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
I love these guys, and I’m enjoying hearing this talk immensely, and I would add, to whom ever produced this, for the future, please get a handle on the microphone feedback problems, which are happening constantly and super distracting I’m an Audio Engineer and it’s challenging to listen to this without wanting to reach for the mixer and the eq and fix the problem as if I was running sound myself and then I realize I’m just listening to it on UA-cam!! Anyway… thanks for posting. I appreciate being able to listen to this, regardless.
Well he can see what it does for his wife. For all the debate and talk, one only needs to look at how they view God. The unbeliever sees God as he's ready to throw people into hell. The believer says the opposite He saves from hell. In a way both aren't lying which if true would point to Christianity. Because one has been made right with God the other hasent ( yet ).
@@JesusIstheNameTakenInVaincorrection: "He saves people from Hell, that he himself created and condemned people to, unless they do a specific thing that is required that He would exercise his All-Lovingness to save them. If they don't do the thing, then He won't save them from Hell that he created. So better do the thing!"
@@nemamiah7832 he created hell, for people like yourself, that don’t want to have a relationship with him, so you have a choice to be far away from God, for your own decision and choices. So keep on getting that Fauci juice, it’ll make it easier to be that much close to your internal fiery, tormenting destination.
Has Jordan met Christian’s? They don’t care about truth, and honestly in my experience they don’t care about “you”. They care about their salvation, but in my experience the more they care about religion the less they care about their brother/sister.
I hear this all the time and it never seems to be accompanied by a real search for truth. “I had a bad experience with particular people” Not a good way to search for truth.
Fair, so you too are looking for truth and finding religion lacking, I’m right there with you sister/brother. Tell me where are the truths you have found?@@alfymo
I’m an atheist but I wonder if YOU have actually met any Christians and/or are you projecting. Most nonbelievers seem to have a cartoonish mustache twirling view of believers, which in my experience is no where near reality. Most Religious people I know are lovely people and unfortunately most nonbelievers are assholes, I should know I am one. -Asshole Atheist
I may be one of the only people here that actually believes JP had a good showing. He is grappling with deep fundamental issues, and trying to do so in a careful way to avoiding stepping on something that could turn out to be important. Sam is better able to articulate his position in part because he is less cautious about stepping on things, especially things he deems outdated. As far as Peterson being willing to entertain ideas about the cosmos that some find ridiculous, i don't consider that attack to have as much wieght as others might. There is too much i don't know about the world to be overly critical of any particular view without at leats one great reason.
Sam Harris pulls the same maneuver charlatans do in the name of God. He’ll snatch something out of the old testament. Completely ignoring the word old as a clue to look for its comparison in the new, so he fails to or more likely intentionally avoids. Moralizes his stance and condemns the whole book Under the assumption that the book is about heaven, and not the world we live in. Sam Harris, avoids the topic and Peterson’s is really the only one on the panel, engaging the topic.
Ummm, noooo, Sam Harris is better able to articulate bc he is SMARTER. JP has a PhD in PHILOSOPHY, Sam Harris has a PhD in NEUROSCIENCE. Further, JP has been disbarred as a psychologist bc of his stance on trans issues.
@@giveadoggyabone1 How does having a neuroscience degree give someone an edge in articulation over someone with a philosophy degree 🤣. The topic of discussion is philosophical by nature. Also appeals to authority(degrees) dont really prove who's smarter.
This is surprisingly well put for a UA-cam comment; the trope of cautious stepping is especially artful. It's immediately evocative, and it really _works_ as a relevant notion in this context. But you have the proposition about fanciful interpretations of the universe the wrong way around. There is so much we don't know about the universe that it is (at best; the worse case is a doozy) overweening hubris to entertain _highly specific_ interpretations of that universe _and at the same time not to acknowledge that such an interpretation is radically absurd and no more probable than any of the literally infinite number of possible speculative interpretations._ No. We must be pitiless in our assessment of such propositions, and in the absence of evidence we need no other "great reason" to dismiss them out of hand. It should rather be the speculative propositions about the universe that require a great reason-evidence, in other words-in order to be taken seriously.
52:29 from a very young age, I have held the belief that organized religion is for people who need to be told right from wrong. It is Santa Claus for adults. If you do bad things you won’t get this good thing and you might be punished. The problem with religion is when people are raised into it, and then they decide that it isn’t real or right, a lot of times they throw caution to the wind and go off the deep end of there are no consequences for their actions…
The question to be answered is what is the best framework for understanding the world and our existence. Harris says it is rationalism, Peterson says it is values. Rationalism is fact based and therefore objective. Values are not fact based and therefore subjective. How does one derive values without facts?
58:32 the best lesson my parents taught me was the golden rule. Put yourself in the other person‘s position, and treat them the way you would want to be treated in the same circumstance. If you live by that, you will make choices that advance society, and are compassionate, and are empathetic, which lead to greater understanding. You don’t need a religion to tell you that. Because again, if you later, decide that religion isn’t real, then the rules from that religion also become not real. And as they’re saying here, those rules serve a purpose in our society.
@@nathanforrest3483 Just watch Deepak Chopra vs Dawkins or Harris to see how that'd go down. It'd be Hitchens trying to nail down what Peterson believes on the existence of God, and then JP being illusive in what he even means by 'God', and often providing a word salad to cover for the fact he being so intellectually opaque
@@jamesthompson9003 I used to like Peterson. But he's very self righteous. As if he has all the answers to life. Not to mention he has millions of dollars.
@@jamesthompson9003 Comparing Jordan Peterson to Deepak Chopra is like comparing Sam Harris to Matt Dillahunty 💀 Jordan and Sam are on different levels of understanding these topics without strawmanning their opponents for the awe of their crowd
Once again, the question of moral objectivity and its origins or mechanisms of development remains unresolved. Just as you can’t prove evolution was guided or random you can’t prove if moral development of humans was guided or random.
