Full discussion here: ua-cam.com/video/jey_CzIOfYE/v-deo.html WE ARE COMING TO COLORADO! THE ANTISCIENCE OF GOD? Lawrence Krauss & Stephen Hicks Nov 2nd - Boulder, Colorado Tickets here: pang-burn.com/tickets This event is set to challenge conventional perspectives, offering deep insights into the complex relationship between faith, reason, and the pursuit of knowledge.
Sam: Good morning Jordan. Jordan: Well it depends what you mean by good morning. The underlying substrate of the meta-fiction within the biblical narrative makes it true rather than good, but also the morning comes in a non-linear, hyper-Jungian sense. Sam: I wish I never met you.
The problem is Jordan is talking about hell, an unverifiable place of misery that may exist after death, and Sam is talking about verifiable suffering in the life we currently experience, and Jordan is unserious refusing to “understand”.
His continued harping on whether it's "true", misses the point that Sam was making... Can we AGREE that that would be the worst possible scenario? Not if it's "actually" true. FFS, Jordon, stop interrupting and maybe you'll understand the fucking question.
JP: What do you mean by 'bad'? SH: The worst possible misery for everyone would be 'bad.' JP: What do you mean by 'misery'? Moderator's head: **explodes**
If I'm not mistaken, that's Bret Weinstein, the same guy who made a "theory of everything," and refused to put it through peer-review because he was afraid people might say he was wrong.
@@ZachHixsonTutorialswasn’t that his brother? Eric. Either way, they’re both dreadful grifters. Bret has pushed more conspiracies than Alex Jones, including anti-vax slander and innuendo
JP relies on the timer running on these discussions to avoid getting pinned on anything. His schtick is almost entirely about running out the clock before his gishgalloping obfuscations can be unraveled. False equivalencies are but one of the many tools available to him.
I’m sorry but at 7 minutes jp says “and what does bad mean?” And that’s just silly given first off the context of the conversation and also …. You know common parlance, general usage of the English language, and he knows full well what Sam means in general he is just being a weirdo trying to waste time so he doesn’t have to give proper answers.
Just because you talk about extremes doesn’t make you religious. This is the problem with Peterson confusing the discussion so much to feel like he won.
The Christian concept of hell differs from how Jordan portrays it. In Christianity, unless Jesus returns to Israel (which was expected in the 1st century), gathers the people of Israel, separates them into two groups, and judges them, he cannot send one group into a burning furnace (presumably built by him), similar to what Hitler did. This burning furnace is hell, and it is not metaphorical; it is meant to be taken literally.
Just because a story is useful doesn't mean the details of the story are factually true. They can be false and we can all agree they are false while still accepting the utility of the story.
Everyone agrees with this idea, but religion says it owns the best story that ever existed and if the world doesn’t adopt the exact same opinions they must all suffer forever.
@@gking407 Religions also demands that their stories are not just the best, but also objectively true. Those who question that get punished in some fashion.
He's the definitive case of 'waiting for his turn to speak ' (barely) rather than listening. He needs to concentrate hard, I guess, as he is so unintelligent he can hardly keep up.
The reason not to label it as hell Jordan is because that term comes with a lot of historical and cultural baggage which does absolutely nothing but muddy the conversation. Stories have utility as allegory, but it depends on whether or not the story is universally accepted as just a story or if it has other meaning to it. The term purgatory can be used these days without the baggage it used to carry because there isn’t really a large population who believes in it along with an assortment of other associated concepts.
For all his contempt of postmodernism, JP uses deconstructionism to try to worm his way out of any point made by his intellectual opponent, and then he refuses to undercut Judeochristian positions with similar scrutiny. He is a self-disavowing postmodernist.
This is the modus operandi of JBP. Reality might not really be real, good might not really be good, bad might not really be bad. "It's not factual"... well, neither is exactly everything you say about religion and myth. Yet JBP thinks there is more truth to myth than reality.
It says something about a person who continually does what you tell a six year old not to do when someone is talking. It's also hard to know what the person you're interrupting is actually saying if you're forming your answers before they're done forming the sentence. How Sam can stay on point (which is why there's a coherent thought in the debate) is a testimony to his resolve to communicate his ideas as clearly as possible. It also says a lot about mindfulness. Just sayin'.
