WHAT HAPPENED WITH JORDAN PETERSON!? Matt Dillahunty & Douglas Murray 

If you enjoyed this clip, drop a like on the video and consider subscribing. Watch all 6 Douglas Murray Pangburn debates here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mEsk3tPpLs0.html

I'm surprised that Jordan says that you can't have morality as an atheist, because he has described how morality can derive and evolve from our biology and social environment.

The primary mistake you make is taking Jordan Peterson seriously.

Watching this makes me feel like I'm eavesdropping on 2 people having a gossip about someone. 😂

If you enjoyed the clip, please drop a like and consider subscribing. Full discussion here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uCny7t5NrCg.htmlsi=TKiebaD57pBfH6Y2 We hope you join us LIVE in NYC for our next event on Dec 1st! Lawrence Krauss joins UFO expert Nick Pope to debate the unidentified flying object phenomenon. More info at www.pang-burn.com/tickets

From the RU-vid podcast … Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer discuss Jordan Peterson (2018) … these are the exact words quoted by the Atheist Michael Shermer. “If you asked me, ‘Do you believe in God?’ … the answer would be ‘No.’ If you asked Jordan, ‘Jordan, do you believe in God?’… It would take me 40 hours to answer that question. Alright, if it takes me forty hours to answer, then you’re talking about something completely different.”

I have always been impressed when someone has the ability to communicate complicated ideas in simple words. Extraordinary is that person's reach.

That debate (between Matt and JP) was embarrassing. JP is used to talking with other public intellectuals who are very cordial and patient with him, but Matt showed him no mercy and exposed his nonsense. It's like JP was naked out there, it was hard to watch.

"Somebody you know, who has never read a book, can be the lovliest person you know." This line at the end by Mr Murray makes him as quite affable. Likeable even.

Never encountered an intellectual who got everything right. From Buddha to Hitchens to Peterson.

On a side note, i couldn't help but noticed that this stage need a sweep and a mop

"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." Voltaire

He realized being crazy was way better clickbait....

I think what Peterson means by "People don't really believe God exists" is that they don't live as though it's true, they don't fear Him, they don't weigh the implications of what it means if it is true.

Peterson knows what sells. I loved and adored him and clung to everything that left his mouth for years. But he made a turn I cannot follow. He is well aware of what he is doing.

JP lost his mind from benzos and too much time online. Not only that but his daughter has increasingly taken over his life and she is a psychological mess. Its like when the barbers kid is the one who needs a haircut the most.

Best thing about this conversation is the conversations taking place afterwards!

Morality doesn't come from religion, that's what organised religion wishes you to believe in order to strengthen its position. Morality is part of the in-built survival system for the species. This is why morality continues to change and religions do too, despite the fact that their texts can't be updated alongside our rapidly evolving civilisation, but at best reinterpreted. These texts hold a powerful sway because we assume that our reasoning is infallible and it neatly collects excess variables within our lives we can't understand into a single explanation, i.e. faith.

I absolutely love Matt. I used to watch him on "The Atheist Experience" during a period of my life when I was shedding my fundamentalist Christian beliefs. I even went to Houston to attend a live filming of the show. Prince of a man.

Good humanist sentiments expressed by both parties in this conversation.

I was internally emotionally tortured as a christian. The guilt of questioning was very painful. As an atheist I am afraid of death but I am FREE.

Truth, like facts, are things that exist regardless of one's belief.

Educational credentials are seen as indicators of individual merit and diplomas grant access to social and economic positions in society, but they come accompany by ideologies implanted by agendas to exclude those that don't go along with the dogmas of privilege cemented on meritocracy as being the foremost human value.

One can't do metaphysics (i.e. what is reality) without first making assumptions about what reality is. Just not possible philosophically. This is why it gets so tricky.

I'd love to see a debate between Matt Dillahunty and Andrew Wilson

I just find it incredibly arrogant that some humans believe they have a god, which is created in their image and that is the standard throughout the entire universe. Carl Sagans "Pale Blue Dot" speech displays human arrogance perfectly.

An important difference between Bruggencate and Peters as that the former says that we suppress what we know to be true because we want to sin, and that the latter says that we do not realize what we are since we do not want to sin.

Wow. This was a golden interaction ❤

"He who knows he believes is less dangerous than he who believes he knows,"

If anyone wants to know how Jordan thinks about things, just read his first book "Maps of Meaning : The architecture of belief" the way he looks at the world has always been there, in his first book, published in 1999. This whole conversation is so frustrating because Matt just simply doesn't get it...

