SAM HARRIS MAKES JORDAN PETERSON LOOK CHILDISH!?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- Sam Harris vs Jordan Peterson
@samharrisorg @JordanBPeterson
WE ARE COMING TO COLORADO! THE ANTISCIENCE OF GOD? Lawrence Krauss & Stephen Hicks
Nov 2nd - Boulder, Colorado
Tickets here: pang-burn.com/...
This event is set to challenge conventional perspectives, offering deep insights into the complex relationship between faith, reason, and the pursuit of knowledge.
#samharris #jordanpeterson #bible #jesus #christian #christianity
#richarddawkins #briangreene #science #religion #mattdillahunty
#exmuslim #muslim #atheism #douglasmurray #immigration #politics #islam #immigration #freespeech #islamaphobia #atheist #exmuslimlive #exmuslimsameer #muslim #muslims #israel #israelpalestineconflict #quran #hamas #hamasvsisrael #refuge #muhammad #muhammadﷺ #quran #quranrecitation #christianity #hamas #hamasvsisrael #bretweinstein #mattdillahunty #evolution #biology #education #debate #pangburn #destiny #cosmicskeptic #atheist #secularism #secularhumanism #hindu #trump #iran
Full discussion here: • Sam Harris vs Jordan P...
Welcome to the Pangburn Universe, governed by the laws of good faith & helpfulness.
If you enjoyed this clip, please drop a like on the video and consider subscribing.
Full discussion here: ua-cam.com/video/GEf6X-FueMo/v-deo.html
If you like having conversations about ideas, join us on discord: discord.gg/VDE2UMuW8y
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.
Jordan believes all theology is anthropology. It is not a childish statement and people like Feuerbach have said this before. Jordan his point was that evolution has shaped our shared big 5 personality traits. These personality traits we can admire or not admire. Through storytelling we can pick role models, like heroes in movies for example, that we can imitate. He claims that these intuitions come from our evolutionary past that make us choose these rolemodels and social condition ourselves by looking at how they act. It has to do more with values like Jordan pointed out, which is true. Sam Harris claims we do not need rolemodels and that we can logically derive values ourselves. Most people are not logical so in my opinion Sam is being unrealistic when he says everyone is logical. Irrationality and our emotions has its evolutionary purpose as when we get angry we show others not to mess with us. In societies where there is no police, say the wild west, showing that you can not be messed with is a useful trait to have. Therefore this trait has not gone evolutionary extinct in our ancestors.
Why is this uploaded now, in September of 2024? When was this event? 2018?
Jordan is so offended by the batgirl analogy 😂
Because he knows it's true.
what do you mean by bat? and what do you mean by girl? and in what do you mean by analogy?
@@seijibaka What do you mean by 'what'?
@@atheist_joseph_vina "It depends on the context of "what do you mean" in order to answer what is meant by meaning with meaning" - Jordy P.
@@XMeK He's got us there!
Jordan interrupts every single thing he doesn't wanna understand.
it's not so much that he doesn't want to understand it. he's interrupting because he knows if he lets them get a complete thought and statement out, he won't have a good rebuttal. So he's hoping to derail them from their good point, but interrupting, and quibbling about post-modernism substrates of neolithic mythmaking chucklefuckery. His usual thing
Which is everything!!
He’s a verbal combatant
Yeah... Pretty much... :)
@@timeandmaterialsdanforth5511 for someone so opposed to postmodernism he's made a career out of the nature of objective truth !!
Jordan Peterson is such a waste of time!
He is but tbh the same also waste of time his understanding and knowledge is very basic and flawed when real historian examine his speach about history or real philosophers they see same like bellow average not saying couse hating but they both are blueeh
Peterson: "How do you distinguish a religious system from an a priori perceptual structure." Jesus, is this guy tedious or what? Okay, I looked up "a priori", which means relating to reasoning/knowledge which comes from theory, rather than observation. Why the hell doesn't Peterson just say "How is religion different than philosophy?" I can tell you how it's different: Religion clings to its ideas, refusing to give them up. Philosophy is open to being proven wrong, and when it is proven wrong it adjusts its ideas to obtain better ideas. This is a procedure which Peterson avoids at all costs because his ideas are atrociously bad, and his childish ego is wrapped up in propagating his reputation as being brilliant. He's a conman through and through. He then says: "A bad tool is better than no tool at all." It depends how bad. Religion is rotten, some more rotten than others. And the world would be a better place if the fundamentalists gave up their bad tools and remained with none.