Peterson's schtick is that all things are biblical so why frame them in any other way. Which is interesting from someone who dodges all questions about his own biblical beliefs. "I'm really trying to understand it" Peterson just admitted that he is not nearly as intelligent as he sells himself. I've read Harris's "Moral Landscape" and it made sense, even if I didn't agree with every point. Peterson apparently doesn't understand it even though it is written in a very straight forward and approachable way. Perhaps if Harris threw some lobsters into his story Peterson would consider it profound. Peterson is trying to label everything with the religious concept of heaven and hell. Suggesting that these concepts are the ultimate in good and bad. Harris is talking about our corporeal existence thus heaven and hell are NOT applicable concepts to apply. This is despite the terms heaven and hell being used to describe some things in corporeal existence. When Peterson says "It's a crucial issue." what he means is that it is crucial to his ego (and his ability to sell books to the rubes) that Harris submit to his position.
Jordan always talks bollocks in language that most people do not understand. Sam, is usually more understandable but in this case, he was emulating some of Jordan's BS. This discussion was not relevant to most human beings.
Bill Clinton - “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the-if he-if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not-that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”
Or maybe the worst hell is knowing you are tasked with trying to respond to one of JP's verbal glitter bombs and knowing full-well you will be immediatedly interrupted before you can start your second sentence.
@@siezethebidetboth gentlemen are sayin the same thing for different reasons. Sam states that it is objectively true, and Jordan states that it is true because of God.
The worst hell is trying to have a meaningful conversation with Jordan Peterson. Every time you think the conversation is getting somewhere Peterson rolls that conversation back to the bottom. Makes Sisyphus' setup seem not so bad
Yes, JP never makes any sense. BUT Sam Harris really is fundamentally wrong about ‘misery’ and ‘bad’ here. Of course the most misery for everyone is bad, because definitionally misery means EXPERIENCING something bad. But experience is subjective, not objective. And so it doesn’t matter if we can agree that misery is bad - anyone who disagrees with that just isn’t engaging with the definition of the word. It matters whether we can say that certain things are objectively bad because they will objectively cause misery. And that’s much much harder. One’s hand being severed by a bus will cause misery to most people who experience it. But not everyone - maybe that hand had a cancer in it that would have killer you. Maybe you suffered a condition where you felt your hand was alien and not a part of you and you wanted nothing more than to be rid of it (a real condition, by the way). Maybe your new stumpy arm led you to meet a stump-armed person who became the love of your life, and if you could go back in time, you’d have chopped the hand off yourself. Experiences are subjective and what causes one suffering is relative… Sam Harris never overcomes this in his supposed objective view of morality… At best, he comes to the conclusion that for most people, the causes of suffering are the same, and so we should strive to avoid that to create the least possible suffering.
At the end of the day, Sam Harris "fact" is an axiom - a truth (a fact) that cannot be demonstrated. Peterson doesn't get off the ground without axioms either, that's what's so annoying. Moreover, the concept of "god" is both Peterson's axiom AND his conclusion... that's where he actually loses the argument.
Sam is trying to make a subjective truth an objective truth. Suffering is only bad through a moral framework that is entirely subjective. It's programmed into the majority of us through evolution, with the exception of sadists and masochists. But, let's say, for an AI to take that example, it may neither comprehend it's own "suffering" nor that of other beings. It may even enjoy the novelty of any experience that could be categorized as suffering. What would suffering even entail for an AI? Who knows. Enya's greatest hits on loop for eternity, maybe. In the not too distant future we may be able to engineer a sentient biological being incapable of suffering. Point being, suffering is an evolutionary mechanism to teach us. You're hungry, you need to eat. Your foot is broken, stop walking on it. I think it's a bit of human hubris to assume it's an intrinsic function of consciousness. And if it's not, then it can't be objective.
"I think it's a bit of human hubris to assume it's an intrinsic function of consciousness." It is a fact that all consciousness can have better and worse experiences.
@LooseShin Look man, you don't want to understand what he says, that's fine; but don't then go on to criticize him for what you chose him to be in the first place.
@@hamnchee Sam keeps the subjective in its proper category, but unlike Peterson he acknowledges the shared definition of ‘bad’ throughout humanity and history. Civilization would not be possible unless we shared a ton of common interests and preferences.
Pangburn : 185 K suscriptores ( not bad... ) Peterson : 8,26 M suscriptores ( way way way way way way way better ) Well, that doesn't mean pangburn is wrong ! Maybe... But is sure doesn't prove he's right.