One of the better sit-down-discussions between two "great thinkers" of late, because neither one of them is trying to outdo the other. Neither is aiming for a battle of fancy words or pitting belief systems against each other, but are having an actual civil discussion (nor trying to push a worldview onto their audience).

I believe Peterson is genuinely terrified at how quickly the new/old genocidal hate is moving our way. I see so many people stunned, unable to comprehend how this could happen. We know better. We said "never again." Peterson has studied this for years, and it caught him off guard.

I'm not sure either of these two have thought long and hard about what the most important human traits are. I don't know why they didn't say honesty. The thing about honesty is that it is a trait that you can value in people you agree with and also those you disagree with. You can value the honesty of those who like you and also of those who dislike you. I have had enemies or dislikers in my life, but very poignant to me was a gentleman I worked with who I hardly ever spoke to, but I felt he didn't like me. One day, I felt it had gone on long enough and I asked him straight out "Why don't you like me?" He rewarded my honesty with his own. "I just don't like you." Though he didn't get me any closer to understanding why he didn't (perhaps even he didn't know), he curiously gained my respect, and in a weird way, my trust. You see, you can even trust your enemies if they are honest. It seems to me, on the other hand, that deception is the root of much evil and destruction, so much of it completely unnecessary.

"You can't quit smoking without having a mystical experience."...I quit smoking because I kept waking up at night because I was not able to breath anymore. It was fairly easy after that. I mean if the fear of dying a horrible death is a "mystical" experience, then fair game...but as someone who studied some of the Mystics from the early European middle ages I can say with quite certainty, that that's not what they were talking about.

Funny: The comparison between talking to Jordan Peterson and talking to Sye Ten Bruggencate was what I saw in my mind when I watched this ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-AxwuErxth3U.html and commented on it there.

I love Dr. Peterson, and listening to his lectures has helped me tremendously. However, I do have to say, Mr. Dillahunty exactly identified the three main problems I also have with Dr. Peterson. (1) He is very hesitant to admit, that religious dogmatism can go too far, let alone that many people who call themselves religious are in fact very rigid, dogmatic, cannot think critically or independently, believe their particular holy book to be entirely, absolutely, and literally true, and feel quite justified to force their own views onto others. True, many of these criticisms equally apply to many adherents of left-wing ideologies, but they are non the less also true on the religious front, and it is frustrating to not get an agreement on this point. (2) He uses the word “religious” different from most other people. Most people mean by religious that someone believes the things a particular religion generally preaches or at least enacts its rituals and holidays, but Peterson uses the word to mean that a person has any strongly held convictions / axiomatic beliefs about reality or ethics. Examples he uses are the orderliness and intelligibility of the universe or the sanctity of human life. Thus he ends up calling self-proclaimed atheists religious, or claims that atheism will automatically lead to murder and genocide, which understandably angers and confuses many people. (3) He refuses to clearly state, that men cannot come back from the dead or that virgins cannot give birth to children. It lets one wonder, what he actually believes about the structure of material reality and on what shared basis one is actually having a conversation. I think Douglas is, as ever so often, right, Peterson is afraid, that people could lose their faith in the stories that underpin our civilization, and that this could lead to the fall of western civilization (see Nietzsche’s point about the death of God). But still, his refusal to clearly state, that these stories are purely metaphorically true, makes high level intellectual discussions difficult. This, however, has very much to do with the problem Harris and Peterson had with defining the word truth. -- I seem to be somewhat eccentric, because I absolutely loved the first Harris-Peterson Discussion. What is the nature of truth, that is pure Philosophy! -- Anyways, I think both Harris and Peterson failed to acknowledge the valid points the other one was making in that conversation. We do call statements, that accurately describe reality true, and Peterson should have just agreed to that. But the statement that one “should not try to cross Smallpox and Ebola” is also true, even though it is not a description of reality, and Harris should have equally agreed to that. One of Petersons main teachings is, that stories can also be true and that we cannot live in the world without stories. Human beings have biological drives as well as reason. Unlike other animals, we don’t just have to blindly follow the dictates of our biological drives. We can temporarily override them and act as our conscious mind deems best. But, at the same time, we are not pure consciousnesses, floating through space, completely free from material needs. Our biological drives have to be satisfied sooner or later, or else we die or go insane. Still, the ability to temporarily override our biological urges sets up a terrible problem for human beings: we can never actually be sure that we currently have the right aim / that we are currently doing the best thing we could be doing. And because reality is way too complex for our poor conscious minds to fully grasp, we necessarily have to rely on heuristics in order to be able to act at all. Human beings have, ever since they existed, observed each other and told stories about what they saw. Stories about particularly good or bad outcomes were particularly memorable, and they got collected, combined, filtered, edited, recombined, etc. This is how, over the course of hundreds and thousands of years, religious systems emerged. A religious system is a whole corpus of stories, rituals, rules, and symbols, which is designed to make people act, such that their lives turn out well individual as well as collectively. But today, many people, like Harris and Dillahunty, belittle the value of stories, symbols, images, and metaphors. They call facts (correct descriptions of material reality) *actually true*, and stories or images *only metaphorically true*. But Peterson believes exactly the opposite. He insists, that the stories people believe are more important than scientific facts. He insists, that science as a human activity can only take place inside a system of ethical values, which necessarily has to be grounded in a system of stories. But Harris believes, that values can be derived from facts, that ethics is nested inside of science. So, while they fought about the definition of truth, what they were actually fighting over was, I think, the differences in their world views. What is more fundamental, facts or stories, rationality or experience? Unfortunately, however, they fought a linguistic proxy war, instead of addressing this question directly.