Sorry don‘t wanna sound like a know it all but a priori would better be described as „presupposed/axiomatic“, basically pre-empirical, like what foundational set of believes you approach your perceptions/empirical experience with. As theories can be fueled by empirical data, they are usually not „a priori“ per se
Religion (in this case Christianity) actually borrows heavily from pagan philosophy.
You cannot say it is rotten without also disparaging the Greek philosophers.
Thanks! I was having the same exact reaction, wondering why he couldn't ask his question is plain simple English.
@@jotarokujo5132 Nothing wrong with disparaging ancient dead dudes, or philosophers of all stripes.
@@jotarokujo5132 The Greek philosophers didn't cram their gods in their philosophy or made their entire schools of thought about justifying the Olympus
You can tell when Peterson knows he's losing, because he gets angry. He specifically gets angry at the audience when he realises they're moving to Sam's position.
Good old simplicity beats fake complexity every time.
Einstein said if you can't explain something in a few words you don't understand it. I think he would have also said: if you have to flail your hands in the air, acting like you're being attacked by bats, while spouting pretentious word salad, you might not understand Batgirl.
A great Einstein quote that goes along with that = "Any Fool can know... the Point, is to Understand".
He may not understand what he's saying, but he understands that the idiots who worship him don't either and that's all that matters
Macbeth was prophesying about the coming Jordan Peterson when he said:
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
he's every bit as profound as Terrence Howard 😂
After all his bluster let’s hope Richard III fills his blusterful flamboyant mind ‘May the worm of conscience gnaw thy soul’
Well I like jordans talks on topics other than religion. Like his early lectures about personal responsibility or ww2
mmmmm...here we are in the 21st century STILL debating whether some fisherman and goat herders got it right 2000 years ago. No wonder the worlds stuffed.
Everyone is smart till Sam walks in
Exactly 😂 he's the final intellectual boss
@cmhardin37 more like the first boss in Elden Ring and all your gaming experience is in minecraft.
@@cmhardin37 Not really. Harris is a very mediocre thinker. He simply looks impressive compared to a lunatic like Peterson.
Lol. First Sam Harris video?
@andrewjenkinson8948 LOL, You just don't understand any of it?
Peterson is a clown
The Western Orthodox Batgirls really got to Jordan…that hilarious and incisive analogy cut him DEEP…
Jordan unwittingly summed up the problem with faith. He says, "if it's a statement of faith in the value domain, how is it derivable from facts". Exactly!!!! Faith has nothing to do with facts, and should be abandoned. Just because we hold something in our value domain, it doesn't make it something of actual confirmable, verifiable worth, and that's a problem. In fact, faith taints all incoming facts, and that's what Sam is getting at.
Jordan peterson loves to conflate having "faith" that your plane wont crash with having faith that everything in the bible is true
Jordan Peterson is the master of the "mumbo jumbo word salad" language.
I hope the Peterson cult sees this and reconsiders ❤
I mean I highly respect Sam Harris but he just made a batgirl joke. Outside of that, wasn't very persuasive.
@@euphegenia good job demonstrating that you weren't actually listening to the point they were discussing.
@@euphegeniahis use of batgirl to further the analogy was perfect. Simple, even you could understand it!
@@euphegeniaThere was no joke, it was an analogy. But even if it was a joke, jokes can be the source of much truth. He is just swapping in bat girl as a hypothetical, and if it happens to be funny then maybe there is something more to be thought about here
Not sure I can listen to peterson ever again after he's Carry on , on X the last few months .
*Classic Public Speaking Pattern* from Peterson. The intelligent person on stage that he is conversing with destroys his counterargument and so he turns (2:03) to the applauding audience to set them straight, *KNOWING* that that opponent has no voice to argue back with.
_Weak. Very weak._
Listen to what Jordan said at the end and think about that. He said "if faith is valuable how is it derivable from fact?" He just proved himself wrong.