Full discussion here: ua-cam.com/video/jey_CzIOfYE/v-deo.html
WE ARE COMING TO COLORADO! THE ANTISCIENCE OF GOD? Lawrence Krauss & Stephen Hicks
Nov 2nd - Boulder, Colorado
Tickets here: pang-burn.com/tickets
This event is set to challenge conventional perspectives, offering deep insights into the complex relationship between faith, reason, and the pursuit of knowledge.
Sam: Good morning Jordan.
Jordan: Well it depends what you mean by good morning. The underlying substrate of the meta-fiction within the biblical narrative makes it true rather than good, but also the morning comes in a non-linear, hyper-Jungian sense.
Sam: I wish I never met you.
😂🍻
Jordan's cult members: OMG Peterson is soooooo smart! He totally owned Harris there, time for a huge round of applause!
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Perfect
Substrate, yes. Also: something something axiomatic something…
The problem is Jordan is talking about hell, an unverifiable place of misery that may exist after death, and Sam is talking about verifiable suffering in the life we currently experience, and Jordan is unserious refusing to “understand”.
His continued harping on whether it's "true", misses the point that Sam was making... Can we AGREE that that would be the worst possible scenario? Not if it's "actually" true. FFS, Jordon, stop interrupting and maybe you'll understand the fucking question.
Hell is REAL. Jordan takes you there. And when you escape and you think you are free, he drags you back again.
Sam: I have to do some work to figure out what point they think you made 😂
Yeah 😂😂
JP's target audience had to try to find something to applaud, even if was something vacuous. Bwahaha ! Sam described it perfectly.
You have merely restated the title of the video for likes and attention.
@@skiphoffenflaven8004 No. He quoted Sam. The title doesn’t. Back to school for you.
JP: What do you mean by 'bad'?
SH: The worst possible misery for everyone would be 'bad.'
JP: What do you mean by 'misery'?
Moderator's head: **explodes**
"What is bad?" JFC...shut up, Jordan.
Jordan saying that’s not a factual claim when he lives in metaphors is kinda funny 😂
Moderator is terrible.
If I'm not mistaken, that's Bret Weinstein, the same guy who made a "theory of everything," and refused to put it through peer-review because he was afraid people might say he was wrong.
He is another hack, just like Jordan!
@@ZachHixsonTutorialswasn’t that his brother? Eric. Either way, they’re both dreadful grifters. Bret has pushed more conspiracies than Alex Jones, including anti-vax slander and innuendo
JP relies on the timer running on these discussions to avoid getting pinned on anything. His schtick is almost entirely about running out the clock before his gishgalloping obfuscations can be unraveled. False equivalencies are but one of the many tools available to him.
I’m sorry but at 7 minutes jp says “and what does bad mean?” And that’s just silly given first off the context of the conversation and also …. You know common parlance, general usage of the English language, and he knows full well what Sam means in general he is just being a weirdo trying to waste time so he doesn’t have to give proper answers.
He’s definitely playing semantics.
@@endmatter Ah he is playing semantics but being an idiot. Seriously, i feel like he just seems like a dumb persons idea of a smart person.
Peterson uses interruptions as an attempt to throw Sam off his game. Sam’s intelligence always overcomes Peterson’s word salads.
Hell is to be stuck in a debate with JP.
“Wait a second” ….. or in English “ oh shit you got me there “
Trying to understand Jordan Peterson is like trying to read a bowl of lettuce.
No. Salad is good for you.
Sam is pure savage 🎉🎉
Just because you talk about extremes doesn’t make you religious. This is the problem with Peterson confusing the discussion so much to feel like he won.
It’s not clear that Jordan even understands his stances, so how could his audience make any claim to?
The Christian concept of hell differs from how Jordan portrays it. In Christianity, unless Jesus returns to Israel (which was expected in the 1st century), gathers the people of Israel, separates them into two groups, and judges them, he cannot send one group into a burning furnace (presumably built by him), similar to what Hitler did. This burning furnace is hell, and it is not metaphorical; it is meant to be taken literally.
Just because a story is useful doesn't mean the details of the story are factually true. They can be false and we can all agree they are false while still accepting the utility of the story.
Everyone agrees with this idea, but religion says it owns the best story that ever existed and if the world doesn’t adopt the exact same opinions they must all suffer forever.