I am not religious. That's an uneasy admission. With age, I have become convinced that a significant segment of our population _needs_ good religion. *The absence of good religion plainly results in psychological malnutrition in those people.* They suffer when it's not there. And it's very, very difficult to say with confidence that YOU are not one who needs good religion. Maybe you don't need good religion. It's hubris to insist that others don't need good religion. That insistence is often destructive.

"sometimes, among very conservative people, they come to very rigid feelings about things because they intuit where they might go unleashed" One of the scariest things my Catholic dad said to me, among a plethora of terrifying things, was that without his faith there'd be nothing to stop him murdering the people he hated. That was probably the tipping point of me losing my faith around 12 or 13 years old. Other things were seeing my cousins screaming and crying at their dad for not going to church because "don't you want to be in heaven with us", with their awful mum egging this on. And when one of my cousins was saying that gays go to hell I told him that Elton John, one of his favourite singers, was gay at which point he began crying and then later claimed that he hated Elton John's music - I also got the lecture of a lifetime from my aunt for that one.

The chairs seem like they are horrifically uncomfortable.

Peterson started being confused as soon as he started talking about everything, literally everything. Even about topics he does'nt have a clue about.

Peterson does not claim to have worked out what is or is not god. And I like that, because that leaves room to learn something new. Matt and Co. have drawn a line under the whole subject and so reject the possibility for further exploration of the subject.

when was the original discussion?

I did ministry for a few yrs. My personal loss would be the hope an a personal guide line. What I've noticed I a few others the loss would be control and a sense of superiority.

Jordan believes that the UTILITY of god(s) outweighs the question of is/are god(s) literally real. Its similar to the religious argument that goes: "The impulse towards magical explanations wouldn't exist if god(s) didn't put it in our brains. We have a god-shaped hole."

It seems to me that the God Jordan Peterson talks about is the God that he feels is within us all as individuals, our conscience.

JP is smart enough to know that its all lies but he wants to live forever.

The conversation was mostly over my head; however, I appreciate the topic .

Not sure if Matt picked up on it, but it seemed like Douglas was explaining that the reason Jordan is afraid to admit that he doesn't literally believe (only metaphorically), is because the fear of admitting as much is akin to why people like them fear admitting the I.Q. stats. Because a) they're hurtful and b) they don't turn out to be indicative of worth on all the measures that matter. So if Peterson admitted it wasn't literally true then it's offensive to those who believe it is, and it turns out that believing it or not isn't what makes us intrinsically valuable anyways. However, I'm not sure that's why Jordan is reluctant to answer that question. I think that was just Douglas being charitable to Jordan by trying to defend him in a way that Matt would accept. Very clever of Douglas by the way. Listening to Jordan over the years since this event, I think it's become clear the reason Jordan wrestles with the question is because he's genuinely not sure of the answer yet. Whereas Matt has had the benefit of true belief only to realise it wasn't real. Jordan hasn't had the salvation experience yet so he's still susceptible to the doubt.