I don’t see how Peterson’s word salad proves anything, not even to prove himself wrong
He is right. It isn’t derived from fact. The very meaning of “faith”, is the belief in something in the absence of any evidence for it.
@@lesliefuller1456 No, he was trying to prove Harris wrong who was saying faith in 2+2 is a different type of faith than a religion based on beliefs that cant be proven to be true because the claims are made in a position you cannot analyze. Jordan pretty much confirmed religion is not based on truth which is what Sam Harris is trying to say.
@@kitjones6896 👍
Santa, Jesus, giant spaghetti monster in the sky. All the same game.
Why does even Sam Harris bother with this guy anymore?
I think this was before Jordan had fully lost his marbles. He still had something of a reputation at this point.
@@Terminal.Rainbows Think so too. I actually think I was present in Vancouver on this when I saw the date, but Peterson's ramblings eventually made me fall asleep! 😅
Dr. Kermit really just said Batgirl is the next best thing to God in a secular society.
Indeed. It's related to the argument that "if you don't worship God, who do you worship?"
The possibility that you could just not worship anyone or anything is foreign to that mindset.
Jordan is so incredibly annoying for his over-elaborate word salad, designed to make him look like an intellectual.
Only a child would honestly believe that the world was created by an invisible sky goblin 6 thousand years ago.
Peterson is easily one of the most disengenuous people I've had the displeasure to encounter in life.
Peterson is a joke, a fascinating joke.
If you listen to him enough he becomes very boring
@@AzafTazarden Yes absolutely, you should never go in dry. Drunk as a skunk with a band of jolly friends is the way to enjoy the mans insanity.
But yes the charm weareth of as they say. 🧐
You have to have a lot of willpower and stomach to trying to reason with a Christian disguised as a scientist...
JP's sold out for the very big paycheck. No doubt he justifies this by the "greater good" posture.
It’s as though Peterson said the words ‘a priori,’ dropped the mic, and walked off the floor. He’s terminally indoctrinated.
What's not "a priori" about the god assumption?
@@purplpen the god assumption is speculation. He is using that term to appear sophisticated. It’s hard to be sophisticated about speculations based on no evidence.
Notice JP talks to the audience rather than addressing SH directly to his face.
I miss Hitchens so much. He really knew how to debate clowns like Peterson. No other new atheist can do it that great.
I thought Dillahunty properly destroyed Peterson.
I am an atheist. Always have been and unless (a) god comes down and reveals himself as undeniable truth, I always will be. I am 62, aside from religious studies in school, I had no concepts of religion. My mother believe in God but never went to church and left me to decide what I believed in. I grew up watching TV as a child and do not think its a stretch to see my moral compass was set by the likes of Thunderbirds, Star Trek and Captain Scarlett. Many of these stories projected good vs evil. Of course, many other things affected my moral growth. I have led a crime free life, never physically fought anyone and as far as I know, not hurt anyone intentionally. I didnt need a god to do all this.
A bad tool is better than no tool at all makes no sense to me.
I see the logic behind the idea. If you had to build something and were in the need of a hammer, a rock will do even if it isn't as good as a proper hammer.
Faith is a tool (the argument goes), and so any kind of belief is better than having none, even if that faith is believing in comic book superheroes.
Harris (and others) argue that religious belief as a tool doesn't build anything you couldn't with other means that are closer to being true.
@@7rich79 I don’t agree that any belief is better than none. It would depend on what the belief demands. ANY belief? Even one that asks you to mistreat others for personal gain?
For me personally I care about what’s true and accountability for ideas. If a belief lacks accountability for what it asserts it feels intellectually dishonest to me.
@edgecrusherhalo I don't think it's a good argument either. Those who do think it's convincing say that religious belief is good for social cohesion, and point to how pretty much every long-lasting society so far has had a strong, deeply entrenched belief system. No matter if that is Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism or something else, with the suggestion that they lasted this long because of that belief.
Jordan is just really not smart
Jordan Peterson = checkers Sam Harris = advanced chess mastery
I don't think the owner of this channel knows who owns anyone. Harris gets countered left and right. At the 3-minute-mark he shoots himself in the foot. "At some point we just have to pull ourselves up by our bootstaps and make a move that is not self-justifying". From his world view why? Why should anyone do that? Who cares there is no point to it. There is no end goal for anyone to do that at all per his worldview. Jordan wrecked him right after that when he said "That is a statement of faith". Which it 100% is.