Except you'd actually need some proper evidence of a guide for the "guided" option to even be relevant. It's not a 50/50. All evidence points towards random mutations and natural selection. And zero evidence for any intentional guide. Otherwise you can say whatever, "oh, no one can prove it wasn't magical unicorns doing it subconciously while they play around in the cosmos", so it's either unicorns or random, just as likely. No.
Yes, but to diminish a hypothetically proposed necessitative primal cause to a non-sequitur is a discussion about the secondary nature of said cause, not the essence of it's metaphysical contribution, this also inappropriately undermines the discussion of it's necessary attributes.@@halosaft
First I would like to say thank you to Dr. Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris. I highly enjoyed hearing such an informative and civil debate. It's obvious that both of these great minds are motivated by a desire to contribute positively to society. Whether it be through the promotion of individual responsibility and self-improvement or that of secular morality and rational discourse each in which seem to have the same objective/interest to make the world a better place. (It's disappointing to see some of the negative comments on here that aim to belittle either of these men, it's a prime example of individuals whom lack integrity and need to really listen to the advice from Harris and Peterson)
I enjoyed the open admission of the "Jesus Smuggling". I did appreciate Douglas Murray's comment that at this point in time, even convinced of the value of a religious ethic, one still can't bring themselves to believe. In a way, you can't turn the clock back. What is not quite clear to me is if you grant Peterson's argument that religion and all its facets were the carriers of our Western Christian ethic and that it is difficult and impossible to step outside of it, it still does not establish that the whole system is not man-made or emerges from the human history quite naturally. The Judeo/Christian tradition innovated and incorporated ideas from within and from without. I would like to know Peterson's actual position on the metaphysical claims of Christianity. As far as I can tell, he "believes" in the Christian ethic, but doesn't go further than that. Kind of like an atheist of Jesus.
I thought they actually made some progress in this third conversations, with Peterson making a more coherent case for the importance of stories and religious narratives as a basis for moral decision making. The turning point was the realization that Adams's spectrum of well-being looked suspciously like heaven and hell, harboring a covert Christianity. That said, both men still seemed puzzled about the mechanisms of the relationship between fact and value, niether posing any real solutions to the problem. Maybe in part 4.
The difficulty in inventing a utilitarian ethic that is compelling is that nobody is compelled by something that is handed to them. The first human to invent an axe marveled in its beauty and the power of creation. His axe was both a tool and an accomplishment of motive force. You _give_ somebody an axe, it's just an axe.
Especially the kid in a village where all the adults have 10 axes. What I'm saying is, each new generation especially at puberty is really only getting a snapshot of how the world is for them now, and so they might see all that is wrong with it but they don't fully appreciate that all the good they have that they may not even notice, came along with a lot of bad stuff that is more easy to notice. Because the bad is usually more obvious than the good, because the good is often simply that we are allowed to continue to live in relative comfort and to continue to evolve largely un-accosted. But we don't recognize privilege's that we didn't have to fight for and now operate as the default. But when you try to actually separate the bad from the good it starts to get really complicated and its tedious work that not everyone is built for.
Well that's nonsense. You've made this assertion without considering the concept of gift giving lol. We wouldn't do that if receiving a gift was so boring haha
I think that something unpleasant for someone and unpleasant for someone's ego are two different things in one person. One unpleasantness is real and the other is a construct.
Around 01:07:45 - Harris seems completely oblivious to any notion that a scientific worldview can and does often result in "[G]iving people license to believe things that they clearly shouldn't believe, things that are intrinsically divisive, intrinsically less than optimal...", etc., as in general he seems to confine any notion of dogmatism to the purely religious sphere. I don't expect much different from him as a seemingly dogmatic scientific physicalist-materialist realist type. Regarding Elvis, I would ask Sam whether it is better for a person to enjoy listening to Elvis or to dislike him, and what facts-of-the-matter obtain.
JP needs to get to his points faster without rambling off into an analogies and anecdotes. I get his basic points but he doesn't need to dazzle us with language.
What exactly do you mean by that? Can you site an example? Because I don't see it that way at all. It actually helps answers follow-up questions I'd love to ask.
I watch these conversations between Peterson and Harris with serious interest but work hard in just getting the gist. Once in a while I’ll be surprised and think, “Ah ha! I see exactly what they’re meaning! If only everyone could understand that.” I wish that men like these were a greater influence on society. After four months there’s only 33,000 views.
Even if we use religious values for our grounding. We still often disagree with the values being imposed. So whether it's plates, Republic, or a theocratic framework. We still end up in conflict at some point ?
I think that the arguement is that the most fundamental principle of the divinity of the individual is what successful cultures are built upon. The rest is just decoration. Its rather unimportant to fight over the decoration. It is important to fight over the foundation of the house.
Exactly and this is why we cannot dispose of the creator: God! Peterson can't defend true faith for obvious reasons, but if he's pressed on these topics this is going to be the missing link / stronghold between all of his arguments
The title of this video, asks the question, is Christianity good? Expect Jesus to be part of it. Not exactly “Jesus smuggling” as described. Many religions have attempted to define what Christianity is. And have offered many distractions as evidence of their devotion. From eating crackers and grape juice to dunking themselves in water to holding venomous snakes in church service. Just as a book, solely as a literary work. If the reader of the book is to follow the instruction of Christ, he or she must love like Christ had loved them. To quote Christ,“Love the way I have loved you”. And that would be despite sin, unconditionally, sacrificially and to not reciprocate offenses. The first half of that book illustrates how we relate to one another. Exchanging offense with offense, retaliating every slight with wrath and revenge. In the story, the character of Christ accommodates the offenses of “sin” then in essence, asks the reader to follow his example. This is the core principle of Christianity. I don’t know how that could ever be considered as “bad”. Harris highlights the failures of religion as if the failures of religion represents the crux of Christianity ie “loving like god”, they invariably don’t. Jim Jones claimed to follow Christ and then poisoned his followers. In order to poison your followers you would have to first depart from the core principle of Christianity, or more likely not to have adhered to it in the first place. To believe poisoning your congregation is a tenet of Christianity you would have to believe in the likes of Jim Jones. Although I haven’t heard Harris state Jim Jones specifically however, he has in general made this fallacious assumption with the Catholic Church and other self proclaimed religious disciplines. They do not adhere to the crux of Christianity, so therefore, do not represent Christianity. I commend Dr. Peterson for not responding in a similar manner when Harris indulges in sarcasm which is a tool of contempt. Very prevalent among the atheist side of the panel in these type of discussions.
