch of his right-wing, religious fanbase and colleagues. There's no other way to explain how such an otherwise eloquent, sharp, precise and intelligent man as Jordan flails with non-sequiturs on such simple yes or no questions.
@@PhilosophyofGuitar Actually it’s easily explainable why JP obfuscates on the Bible. It’s because he clearly doesn’t believe it, but his biggest audience, and therefore his biggest cash cow, are Christians. He can’t come out and say that they are just stories. He’s just a grifter with a large vocabulary.
@@roems6396 That's a rather radical take lol. Nah, matters of religion are not always clear-cut when you add the philosophical/intellectual dimension to it. But to say that he's a grifter sounds crazier than his religious takes. He's not without his faults, but "grifter" is not one of them. That's a poor assessment.
At about 1:21, Peterson was able to say in one sentence what he is unable to say otherwise, in any amount of time: that these religious stories are a "fiction" That is useful to not just understand the human condition, but provide hope and motivation to improve it. So he recognizes its fiction, but also values pragmatically how it helps humanity. Why can't he just say that.
People who have followed the wise, Jordan Peterson, know that he is a new Christian. Peterson is wise enough to know that there really is something to this Christianity, God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, weard thing. He has personally seen lives changed (including his loved ones) and won't give up until he truly experiences it. His motivation: to explain this life changing phenomenon to the masses so that they can improve their lives and live a "Heaven on Earth" life, too. Galatians 5: 22 - 26 explains this phenomenon. Just like all new Christians, Peterson is struggling. No matter how brilliant a person is, when one becomes a Born Again Christian, he starts off in the same place as a child does (Matt 18: 2-5). It's extremely difficult for a man, brilliant in his own eyes, to say they believe in a God that you can't see, let alone continue on the path of growth as a Christian. This is called faith and then sanctification. Peterson has the added difficulty of being a well-respected and sought-after public figure, so of course, he is worried about people thinking he's NUTS, and then he loses it all. Living Heaven on Earth, in this Satin Controlled World (Ephesians 2: 1-2, 1st John 5:19, Luke 4:6, Acts 26:18, 2nd Corinthians 4:4, Revelation 13:12, Matthew 12:24, etc., can not be proven scientifically.... Thats what the cunning snake Satin uses to keep people down and depressed and eventually, he streams these sad souls on to hell when they do die. The Bible describes hell as a never-ending, awful, continual bombardment of horror. Yes, it's worse than what anyone can experience here on earth! Matthew 25: 41-46, Matthew 10:28, Mark 9:43, etc. They have nothing to look forward to. It's hopeless...
Did he honestly put the words truthful speech and Genesis in the same sentence??!!🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣😂😂 There are so many lies in Genesis alone that this is a hubristic statement
1. 1 Corinthians 1:18-19 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
@34:00 ~ "The thing those people (meaning bad 20th century people) had in common was that they didn't think god was watching them" The Waffen SS had "God is on our side" carved into their belts. This is simply not true. Most people in WW1 & 2 were believers. The rulers were clearly cult leaders. You can argue that your religion isn't responsible for those things, but religions in general were.
Incorrect, the fact of the matter is that existence/reality is significantly deeper than what people perceive. Those who look at existence at surface level, assume the most presumed beliefs; composed of atoms, spacetime, thats it. Whereas "spacetime is dead" is backed up more and more by more scientific evidence. Our current presumptions that physicalism exists regardless of consciousness was a fundamental assumption built prior to all our current theories of reality. Now, aside from hitting a wall in that deconstructing existence into its fundamental bits leads us to no explanation for the macro scale properties such as "red", we are also discovering that consciousness in itself is more fundamental than space/time as it deciphers existence and gives meaning, only deciphering in a way that is evolutionarily beneficial to our existence. Zoom in on a text icon on your monitor and you'll get pixels, those pixels will never describe to you the actual words in that text file, the actual words in thst text file are held within your hard drive as 1's and 0's, thats the reality of your text file. But to make it easier to operate its being represented as a pixelated image on a monitor. If we evolved to "see" existence for what it really is, those that see existence for what is required to survive would survive, whereas those of us who saw reality for all ita deeper complexities would die off due to things being far too complex to decipher as a unintelligent animal trying to survive a predatory enemy. So when the discussion of "Deities" comes into play, who are we to toss that idea out the window so quickly? If youre surface level and assume our physics is 100% correct, as it has never been but people assumed it has been for our entire recorded history, than sure toss any idea of intelligences out the window. But if youre one to know that our physics isn't correct, isn't finished and reality is far deeper than we could comprehend due to our limited 5 (major) senses, than the idea of conscious entities or intelligences beyond our perceived world becomes a very real idea. Tldr, our physics today isn't correct nor anywhere near finished and is based off presumptions thst are proving to be incorrect the more we delve in. Thus, the concept of conscious entities larger than ourselves is becoming more apparent as consciousness seems to be the fundamental aspect of reality, not space/time. Sam Harris limits his thoughts to our current world theories, doesn't stray past that and those that do, he disagrees with. Many folks did the same thing when we thought the earth was flat, or all that was, or center of existence. If you disagree with the mainstream science you were cast out. Existence is far beyond what we know today.
Peterson brought the win with talking about how the good and evil concept has been the only saving grace to people with ptsd. It's proves the usefulness of it all and so if humanity could just give up God and religion, couldn't humanity give up using religion as a cause of violence while keeping it for good, EASIER than scraping it? Then would Sam be satisfied? Or does he have his ego entrenched in the argument, same as those who believe?
@@korpen2858 its been solved for along time now... The answer: proteins and other enzymes required to make the egg are only produced inside a hen so the egg cant come first... Most probably the earliest eggs might have been just a plasm without a shell..
It's like he doesn't listen to the people he's talking to nor does he listen to the words coming out of his mouth. So wishy washy trying to win a point no one else is trying to win 😒