2+2=4 is not faith nor is it intuition. It is a factual statement. Sorry 2+2=4 cannot run afoul of any other intuition or view. 2+2 will always equal 4. This is an assertion that it can run afoul of another intuition but there is 0 support for that assertion and 2+2=4 is not an intuition either.
Peterson nailed him to the wall on that one. If mathmatical fact is intuition then what are facts. exactly and this is where Harris gets blown up.
OMG that was the worst analogy to come up with. The fact that a triangle has all angles add up to 180 degrees never changes.
Since someone discovered a pyramind (or any other 3d object) that doesn't make the formula about a triangle wrong =180 degrees wrong.
That is a terrible argument.
"Spider-mn"
2:32 - "What is it that is this transcendental rational structure without an a priori dogma." WTF is Peterson talking about? Why does he always come up with these abstract statements that are designed to thoroughly confuse people? It would be nice if he talked like a normal human being once in a while. Also, if I were to criticize his question, I would have to ask why it is necessary for logic and reason to have no a-priori dogma, and yet religion's very foundation is a-priori dogma?
Thank you!
I believe Jordan is trying to establish that a priori dogma is, on some level, unavoidable. That is to say that without perfect knowledge, there will always (or at least until perfect knowledge is obtained) be things that must be taken for granted without evidence.
So it seems he is attempting to argue that naturalist worldviews and "batman" examples are also using a priori assumptions/dogma.
Since he is ultimately trying to defend the a priori dogma religion uses, he is trying to disprove Sam's claim that a priori dogma can be avoided through logic and naturalist philosophy.
@@PlehAP Excellent explanation 👍
Jordan Peterson is one of the angriest most unhappy people I am currently aware of.
Jordan believes that he is the only person who is smart enough to talk him into believing something that he really doesn't believe.
His primal fear is so obvious. He’s terrified and lashes out like a child.
Came to hear, archetypical, and wasn't disappointed 2 minutes in.
It's like arguing with a barn door.
It’s not that I don’t understand Jordan Peters it’s that he chooses to use language that has the potential to isolate listeners (on the other hand it may help people learn new words!)
Speaking in plain English certainly helps Sam.
Paterson is getting confused ; he laughs , cries and curses all in one sentence
The atheists are a bit like the collectivists. They've composed the most stirring, inspiring and compelling march music, fully expecting the forests to form up and parade past in perfect unison. Now, they're scratching their heads in bewilderment, wondering which stanza needs revision.
So because Homo sapiens have a predisposition to want to believe in superheroes and God-like figures, we should foment that aggressively?
And why does Peterson think that any godlike figure is better than none?
Peterson isn't spouting "word salad", he's being grandiloquent and cramming as many sesquipedalian words he can into virtually every sentence (Iike I did here). It serves to (a) make him appear smarter than he is, and (b) insulate his ideas from criticism. Very entertaining to watch rational thinkers like Sam not be distracted by it, even for an instant.
Jordan Peterson does not argue honestly. Why do we waste our time with him?
The way Peterson wiggles his fingers while talking rapidly makes me feel like he is trying to portray a Rain Man genius type of character, like he hears something wrong and has to do a repetitive action while correcting it under his breath.
Follower of the way.
I think there's a more precise definition of mathematics that would have helped Sam. Once we get that mathematical models are things we invented originally to model observed aspects of reality (like summing quantities for instance), we see how 2+2=4 is not something we take on faith, but a thing our invention of the tool of math does. We can use that model to do it over and over and we'll always get 4. We've built machines to do these operations deterministically. Math is a tool whose consistency can be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Jordan is not putting enough stock in this kind of thinking. Formalized models have allowed us to model objective reality better than any previous system. He doesn't seem to get that in the past 300 years of science, we've had more progress in *all domains* than the previous 5000 years of religion. You could argue the 300 years wouldn't be possible w/o the religion, but then you have to explain why progress was so much slower before.
Sam Harris makes himself look foolish.
Why did you decide to worship a goddess?
I hope Jordan didn't get to tired this time.