Can't focus on the conversation at all while watching, Jordan's chair doesn't have rivets along the bottom, how did that happen, how did you get 3 chairs of the same design and manufacture with that major difference? Was it a massive repair just at the bottom of the chair? Or maybe they had 2 chairs for this format of talk but now that there are 3 guests they ordered another and the design changed in the interim?
In these debates I always tend to agree with the atheists on most arguments, but none of those arguments shake my faith... I mostly agree that all things can be explained without God, but it is not proof that there is no God
I mostly agree with the hand on the fire argument but there are some people who do not have the sensory input for pain and they would not notice. It's not an evolutionary advantages trait because lack of that input can lead to death more easily.
Jordan is basically obsessed with using stories (especially religion) to evaluate humanities collective psyche. So despite not believing in a literal deity like most people, he can't look beyond the euphoria he feels from traditional stories to evaluate them logically & nuancedly.
He believes in a pecking order. & Surprise he is on top. He has lied about his education & degrees. He wants so much to be a peer of Hitch. Hawkins.Harris. but he's a poser
Is Jordan saying God is the structure and process of evolution? I like that Idea, sounds like my God. A genetic/evolutionary meme per se. Does God create humans or humans create God or both via post modern scientific theories?
depends on what you mean with existence. because according to most descriptions i hear from believers is that its outside of space and time. wich is the same as saying it doesnt exist. so no, even if their description of God is real, it does not exist.
Being in the hell that brings about the hell is only worse if you are then experiencing the same worst possible missery as those in the hell you created. And if it was a worse misery. Then Sam's point is, well, then that is the one he was talking about.
As much as it pains me to admit it, Jordan makes some reallly good points. While I think I would truly enjoy a world where love governed by rationality would be attainable, I dont believe it is, and agree with Jordan's points on selfishness and intelligence/ignorance. IMO, Sam's view is a bit too Ivory tower, and I just can't see how we get there from here. Douglas brings a nice balance to the conversations and I believe his approach likely has more legs than either Sam's or Jordan's.
In a world governed by physical laws that can be discovered by rationality, would we expect any laws that promote human well being and the avoidance of unnecessary suffering to be irrational? Some of us see rationality as the best evidence for the existence of a transcendent reality we refer to as God. Various religions have come about to help us align ourselves with that rationality. Some are more successful than others.
Here's my problem. "You believe because you've seen. Blessed are those who haven't seen and still believe." -King Jesus I've seen/experienced the miraculous. I don't have the luxury of all of this doubt and debate. When you see the sun rise, you know there's a sun that rises. You don't need to know what is made of, how far away it is, etc.. There is a Son that Rises. His name is Jesus. God loves us, is with us, and is on our side. I believe He is honored by these wonderful men wrestling with the mystery. God bless you fine gentlemen.
Here's my thought on how they could meet in the middle (20 minutes in, after watching their first two debates with Bret Weinstein): It seems Sam isn't necessarily concerned with religion in the sense that it believes in a higher/transcendental ethic or state of being, but the dogmatism typically associated with it. And Jordan is too caught up in defending religion as an institution. My thoughts would be: what if we can have a spirituality/religion/story/myth that isn't dogmatic? Do we need a new 'religion', perhaps? And in a way, Sam's moral landscape (I haven't read the book, but his premise in general so to speak) is it's own story/religion: rationality, which is a hard claim that it is only 'rationality' because we are standing on the foundations of thousands of years of religious and phhilisophical thought that are/were not technically rational.
Good idea, call it something like The Newer Testament. The "stories" could all be fictional and non-fictional and sourced from the greatest hits (from the likes of Shakespeare, MLK, George Orwell, Ayn Rand, even the bibles, etc.). The "origins" and "myths" could all be replaced by actual Laws of Physics (like the Big Bang, and admitting that we do not as of yet know what preceded it), and important natural theories that have gained scientific consensus (like evolution). No god or gods (or demon or demons), per se - because, well, after all, it's you and me (as the Rolling Stones said, "...every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints.").
Given the course of this discussion it is a little ironic that the communist state of China is doing far more than “we” are to prevent the very migrant crisis discussed at one point by investing and fostering development in places like Africa, that “we” capitalists have traditionally exploited...
These were fun and very ineteresting. Though discussions about religion often turn to the 'Can you have morels with out religion.?' argument. to which I would ask, "At what point does all the bad that organised religion has done through out history, outweigh the good that its philosophy offers." Also JP needs to stop conflating the issues. he trys to obfuscate by using verbose and rambling sentances with the aim of confusing and miss-directing. ansd whats with his need to talk about it from a 'meta-physical' point of view instead of approching the argument straight on. That said, GG everyone. Well played.
God used to literally rule the land, in America we we’re burning poor innocent girls alive in the 1600’s because adults believed in voodoo for real, if you claimed the non existence of god you would be put to death, when something that doesnt exist has that kind of power…it must be shut down.