@@gking407 Religions also demands that their stories are not just the best, but also objectively true. Those who question that get punished in some fashion.
Jordan can't listen
He's the definitive case of 'waiting for his turn to speak ' (barely) rather than listening. He needs to concentrate hard, I guess, as he is so unintelligent he can hardly keep up.
Peterson the king of world salad gymnastics. Absolute BS
I watched 2 videos starring Peterson, never again. This man is a fraud, specialist of meaningless word salad.
JP is such a fraud. He has no interest in honest debate. ‘What does bad mean?’ Pleeeese.
JP is playing Devil’s advocate just for the sake of it and he does this to his detriment.
The reason not to label it as hell Jordan is because that term comes with a lot of historical and cultural baggage which does absolutely nothing but muddy the conversation. Stories have utility as allegory, but it depends on whether or not the story is universally accepted as just a story or if it has other meaning to it. The term purgatory can be used these days without the baggage it used to carry because there isn’t really a large population who believes in it along with an assortment of other associated concepts.
Reminds of a Tony Hinchcliffe joke where nobody understood it (because it didn’t make sense) yet they are laughing.
For all his contempt of postmodernism, JP uses deconstructionism to try to worm his way out of any point made by his intellectual opponent, and then he refuses to undercut Judeochristian positions with similar scrutiny. He is a self-disavowing postmodernist.
This is the modus operandi of JBP. Reality might not really be real, good might not really be good, bad might not really be bad. "It's not factual"... well, neither is exactly everything you say about religion and myth. Yet JBP thinks there is more truth to myth than reality.
It says something about a person who continually does what you tell a six year old not to do when someone is talking. It's also hard to know what the person you're interrupting is actually saying if you're forming your answers before they're done forming the sentence. How Sam can stay on point (which is why there's a coherent thought in the debate) is a testimony to his resolve to communicate his ideas as clearly as possible. It also says a lot about mindfulness. Just sayin'.
Peterson's schtick is that all things are biblical so why frame them in any other way. Which is interesting from someone who dodges all questions about his own biblical beliefs.
"I'm really trying to understand it" Peterson just admitted that he is not nearly as intelligent as he sells himself. I've read Harris's "Moral Landscape" and it made sense, even if I didn't agree with every point. Peterson apparently doesn't understand it even though it is written in a very straight forward and approachable way. Perhaps if Harris threw some lobsters into his story Peterson would consider it profound.
Peterson is trying to label everything with the religious concept of heaven and hell. Suggesting that these concepts are the ultimate in good and bad. Harris is talking about our corporeal existence thus heaven and hell are NOT applicable concepts to apply. This is despite the terms heaven and hell being used to describe some things in corporeal existence.
When Peterson says "It's a crucial issue." what he means is that it is crucial to his ego (and his ability to sell books to the rubes) that Harris submit to his position.
Jordan spies non fact (opinion) all the time , but someone else makes a metaphor with fact, and Jordan can't take it
1:40 then why did you not just use those words to say so instead of throwing in fundamental, moral, equivalence...
jordan doesnt let sam make his point
Jordan always talks bollocks in language that most people do not understand. Sam, is usually more understandable but in this case, he was emulating some of Jordan's BS.
This discussion was not relevant to most human beings.
Sam keeps making sense, but Jordan is too busy countering with his 2.99 salad from 7-Eleven.
POOR PETERSON! He has become a pretentious intellectual lacking in facts and all Peterson has become is A SNAKE OIL SALESMAN .
The late Daniel Dennett would be baffled that Jordan Peterson is essentially a living "Deepity".
Bill Clinton - “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the-if he-if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not-that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”
Jordan simply is stuck in his agenda and can’t listen to reason .
Moderators are useless. Cut that guys mic and let these guys talk uninterrupted 🤦♂️
"Uninterrupted." Lol. Jordan's never not interrupted someone in his life. He literally is not capable of doing so.
@@kumaranvij I mean even more than that lol
What? Sam literally brought him in to the part of the conversation
Pointless
Is this the truth?
My name for hell is listening to Jordan Peterson mangle the English language.
The worst hell is the one you dont know youre in
Cool
Or maybe the worst hell is knowing you are tasked with trying to respond to one of JP's verbal glitter bombs and knowing full-well you will be immediatedly interrupted before you can start your second sentence.
@@siezethebidetboth gentlemen are sayin the same thing for different reasons. Sam states that it is objectively true, and Jordan states that it is true because of God.