Followers of the way batman flew hit the ground.
peterboy cannot be peterson, he can be petercon and peterboy
Jordan’s a guy whose more personable than he is smart.
As always, Sam speaks like a scholar in a way that can and does help people think about reality, whereas JP blathers about trying to sound clever. He's not. Sam has helped many people learn to THINK whereas JP has never offered anything more than angry outbursts consisting of self justifying the unjustifiable. I do not understand why Sam bothers with him. But I guess it gets paying customers into the tent?
Harris should stop with the Bat analogies and just simply explain to Peterson how a society does not necessarily descend into madness if God is dead.
Sam Harris didn't do that, Jordan Peterson did it all by himself.
Why does anyone care what Jordan Peterson has to say. I find the man’s ability to think coherent thoughts to be beyond his pay grade. I find the man so unimpressive on a multitude of levels.
"What is a transportablinal hyperflarbin circularistic tuition nauticalicists shillysaks" ? WTF is Jorden sayin ?
Jordan is corrupt from his unsettling value of Religion.
Jordan Peterson makes Sam Harris look very childish
Come on man. Sam certainly did not make Peterson look foolish. If you believe that you are knee deep in bias confirmation. Personally think this clip had very little substance.
I like and admire JP but "If Batgirl is the closest approximation to a divine figure that you can conjure up, it beats none at all"... Huh!? Does he believe that the dumb basis of a few good ideas (and lots of bad ones) from our primitive past must be cultivated even after its delusional nature has become obvious? Or is it just needed by the "common folk"?
Batman is a terrible comparison because we already have a comparable example, Santa, that people don’t believe when they get older.
No Batgirl is actually a better example because its culturally newer and farther away from an indoctrinated faith that can become one. Santa Claus example would just make Jordan Peterson go, "Yes, but Santa Claus is a sign of x, y, and z and is culturally significant; it beats the hell out of nothing." Sam Harris is trying to show that something mundane and ridiculous can become something grandiose like religion.
Bravo!
Jesus Christ Jordan, let the man speak. Such a rude interlocutor, why is he so afraid of letting people finish their train of thought?
Jordan Peterson needs nobody. He's more than capable of making himself look childish.
Harris confronts the paths less deep in converting, and whatever avoids perdition by an ancient entity.
Peterson justifies the use of archetypes as a tool for religion - not questionable at all.
Pursue other things, and never lose curiosity for the newer ways of experiencing life.
Old religious creeds once controlled, but now seek financial power in the 21st century.
SAM is brilliant and explains every in a very clear manner. Jordan can't wait to interrupt with his performative word salad. Have lost total respect after Petersons humiliating appearance on Piers Morgan, where he analyzed and endorsed Trump knowing full well what a dangerous psychopath he is. I hope the payoff is worth losing his credibility.
I get a headache listening to Jordan Peterson.
One outstanding saint such as Saint Francis or Gandhi, is worth more than a thousand smart-Aleck ego-trippers like Harris!
The more words of his word salads they can't understand, and the more syllables those words seem to have, the more his followers are convinced Jordan P is right.
And bill Maher loves Peterson’s bs
Jordan Petrson NEEDS AN ASNSWER!
"A bad tool is better than no tool at all." Spoken like a bad tool.
No this is true, the issue is when people get attached to their bad tool when better tools are around.
@@philosophyfrog2653 a bad tool can hurt the user in deeply damaging ways that never would have happened if they had no tool at all. Like a chainsaw where the chain has weak links and when trying to cut a tree it snaps and the chain whips you in the face and takes out your eye. You didn't get the tree cut down and now you're blind in one eye, you're objectively worse off than if you had no chainsaw.
@@philosophyfrog2653 man I had a whole thing about a chainsaw with a bad chain that snaps and hurts the user, and how that's objectively worse than just not having the saw because either way the tree's still standing at the end of the day, but youtube decided to hide it.
There is no transcendent rational a prior structure. Is JP stupid? Don't answer that.
Something with gender fluidity 😢
wtf pangburn
I miss Sam.
Peterson started like a VERY BRIGHT GUY BUT LATER IT WAS CLEAR HE HAS NO REASONING CAPACITY...he just can recite others but can't analyze and come to sensible logic base conclusions....