It seems like JP is able to use his curiosity, vast knowledge of psychology, and extensive library of not-so-well-known vocabulary/terms to expand upon virtually any subject. And expand upon it in a way that kinda makes sense but at the same time leads nowhere. It’s like watching a computer run a simulation and the solution is diverging, but you gotta run the simulation to the end of the episode. Would definitely be more interesting if they debated something that was more tangible.
I notice Jordan isn't fighting for Christianity at all here (first hour), he is just fighting for a heirarchy.... one hour and he hasn't realy addressed the Bible in any regard because Sam does and Jordan guess off on a wild trail away from the actual Bible/God. (I love Peterson, but he is human lol)
Jesus told his followers to give to everyone who asks (Luke 6:30), to give to those who can't repay (Luke 14:13 - 14) and to freely give what we have freely received (Matthew 10:8 ) .. Nothing about ..but don't give to much ...
and other religion told other things that people are convinced that their speciic god is the true one cause of their specific scripture quote but of course jordan peterosn god is the only true one, cause jordan peterosn isnt biased about his bias amen
JP ALWAYS seems to think that there's "something deeper" when there's probably not. This is how JP smuggles in all sorts of things. I also find it perplexing that the audience will clap for JP just after he does this. It's quite odd. He still reminds me of tripping freshman phil/psych students.
@@michaelricketson1365 Surely, if there was a God, he wouldn't make it so complicated to believe in him, like we have to crack the DaVinci code to have any idea that he really exists 🙄. There's a difference between thinking that humans need religion and/or stories to make sense out of the world and deal with the anxiety associated with the human condition, and believing that there's an actual God who cares about humans on an individual level and who dishes out punishment and reward. That's why Sam tries to nail him down to whether he believes in God or not, but the best that JP can do is say that he lives "as if there is one." Peterson goes down the rabbit hole every time, in infinite reduction.
@@lifesquandered Is it that complicated? A lot of people believe in God very easily. Believing isn’t the same as proving. And uncertainty recognizes the complexity of reality, certainty does not. As Iain Mcgilchrist says, only the brain’s uncomprehending left hemisphere believes there is certainty to be found anywhere.
It would have been easier for all people to believe in God had he created us to be robots programmed to say "yes" to the question "Do you believe in God?". But of course God chose not to create robots but humans with free will. And as beings with free will, we have chosen not to trust/believe our creator because we want to explore things which he says will destroy us in the end.
@@4luganexistence makes no sense. if you haven't noticed. Atheist make great lawyers, but poor scientist. Jp is complex because existence is complex The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible”. Einstein
I think Peterson works best when he's challenged a little bit, because it forces him make his idea's a little more clear. I think the problem with Peterson is partially that he has many many years of talking down to young students in his university classes, so he's a little too used to rely on his position of authority to make his points for him, rather than really giving himself to a situation where he's not the smartest person in the roam and his idea's still need some work.
Or his viewpoints have never been properly challenged and it shows when talking to people that aren't kids, like with Ben Shapiro sitting across from Sam Harris. Or someone like Alex O'Connor for instance. They sound humbled and immediately lose their authoritarian tone.
Dr. Peterson, if I understand him correctly, feels as is religion brings people together in a unified matter... but that is so not the case seen throughout all of history. It seperates us & that is its purpose. Also, rarely does Dr. Peterson put any reality to the Biblical stories and if that is the case than he would be pleading no reality to Jesus.
God the father is your Sun humanity God the holy spirit is your mother water God the Sun is you humanity Now if you can see all 3 of those statements as one Being , where would you find this truth if you did not have any books ? Now you will find the answer to my 3 statements, when you 👉 Go within 👈 thats my clue between the fingers
According to theologians ... it was a creator that wanted humans to pro-create. I suggest that there wasn't any creator wanting anything ... and that it is natural for all forms of life ... to reproduce.
God is not a religion, would love to hear a conversation on the existance or not of God, leaving out reference to religion to prove or disprove. Religion has nothing to do with God.
23:45 he said we cant continue as our ancestors because we know so much more now... we are finding out almost every day we were wrong on "what we know" so much that much of the thinking world has yet to catch up with what is correct. Most people still believe incorrect information.
There's no sense of irony here when three privileged middle-aged white guys talk about the perils of left leaning ideology. Not that Im leftist. I just found it odd listening to them talk incessantly about not being Hitler. As if both sides don't indiscriminately accuse the other of the old Hitler trope. Could have turned the sound off and guessed what they were saying. A bit petulant in my view.
@@mikealfieri641 He comes across as someone who has made a habit of avoiding scrutiny by tossing word salads while remaining completely convinced of his own brilliance. His inability to yield an inch in an argument without a caveat is a tell that he has a hard time dealing with shame. He seems grandiose, bitter, and mean-spirited towards anything that defies his sensibilities or puts his “flawless thinking” into question. Just my opinion, though
@@ryanreynolds8251 That’s usually what I hear, but then I have yet to find anyone who can make a fucking bullet-point list of these “insights” in a succinct form. Either you can’t because there really are no brilliant insights, or you won’t because in truth, it’s Jordan’s words themselves that feel insightful - not the content of his ideas - and who the fuck has the time to write like Jordan speaks? Listening to Jordan speak is like looking at a Rorschach test. It’s a Charlatan’s trick.
Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion have had a much greater impact on me as a young man than anything in the Bible ever did even when i was a believer in Christ. I dont have to believe the Valar are literally real to appreciate any of that. I wish JP would get over the stories fixation.