The worst hell is trying to have a meaningful conversation with Jordan Peterson. Every time you think the conversation is getting somewhere Peterson rolls that conversation back to the bottom. Makes Sisyphus' setup seem not so bad
If you dont know you are in hell, then this hell is not that bad after all.
I pity the waiters who have to take Petersons order. Id just give up and leave the job
Jordan hell smuggling.
Yes, JP never makes any sense. BUT Sam Harris really is fundamentally wrong about ‘misery’ and ‘bad’ here. Of course the most misery for everyone is bad, because definitionally misery means EXPERIENCING something bad. But experience is subjective, not objective. And so it doesn’t matter if we can agree that misery is bad - anyone who disagrees with that just isn’t engaging with the definition of the word. It matters whether we can say that certain things are objectively bad because they will objectively cause misery. And that’s much much harder. One’s hand being severed by a bus will cause misery to most people who experience it. But not everyone - maybe that hand had a cancer in it that would have killer you. Maybe you suffered a condition where you felt your hand was alien and not a part of you and you wanted nothing more than to be rid of it (a real condition, by the way). Maybe your new stumpy arm led you to meet a stump-armed person who became the love of your life, and if you could go back in time, you’d have chopped the hand off yourself. Experiences are subjective and what causes one suffering is relative… Sam Harris never overcomes this in his supposed objective view of morality… At best, he comes to the conclusion that for most people, the causes of suffering are the same, and so we should strive to avoid that to create the least possible suffering.
Net Values 😊
ben stiller did it again
best comment
Jordan when ot gets hard.. 'what is a word'..
so you can get an ought from an is
At the end of the day, Sam Harris "fact" is an axiom - a truth (a fact) that cannot be demonstrated.
Peterson doesn't get off the ground without axioms either, that's what's so annoying.
Moreover, the concept of "god" is both Peterson's axiom AND his conclusion... that's where he actually loses the argument.
Sam is trying to make a subjective truth an objective truth. Suffering is only bad through a moral framework that is entirely subjective. It's programmed into the majority of us through evolution, with the exception of sadists and masochists. But, let's say, for an AI to take that example, it may neither comprehend it's own "suffering" nor that of other beings. It may even enjoy the novelty of any experience that could be categorized as suffering. What would suffering even entail for an AI? Who knows. Enya's greatest hits on loop for eternity, maybe. In the not too distant future we may be able to engineer a sentient biological being incapable of suffering. Point being, suffering is an evolutionary mechanism to teach us. You're hungry, you need to eat. Your foot is broken, stop walking on it. I think it's a bit of human hubris to assume it's an intrinsic function of consciousness. And if it's not, then it can't be objective.
"I think it's a bit of human hubris to assume it's an intrinsic function of consciousness."
It is a fact that all consciousness can have better and worse experiences.
@@Manzikirt1 As I said, suffering is an evolutionary tool. It's not necessarily going to be the case with a consciousness that didn't evolve.
@@Manzikirt1 Better or worse is a subjective idea, so is suffering. You can't have an objective truth who's interpretation is purely subjective.
since when did pangburn become such a jordan peterson hater what the hell 🤣🤣🤣
@LooseShin Look man, you don't want to understand what he says, that's fine; but don't then go on to criticize him for what you chose him to be in the first place.
They're both wrong.
Sam wants to call subjective badness objective,
Jordan wants to call fictional Hell true.
You got it wrong on Sam’s account.
Should we remove the word 'bad' from the dictionary then?
@@pauls7803 no
@gking407 In that case I agree with him.
@@hamnchee Sam keeps the subjective in its proper category, but unlike Peterson he acknowledges the shared definition of ‘bad’ throughout humanity and history. Civilization would not be possible unless we shared a ton of common interests and preferences.
God is real like a trans person being a woman is real.
What if they are trans-man?
Wait so Sammy rejects all metaphor? That’s BS because BS and GFY et al are all meta.. he’s just a liar
He doesn't. JP claims he does (wrongly)
Pangburn : 185 K suscriptores ( not bad... )
Peterson : 8,26 M suscriptores ( way way way way way way way better )
Well, that doesn't mean pangburn is wrong ! Maybe...
But is sure doesn't prove he's right.
Argumentum ad populum. 🤦🏼♂️
@@mcpane1925 And true at that...