Peterson is simply an articule idiot.
His hand movements are just like an illusionist's, which is all Jordan Peterson is, lets deflect attention with theatrics and word salad, it boils down to nothing more than that.
Luv the batgirl joke Harris can be pretty funny sometimes⚛️
_A bad tool is better than no tool at all?_ So your treading water in the middle of the ocean trying to stay afloat and I come along and hand you a huge anvil and remind you a bad tool is better than no tool at all ………,
Peterson made an idiot of himself.
Peterson's method of presenting is to use a sort of pyscho babble. To someone outside the field it might sound that he is knowledgeable. To anyone with a vague idea of the field it is just nonsense. He is a non Ravi Zacharia
He IS childish
If I understand JP here, he is arguing that it's beneficial to believe things we can't be certain of and that it's better that they be (relatively) ancient myths that our grandparents and greatgrandparents believed in than things that we don't know to be false.
That would mean that he thinks it's good to be uncritical of authority, which is funny because he pretends to say the opposite in different contexts
@@AzafTazarden Paul wrote to the Romans that they should obey all authorities because none rule without God's permission.
Sad that a little ant thinks he is so powerful. The Almighty sits in the heavens and laughs.
...good one...happy trolling...
I don't even understand why ppl listen to jordan Peterson this guy is a nutshell
He is childish. His pedantic use of the long ā doesn’t make him wise. He’s a fool. I’m not religious. I’m agnostic at most. I still think that he is minimizing something profound that has gripped humanity since the beginning.
I think you are childish if you think Sam is childish. Sam approaches the discussion from a perspective of methodological naturalism, which is NOT a metaphysical framework. Jordan wants a secular metaphysical framework to establish objective morality, believing he finds a Religious one in Christianity. He fails to recognize that Christianity does not lead to objective morality. If it did, we wouldn't have so many types of Christians with varying degrees of moral codes.
If Sam could provide Jordan a secular metaphysical framework that leads to objective morality, JP would be finished as would most Religions. The problem is that there isn't one right now that satisfies all people. Given 300 years there might be. Athiests have been working on a problem for less than 500 years, thiests have been working on the problem for more than 2000 years and still don't have an answer. Give the Athiests time now that they aren't fearing death for being an Athiests.
How come you are using sensationalist titles for a clip of a discussion where the speakers were conversing in good faith? Disgraceful
"A bat-tool is better than no tool at all" - Jordan Peterson
Yes... stunning fatuity
@@helpmaboabb he said “a bad tool…” but the version i posted was funnier and apt 🙂
3 guys just sitting around, loving the smell of their own farts
Its saddening how Pangburn has revealed themselves as being outrageously biased in this debate. When i initially watched the debates, i respected Pangburn for their role in the hosting. Now, i know thumbnails with an intention when i see them. Both men are brilliant with great points. Anyone with casual criticism is a frickin moron
Well said, they both just two completely opposite belief structures in my opinion. There’s a lot to take from both of them
I get what you’re saying but on this topic specifically JP doesn’t know what he’s talking about..
Why are you coping? GOD exists, it’s just the truth.
Sam thinks he can replace the benefits of religion? There's a term for that. There's certainly recent historical precedent, none of it especially beneficial.
Imagine writing THAT headline in 2024.
RIP Harris after Covid.
You mean when Sam was promoting a safe and effective vaccine?
@@bskeptical2481 lmfao "safe and effective". Maybe change the channel away from MSNBC every once in a while.
@@bskeptical2481exactly.
@@bskeptical2481 Look up the original slogan for Bayer's Heroine.
Sam Harris has such a flawed, limited understanding of theology, it's laughable.
No. Theology is laughable
@@fiddledeedee6970 Jordan does not know anything about Orthodox Christianity, he advertises something he does not understand.
Yup. Theology is laughable. Anyone that believes in a god is literally stupid.
@@nebovas9432 i agree, they both come off bad.
Both of them are laughable, narrow-minded, and love to hear their own voice. Sam Harris is a religious fanatic who worships the state instead of god. He is also a war monger who thought Iraq war was a good thing. Peterson just loves to say fancy words that he thinks mean something while in reality his words have no content.