How TO bake Sugar Cookies by Jordy P. First of all …I hesitate-NO! Now hear me out on this! It’s the uncertainty of certain certaintudes of collectivizing these particular ingredients into the prolonged mass which is a balance of sucrose and perhaps possibly-though not always-fructose and the animalistic, non-human substance of the storage of energy cells-globbed-well perhaps that’s not the best word but for lack of a better word-say conglomerated as lard substitute-Crisco-if you may. Put those together in an atmosphere of the nether nucleuted egg-neither hot -nor fertilized, much frothing applied, and assert your sociological dominance over the containment therein. That being held loosely together in a large experimental dish, used not for-, neither categorized as for anthropological chambers yet smooth and artful such as is pleasing to particular members of the XX genomic personages-well also a few XY but-No-NO! No trans-whatevers do not count here-This goes back to our ancient ancestors, fer shore, (sp) And Believe me, Bucko- I have studied the difficult-And it IS complicated morphology of the common bowl! Now add 1 cup of chocolate ch-oh did I tell The fascinating Jung once said the attraction of chocolate-Cacao from the jungles-the bean- yes the bean came about because the bean looks like a fetus? YES?! Yes, and women instinctively, collectively even, have a chemicalization and crustacean visualization and verbalization-even a vibration, a vastly viscerous vaccinationvacation of-oh never mind! Chocolate chips! You know what I mean. It’s the substrate of the metaphor of the ethos of the cookie we are looking for here. The bilious barbery done in Barbados is what Niche was speaking of word word salad when the domination theory of the particular patina of the cooking chocolate chip cooling as it enters the open flaming red lips of that classical temptress who -if she still lived in the jungle would KNOW those lips are just antropomorphized clitoral lips. But she knows. SHE KNOWS what she’s doING. So after portioning the cookie dough onto cookie sheets grasp the dial which likened unto a sundial is neither too far right or -Heaven FORBID! Too far left! Set it about 335.6788° degrees referencing of course the 360° divisions of the ancient circle which of course divided into either 3 parts or 4 parts represents Christ as the trinity or the Cross itself, and thus I reject the hypothesis of the actual Christian belief system, but reiterate most vehemently that we cannot lose the stories that make us superior AS christians, especially the non-Melinated Canadadaian most worthy ones. Enjoy your cookies and You are welcome!
Logically / rationally derived values from facts are going to get us in all kinds of dilemma's really fast. It won't even hold in a simple household with children... Gods ways are incomprehensible (Romans 11:33) and look immoral, but who are we to be so arrogant and ignorant and hypocritical to discard of a supernatural creator and it's intentions, based on our, limited scientific and rational conclusions and making up our own values, purpose and how to get there? I believe (and through faith KNOW) God is real, and even though he's omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, we are created in his image and he's left hanging for our love! But we have to choose to love him. That's the whole exercise! But only people that are [...] enough will be enabled to hear this supernatural calling. And that absolute "reality" is way more than the natural.. say physics. Even astronomers like Hawkings have admitted that the most basic physics brake down at the event horizons of black holes and just after the "big bang" so when these laws of physics arent even solid...
No Jordan, You are the only one on that stage who has failed to properly convey your beliefs, that's not an issue everyone has, Its not even an issue all religious people have, that is you fumbling as always because you don't actually believe anything you're supporting so you talk in metaphors and riddles to intentionally be vague because not even you understand wtf it is you're actually trying to convey.
the Bible is written in metaphors and riddles. obviously not everything that is written there should be taken literally. just like Homer's Illiad and Odyssey, the story of the Trojan War between Mycenaeans and Trojans did happen but it obviously wasn't over some kidnapped princes Helen by a Trojan naked Paris. most likely the Trojan War was over the control of the Aegean Sea and all the Greek islands and trade routes and networks. Mycenaeans also had a war against Minions but obviously there isn't some epic tale about it. with the Bible, a person named Moses might have existed during Bronze Age Collapse and he escaped together with a few thousand Jews out from Egypt when the Egyptians were busy fighting against the invading Sea People pirates. and wondering the Sinai peninsula and deserts for 40 years was most likely 4 years of nomadic life before eventually reaching their destination, the promised land of Israel in Canaan. it is because of the Bible that many places, names and now extinct peoples are important in history classes. without the Bible, we probably never would have bothered to look after archeological ruins of ancient Assyrians and their cities of Babylon, Ur or Nineveh.
@@LevisH21 the bible is a crock of harmful magical bullshit, you can't say what is suppose to be taken literally all not, as there's no original copies of any of the books in the Bible, it's not smart to make up your own solutions to make it make sense, it's simply making excuses for stupid shit you know is bullshit so you make up your own interpretations... Especially considering the overwhelming majority actually do take it literally, you can't sit and compare the bible to shit that isn't riddled with magical bullshit, you're smart enough to know that comparison doesn't work in the slightest. I'm not really sure how anything else you said really has anything to do with anything.
@@LevisH21 "obviously things in there aren't suppose to be taken seriously" although they are, because from the get go it's laughably fiction, people do take it all literally... So "obviously" is clearly misplaced and the entire statement is just... Baseless... Ironically enough like the vast majority of the bible. Then you get people like Jordan and I assume yourself who are smart enough to know it's bullshit but are too warped to actually admit it, though Jordan pretty much has admitted it and you'll notice how many Christians straight up disagree with many of his takes and people he debates with literally always leave thinking it's senseless rambling.
I love how it's the moral relativists who argue for there being a hard foundational level of facts. Yet change their definitions and views constantly. Lolz
Very interesting that Jordan believes religion is like a low resolution image, it is almost like he is caught between religious supserstition because he actually believes it and superstition because he thinks it is advantageous to be superstitious.
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
As long as you can get JP to get to a point with all those words :P x
Ok, it got better, still riding.
I love these guys, and I’m enjoying hearing this talk immensely, and I would add, to whom ever produced this, for the future, please get a handle on the microphone feedback problems, which are happening constantly and super distracting
I’m an Audio Engineer and it’s challenging to listen to this without wanting to reach for the mixer and the eq and fix the problem as if I was running sound myself and then I realize I’m just listening to it on UA-cam!!