I quit smoking in the most anticlimactic way imaginable. I smoked less and less with the intention to never quit, because I actually enjoyed smoking my choice of Virginia-Burley mix in hand-rolled cigarettes. However, one day, when I was supposed to get life insurance for a house we bought, I looked at the difference on payments and thought, that's as good a reason as any. When I tried smoking again after having decided, cigarettes no longer tasted nice. I will enjoy a pipe or a cigar from time to time.

I'm mostly an Atheist except on Lottery night 😂, I want to be an Atheist that lives in the western Christian world, unfortunately most of civilisation still needs an imaginary friend who sets out rules to which they live, just be thankful that their imaginary friend has mostly chilled out and pray or hope it stays that way

HE WENT NUTS

I love both of these men..they are a pleasure to listen to

Mystical experience can be anything from a deep thought that is new to something someone said in a different way just to egg on your thinking. In turn you feel a need to change and be better on your own.😊

Great chat between two brilliant and entertaining thinkers.

I actually used to admire peterson a bit back in 2015-2016. He was a decent psychologist who gave decent and solid advice. He has since turned into a major political pundit and sacrificed any credibility for fame. I still maintain his old lectures are worth a listen, just don’t take anything he says outside of psychology seriously.

I was a big fan of Dr. Peterson when he was a lecturer and an academic. His personal beliefs didn't steer his words, they were underlying them - but in a kind way. Now, he's closer to a preacher than he is to a scholar - and even if I agree with a lot of points on view on society, I can't stand the sanctimonious tone that wasn't there before. His story is very sad, and I can see how this would have a massive impact - but it didn't make him more ope-minded, contrary, unfortunately. Years ago I would feel that he would accept me whatever my views would be, now? It seems like if you're not with him, you're against him. And I really don't buy the crying. If feels more like self-pity than genuine compassion. That isn't the man, that helped me out years ago.

One thing Peterson does is work through topics/issues out in the open, good or bad, it’s great to watch.

...Truth, being the end [goal] of logic, is that which is perfect, complete, immutable, definitive, definable and knowable.

I'm a non-believer myself, but I listened to JP do a talk once and I agreed with him on one point. That is if a society doesn't have a religion, they will find one. He gives communism as an example. When I first heard this I didn't buy it, but I can see this unfolding in an "atheist" group I belong to on FB. Unlike myself, most of these atheists grew up in a religious family and then as adults decided it was bs. I notice most of them are radical leftists. They are committed to the woke ideology as though it's a religion. They believe things without evidence. When shown evidence of what they believe isn't true, they tell me where to go and they maintain their belief. I realize Jordan was right - most people will adopt something else that is not good for society (much less so than Christianity anyway). I think it doesn't apply to me because I didn't grow up with these beliefs, and I don't find the need to fill the "missing space" after abandoning a religion. Authoritarian dictators get rid of religion because they want loyalty to the party. It's easier to brainwash people who don't have a religion as well.

I'm not surprised they are talking about relative truth as being fuzzy with Peterson. I believe he himself believes in God as a representation of the pinnacle of the moral hierarchy, but doesn't actually believe in a sentient being capable of miracles. He has avoided answering that question on numerous occasions. He understands that the idea of God is essential for the sheep, but the thinkers are more skeptical...even if they quickly learn where and where not they can state their views.

Intelligence differences between population groups are important because some insist that differences in outcomes *must* be due to discrimination (a term which includes all the claimed 'structural' issues as well as direct discrimination). If they drop that claim then the topic disappears.

You will never convince a faith-based believer with rationality. It is pure emotion and self-identity. On the other hand all these "debaters" need each other to make a living.

Finally a reasonable, actual criticism of dr. Peterson's views. And I say this as a huge Peterson fan. People seem to love to critisize him but very rarely it is for a real, actual thing. This one I actually agree with. I would love to see them discuss again.

This turned into a very refreshing affirmation of every person’s intrinsic value. Thank you gentlemen

In five minutes this man, who I am listening to for the first time, is more convincing to me in challenging JP, who I love, than Sam Harris has been.

We have to pray for the grace of faith everyday. we have to then nurture that faith with lots of sun, wind, water, and yes, manure. but not too much manure. There are many factors, and not everyone is the same. Our conditions are all unique. but we need to try. we need to pray for one another. we need to cherish and uphold our history and glean what we can from it for the benefit of our own souls and those of our children.

I am curious as to whether Peterson holds that his conception of "The Mushy Mysterious Metaphor of God" loves us back, hears our prayers, intercedes in our lives, has a plan for us, requires our worship, is worthy of worship, or is even aware of us at all.