Anyway… thanks for posting. I appreciate being able to listen to this, regardless.
I've heard Jordan say he's secular but he acts as if God exists. I think we have 2 atheists debating God.
Well he can see what it does for his wife. For all the debate and talk, one only needs to look at how they view God. The unbeliever sees God as he's ready to throw people into hell. The believer says the opposite He saves from hell. In a way both aren't lying which if true would point to Christianity. Because one has been made right with God the other hasent ( yet ).
@@JesusIstheNameTakenInVaincorrection: "He saves people from Hell, that he himself created and condemned people to, unless they do a specific thing that is required that He would exercise his All-Lovingness to save them. If they don't do the thing, then He won't save them from Hell that he created. So better do the thing!"
"When the sage points to the moon, all that the idiot sees is the finger"
@@nemamiah7832 he created hell, for people like yourself, that don’t want to have a relationship with him, so you have a choice to be far away from God, for your own decision and choices. So keep on getting that Fauci juice, it’ll make it easier to be that much close to your internal fiery, tormenting destination.
Pick a side JP. Do you believe in god . & A 6000 yr old earth.or Not.
Indeed, to thoughtfully debate those we respect is an excellent way to “refine our beliefs.”
Has Jordan met Christian’s? They don’t care about truth, and honestly in my experience they don’t care about “you”. They care about their salvation, but in my experience the more they care about religion the less they care about their brother/sister.
Agree
It becomes a matter of dogma rather than relationship.
I hear this all the time and it never seems to be accompanied by a real search for truth. “I had a bad experience with particular people” Not a good way to search for truth.
Fair, so you too are looking for truth and finding religion lacking, I’m right there with you sister/brother. Tell me where are the truths you have found?@@alfymo
I’m an atheist but I wonder if YOU have actually met any Christians and/or are you projecting. Most nonbelievers seem to have a cartoonish mustache twirling view of believers, which in my experience is no where near reality. Most Religious people I know are lovely people and unfortunately most nonbelievers are assholes, I should know I am one.
-Asshole Atheist
I may be one of the only people here that actually believes JP had a good showing.
He is grappling with deep fundamental issues, and trying to do so in a careful way to avoiding stepping on something that could turn out to be important.
Sam is better able to articulate his position in part because he is less cautious about stepping on things, especially things he deems outdated.
As far as Peterson being willing to entertain ideas about the cosmos that some find ridiculous, i don't consider that attack to have as much wieght as others might. There is too much i don't know about the world to be overly critical of any particular view without at leats one great reason.
Sam Harris pulls the same maneuver charlatans do in the name of God. He’ll snatch something out of the old testament. Completely ignoring the word old as a clue to look for its comparison in the new, so he fails to or more likely intentionally avoids.
Moralizes his stance and condemns the whole book Under the assumption that the book is about heaven, and not the world we live in. Sam Harris, avoids the topic and Peterson’s is really the only one on the panel, engaging the topic.
Ummm, noooo, Sam Harris is better able to articulate bc he is SMARTER. JP has a PhD in PHILOSOPHY, Sam Harris has a PhD in NEUROSCIENCE. Further, JP has been disbarred as a psychologist bc of his stance on trans issues.
@@giveadoggyabone1 ohhh! NEUROSCIENCE… big word.
I see what you mean. Sam Harris is hot. Ok girlfriend
@@giveadoggyabone1 How does having a neuroscience degree give someone an edge in articulation over someone with a philosophy degree 🤣. The topic of discussion is philosophical by nature.
Also appeals to authority(degrees) dont really prove who's smarter.
This is surprisingly well put for a UA-cam comment; the trope of cautious stepping is especially artful. It's immediately evocative, and it really _works_ as a relevant notion in this context.
But you have the proposition about fanciful interpretations of the universe the wrong way around. There is so much we don't know about the universe that it is (at best; the worse case is a doozy) overweening hubris to entertain _highly specific_ interpretations of that universe _and at the same time not to acknowledge that such an interpretation is radically absurd and no more probable than any of the literally infinite number of possible speculative interpretations._
No. We must be pitiless in our assessment of such propositions, and in the absence of evidence we need no other "great reason" to dismiss them out of hand. It should rather be the speculative propositions about the universe that require a great reason-evidence, in other words-in order to be taken seriously.
When your dinner table is full you have many problems.
When your dinner table is empty you have only one problem.
52:29 from a very young age, I have held the belief that organized religion is for people who need to be told right from wrong. It is Santa Claus for adults. If you do bad things you won’t get this good thing and you might be punished. The problem with religion is when people are raised into it, and then they decide that it isn’t real or right, a lot of times they throw caution to the wind and go off the deep end of there are no consequences for their actions…
The question to be answered is what is the best framework for understanding the world and our existence. Harris says it is rationalism, Peterson says it is values. Rationalism is fact based and therefore objective. Values are not fact based and therefore subjective. How does one derive values without facts?
"We're going to present each other's arguments."
Jordan Peterson ~ now my problem with this...
Take a shot of morphine every time JP says during these talks:
Metaphorical
Substrate
A priori
Axiom
How did you miss, "Ethos" ???
@@a.drusko1758 that too!
Mispronounced “ethos” at that. Yes, morphine please. 😂
you asking us to die by alchool
@@XeLUA-camWithin the first 20 min...
The conversation is a good idea for people to come to together and at least bring different ideas to light
"To light"? No. Just obfuscations here from JP.
58:32 the best lesson my parents taught me was the golden rule. Put yourself in the other person‘s position, and treat them the way you would want to be treated in the same circumstance. If you live by that, you will make choices that advance society, and are compassionate, and are empathetic, which lead to greater understanding. You don’t need a religion to tell you that. Because again, if you later, decide that religion isn’t real, then the rules from that religion also become not real. And as they’re saying here, those rules serve a purpose in our society.
Ok. Treat Hitler or Manson AS YOU WANT TO BE TREATED and all will be OK
at 41:40 I swear it looks like JP is trying to cast a spell.
You don’t need to see the atoms of which the lion is made; you only need to be scared and run.😂
Depends on your objective, of course.
In this context ("the nitty gritty"), the objective is clear. @@hughmac13
@@OLskewL Are you the chief arbiter of objectives now?
I wonder what Christopher Hitchens would think of all of this.
I wish Peterson and Hitchens had a debate. That would have been interesting.
@@nathanforrest3483 Just watch Deepak Chopra vs Dawkins or Harris to see how that'd go down. It'd be Hitchens trying to nail down what Peterson believes on the existence of God, and then JP being illusive in what he even means by 'God', and often providing a word salad to cover for the fact he being so intellectually opaque
@@jamesthompson9003 Right. I love Hitchens. I always have a hard time with the Peterson types. They're way too confident that they're right.
@@jamesthompson9003 I used to like Peterson. But he's very self righteous. As if he has all the answers to life. Not to mention he has millions of dollars.
@@jamesthompson9003 Comparing Jordan Peterson to Deepak Chopra is like comparing Sam Harris to Matt Dillahunty 💀
Jordan and Sam are on different levels of understanding these topics without strawmanning their opponents for the awe of their crowd
Once again, the question of moral objectivity and its origins or mechanisms of development remains unresolved. Just as you can’t prove evolution was guided or random you can’t prove if moral development of humans was guided or random.
Except you'd actually need some proper evidence of a guide for the "guided" option to even be relevant.
It's not a 50/50. All evidence points towards random mutations and natural selection. And zero evidence for any intentional guide.
Otherwise you can say whatever, "oh, no one can prove it wasn't magical unicorns doing it subconciously while they play around in the cosmos", so it's either unicorns or random, just as likely.
No.
Yes, but to diminish a hypothetically proposed necessitative primal cause to a non-sequitur is a discussion about the secondary nature of said cause, not the essence of it's metaphysical contribution, this also inappropriately undermines the discussion of it's necessary attributes.@@halosaft
First I would like to say thank you to Dr. Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris. I highly enjoyed hearing such an informative and civil debate.
It's obvious that both of these great minds are motivated by a desire to contribute positively to society. Whether it be through the promotion of individual responsibility and self-improvement or that of secular morality and rational discourse each in which seem to have the same objective/interest to make the world a better place.
(It's disappointing to see some of the negative comments on here that aim to belittle either of these men, it's a prime example of individuals whom lack integrity and need to really listen to the advice from Harris and Peterson)
15:48 17:10 18:27 20:12
23:54 ❤22:15❤✝️ 31:30 33:40 37:33 39:00 45:33 50:17
52:15 53:30 55:18 57:20 59:45
1:05:10 1:06:56 1:10:44 1:11:57
1:13:03 1:15:51 1:16:31 1:17:43
1:20:40❤ 1:22:35 ❤ 1:27:18 1:30:58 😂 1:32:18❤ 1:35:34❤ 1:37:22 1:40:33
1:41:25❤ 1:42:42❤ 1:43:40 ❤ 1:45:54
1:46:32 ❤❤ 1:48:29❤ 1:50:00❤ 1:51:19 1:52:28❤❤ 1:53:15❤❤ 1:54:40❤
I enjoyed the open admission of the "Jesus Smuggling". I did appreciate Douglas Murray's comment that at this point in time, even convinced of the value of a religious ethic, one still can't bring themselves to believe. In a way, you can't turn the clock back. What is not quite clear to me is if you grant Peterson's argument that religion and all its facets were the carriers of our Western Christian ethic and that it is difficult and impossible to step outside of it, it still does not establish that the whole system is not man-made or emerges from the human history quite naturally. The Judeo/Christian tradition innovated and incorporated ideas from within and from without. I would like to know Peterson's actual position on the metaphysical claims of Christianity. As far as I can tell, he "believes" in the Christian ethic, but doesn't go further than that. Kind of like an atheist of Jesus.
That was brilliant.
I thought they actually made some progress in this third conversations, with Peterson making a more coherent case for the importance of stories and religious narratives as a basis for moral decision making. The turning point was the realization that Adams's spectrum of well-being looked suspciously like heaven and hell, harboring a covert Christianity. That said, both men still seemed puzzled about the mechanisms of the relationship between fact and value, niether posing any real solutions to the problem. Maybe in part 4.
I miss Christopher Hitchens
Hitch would have a field day with the current state of the world! Him and George Carlin... RIP
Me too!
59:51 significantly, I think, most of our modern day fictional superheroes have their superpowers granted them by science or technology in some way.
That's very interesting observation
The difficulty in inventing a utilitarian ethic that is compelling is that nobody is compelled by something that is handed to them. The first human to invent an axe marveled in its beauty and the power of creation. His axe was both a tool and an accomplishment of motive force. You _give_ somebody an axe, it's just an axe.
Especially the kid in a village where all the adults have 10 axes. What I'm saying is, each new generation especially at puberty is really only getting a snapshot of how the world is for them now, and so they might see all that is wrong with it but they don't fully appreciate that all the good they have that they may not even notice, came along with a lot of bad stuff that is more easy to notice. Because the bad is usually more obvious than the good, because the good is often simply that we are allowed to continue to live in relative comfort and to continue to evolve largely un-accosted. But we don't recognize privilege's that we didn't have to fight for and now operate as the default. But when you try to actually separate the bad from the good it starts to get really complicated and its tedious work that not everyone is built for.