Jordan Peterson said that one can't quit smoking without mystical experience? Hmmm, I had no idea that reading ''The easy way to stop smoking'' by Allen Carr is a mystical experience.

As with "Atheist vs Theist/Diest" debates, to me the thing sitting front and center is the mystery of consciousness. It remains unexplained. To go forward from there, this topic may generate interesting conversations, but (so far as I have understood) one can only be left with "not knowing." Call that "agnosticism" or what you will. Thought and conversation have not seemed to have been the vehicle to unravel the mysteries of consciousness or of existence itself. I would humbly suggest that we keep trying to increase our understanding, and also be humble enough to acknowledge our insufficiencies in intellect and understanding on this journey.

Just waiting to hear him on EWTN catholics come home tellling about his conversion to catholicism.

Why, in the first place, has anyone ever given Jordan Peterson a public platform? When has he ever said anything profoundly pertenant to social or spiritual significance? Isn't he all about the verbiage-esc shell game? Matt. Why give Jordan the time of day? And, why is this entire podcast devoted to that? IOW, Who the hell cares "what happened to Jordan Peterson? And here I am....

I like the way William James differentiated Truth from Fact. A truth is what is useful to us. A fact is just the way things are (or comports with reality). The reason though, that I think this differentiation works, is because it takes into account worldviews. That is to say, truth can emerge from a worldview. We can have our own personal truths that help us understand the world and form our behaviours and values. How well those personal/cultural truths fit with the facts of the matter though can affect the survivability of those truths. For example, in history, many people turned away from the natural spirits (spirits of nature) for the more agrarian beliefs that the spirits of nature were not to be trusted, they can flood your field, spoil your crops etc. You can have a person who believes that the earth is flat - that can be true for them on an individual level - but the facts are the facts - and it wouldn't do much good for satellite companies to believe such a thing. So I like this splitting of categories between the facts and a truth. As much as possible, it's my opinion we should let our truths be informed by the facts. But seeing things this way allows us to understand people's truths, their metaphors and their behaviours when we see their 'truths' for what they are. In Peterson's case, they are conservative values.

We evolved to be moral, and to understand ourselves and the world through stories. We have an instinct for story-and those stories helped us as hunter gatherers to survive. That’s why our earliest stories are morality tales, heroic narratives, and origin myths. The old stories are failing because they were based on magic; we need to build new stories based on reason. When a god believer says that without a belief in god we would all be murderers, they are projecting; humans naturally cooperate-it takes religion to tell you to kill over differences in belief.

Grift. Grift is what happened to Peterson

It doesn’t matter what we believe so long as our beliefs lead to unconditional and loving actions. If you believe in a God, do you think the most important question it would ask would be a) “what did you believe”? Or b) how did you love?

Truth is what comports with reality. But what is real? This is a materialist reductionist interpretation of what is real, reducible to what can be apprehended by the senses. JBP is becoming more expansive, and I appreciate it.

Consider this. All aspect of our lives, our realities, our science, our values, may be described as “the never ending search to accurately measure things”.

Matt has the ability to clearly communicate what he is trying to say whilst Jordan has the opposite ability.

The conversation flow of "Atheism is bad because without religion you can't live ethically", "But I am an atheist and I live ethically", "Then you aren't really an atheist", is so frustratingly (and laughably) common. It's one of the simplest examples of circular reasoning imaginable, completely and blatantly flawed, to the extent that I really can't respect the mind of anyone who trots it around like a prize hog at a fair. There are myriad reasons to doubt Peterson's personal ideology (and, yes, even his body of research!), but this is almost certainly the most blatant.

I think this quote by one of Peterson's favorite authors describes him fairly well. Maybe he has even brought it up himself at one point (if its tl;dr, the last sentence is the most important): "I want to say to you, about myself, that I am a child of this age, a child of unfaith and scepticism, and probably (indeed I know it) shall remain so to the end of my life. How dreadfully has it tormented me (and torments me even now) this longing for faith, which is all the stronger for the proofs I have against it. And yet God gives me sometimes moments of perfect peace; in such moments I love and believe that I am loved; in such moments I have formulated my creed, wherein all is clear and holy to me. This creed is extremely simple; here it is: I believe that there is nothing lovelier, deeper, more sympathetic, more rational, more manly, and more perfect than the Saviour; I say to myself with jealous love that not only is there no one else like Him, but that there could be no one. I would even say more: If anyone could prove to me that Christ is outside the truth, and if the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to stay with Christ and not with truth." - Fyodor Dostoevsky

As an older (81) person nothing was more eye opening growing up to my existence than learning about my physical reality explained in biology, chemistry, etc. Faith has value as so does curiosity.

Jordan Peterson has decided himself to be the paramount speaker of truth via his belief in god He responds to an opposite point of view as being too painful for him to hear or ever appreciate He wiggles in his seat , bows his head as he displays his apparent anger and disgust via both his body language and expression It’s as though he has met with a lower and lesser human than himself and he can’t stand for their perspective to insult his superior & just mind I used to listen with interest I now feel distracted by his discomfort at anything other than than hearing himself speak …. sometimes bloody endlessly !

When Dillahunty speaks of primarily caring about what's true, he has the problem that there are far too many truths to analyze them all. So, he has to select some questions and ignore almost all others. That decision fundamentally comes from emotion and from belief about what's important to him, not from truth itself.

The first debate JP and Matt or even with Sam Harris for that matter is him working ideas out. It’s a much easier role to play the skeptic in a debate. Nobody has an all encompassing theory or ideology that can explain everything. These ideas have to work itself out just as technology, math and science has over time.

The whole "everyone is religious" thing seems to boil down to the fact that JP has broadened the definition of being religious to such an extent that it has become basically synonymous with being an organism that acts in the world. I'm not aware of any species in the world that acts in a purely random way, and I wouldn't expect to, as that doesn't strike me as a very good survival strategy. One can always look at any given species and observe that they have "goals" and act in a more or less consistent and structured way, and then infer some hierarchy of values. But he seems to take the extra step of conjecturing that there is necessarily a definite value at the top of the hierarchy, and not only that, but this highest value remains fixed (hence why the word "God" refers to one thing, and thus he never says "his God" or "my God", but simply "God"). This may be a fair mental model for understanding the behavior of organisms in certain cases, but it's not clear to me that it's any more than that: a mental model. He seems to think it goes much deeper than that.

I watched a debate recently between Alex O’Conner and Ben Shapiro about religion, and the only thing I learned was that there is no point in debating against someone who has a completely different foundation in the way they look at and process information. If you can’t even agree on what concepts like “real” are, than it’s just going to be two people having two different conversations at each other. Also if your not afforded the courtesy of assuming that the things you are saying are things you believe, than there is no debate.

Matt mopped the floor with Jordan. That’s what happened.

I would love to see another talk between Matt and Jordan. I think Matt has had some time to find a way to better critique Jordan and I think Jordan has had some time to develop his ideas.

The singular loud laugh after "thats what got on your tits" 😂 was this filmed in the US because in England its sooo common 🤣

Douglas was 100% in Jordan’s corner and just being polite.

Douglas Murray "somebody who never read a book can be a loveliest person you know!"

I quit smoking by just giving up smoking. I had cravings for a few weeks, but then they went away. I certainly didn't have a mystical experience. What bullshit.

Reality is all living things are speeding through space contemplating their next move while waiting for death.

Identifying the SOURCE of the reluctance influential thinkers have in bringing up the importance of IQ is telling for me, in and of itself. In a strictly material world, what other reliable metrics for human potential do we have? We're so much more complicated than the product of atoms randomly colliding into one another.

I hear the words "Jordan Peterson" and all I can think of is his great skill in administering a word salad of nothingness.

Jordan Peterson values religion because he values hierarchy and structure. There are other reasons, but these are the main ones. He genuinely believes that without religion things would be chaos, even if the religion in question is demonstrably untrue. He fails to see that hierarchy can and would arise in societies with an absence of religion as well, or maybe he does know, but he finds that the hierarchies created by religion more useful or preferred than those that could come out of a secular society.

OMG, not everyone is religious! I get so sick of this. Jordan believes most people who are saying they don’t believe in God do not ACT as if they do. How hard is this to understand??

I liked Peterson. I did not share all his believes but he used to have a lot of interesting positions. But in the mean time he is more and more sliding to the extreme right.

"The reality that we share?" What is the reality that we share? We are all living in our version of reality, given "the stories" we hear about what actually happened and what stories we subscribe to. I assert that we do not share the same reality, we live in our own version of reality... and then there is 'collective reality' of groups, ideologies, ...

An issue with the position that Truth is purely what is, is then how do we decide what should be?