Well that's nonsense. You've made this assertion without considering the concept of gift giving lol. We wouldn't do that if receiving a gift was so boring haha
I love varying view points
TY
I think that something unpleasant for someone and unpleasant for someone's ego are two different things in one person. One unpleasantness is real and the other is a construct.
Around 01:07:45 - Harris seems completely oblivious to any notion that a scientific worldview can and does often result in "[G]iving people license to believe things that they clearly shouldn't believe, things that are intrinsically divisive, intrinsically less than optimal...", etc., as in general he seems to confine any notion of dogmatism to the purely religious sphere. I don't expect much different from him as a seemingly dogmatic scientific physicalist-materialist realist type.
Regarding Elvis, I would ask Sam whether it is better for a person to enjoy listening to Elvis or to dislike him, and what facts-of-the-matter obtain.
JP needs to get to his points faster without rambling off into an analogies and anecdotes. I get his basic points but he doesn't need to dazzle us with language.
Exactly, there's so much unnecessary words coming from him.
What exactly do you mean by that? Can you site an example? Because I don't see it that way at all. It actually helps answers follow-up questions I'd love to ask.
I really don’t think he can help it. It’s just the way he communicates.
It’s fine for me, as long as the point is understood.
Great Dialogue. Love it. More of that!
I wonder if Jordan Peterson has a problem with Muddy Waters?
I watch these conversations between Peterson and Harris with serious interest but work hard in just getting the gist. Once in a while I’ll be surprised and think, “Ah ha! I see exactly what they’re meaning! If only everyone could understand that.”
I wish that men like these were a greater influence on society. After four months there’s only 33,000 views.
Fantastic , enriching debate. We need more of that.
In the last moment Jordan have smuggled Jesus in a Hope clothes anyway.
Even if we use religious values for our grounding. We still often disagree with the values being imposed. So whether it's plates, Republic, or a theocratic framework. We still end up in conflict at some point ?
I think that the arguement is that the most fundamental principle of the divinity of the individual is what successful cultures are built upon. The rest is just decoration. Its rather unimportant to fight over the decoration. It is important to fight over the foundation of the house.
then ahimsa loose, cause false god that use conflic against nonviolence win. so islam win over jains and jordan christianism
Exactly and this is why we cannot dispose of the creator: God! Peterson can't defend true faith for obvious reasons, but if he's pressed on these topics this is going to be the missing link / stronghold between all of his arguments
@@wiemerhoekstra 🤣
Wow....Well said 👏👏 Best thing i've read.
The title of this video, asks the question, is Christianity good? Expect Jesus to be part of it. Not exactly “Jesus smuggling” as described.
Many religions have attempted to define what Christianity is. And have offered many distractions as evidence of their devotion. From eating crackers and grape juice to dunking themselves in water to holding venomous snakes in church service.
Just as a book, solely as a literary work. If the reader of the book is to follow the instruction of Christ, he or she must love like Christ had loved them. To quote Christ,“Love the way I have loved you”.
And that would be despite sin, unconditionally, sacrificially and to not reciprocate offenses.
The first half of that book illustrates how we relate to one another. Exchanging offense with offense, retaliating every slight with wrath and revenge. In the story, the character of Christ accommodates the offenses of “sin” then in essence, asks the reader to follow his example. This is the core principle of Christianity. I don’t know how that could ever be considered as “bad”.
Harris highlights the failures of religion as if the failures of religion represents the crux of Christianity ie “loving like god”, they invariably don’t. Jim Jones claimed to follow Christ and then poisoned his followers. In order to poison your followers you would have to first depart from the core principle of Christianity, or more likely not to have adhered to it in the first place. To believe poisoning your congregation is a tenet of Christianity you would have to believe in the likes of Jim Jones. Although I haven’t heard Harris state Jim Jones specifically however, he has in general made this fallacious assumption with the Catholic Church and other self proclaimed religious disciplines. They do not adhere to the crux of Christianity, so therefore, do not represent Christianity.
I commend Dr. Peterson for not responding in a similar manner when Harris indulges in sarcasm which is a tool of contempt. Very prevalent among the atheist side of the panel in these type of discussions.
Where can I get this full video? It starts after it already started.
Can't focus on the conversation at all while watching, Jordan's chair doesn't have rivets along the bottom, how did that happen, how did you get 3 chairs of the same design and manufacture with that major difference? Was it a massive repair just at the bottom of the chair? Or maybe they had 2 chairs for this format of talk but now that there are 3 guests they ordered another and the design changed in the interim?
Sam Harris reminds me of the character Ishamael in the wheel of time books.
I empathize with that feeling,
Naive with limits= hospitality. The chance to give a Justice person.
Well the moderator is a strategic comedy genius😂
JP dressed like an 1800s charlatan
3 great men
Jordan Peterson seems to have forgotten about Joseph Campbell.
In these debates I always tend to agree with the atheists on most arguments, but none of those arguments shake my faith... I mostly agree that all things can be explained without God, but it is not proof that there is no God
What would proof that there is no god look like?
God is not the problem. Human interpretation of God is the entire problem.
☮️💪❤️😊☯️
NOBODY KNOWS !!!……We will all have our own beliefs and opinions of course. But nobody KNOWS, regardless of what they might tell you.
I mostly agree with the hand on the fire argument but there are some people who do not have the sensory input for pain and they would not notice. It's not an evolutionary advantages trait because lack of that input can lead to death more easily.
Newton, Einstein, Bacon, Heisenberg, Compton, Pascal, Collins, etc. believed in the existence of God. To each their own.
Jordan is basically obsessed with using stories (especially religion) to evaluate humanities collective psyche.
So despite not believing in a literal deity like most people, he can't look beyond the euphoria he feels from traditional stories to evaluate them logically & nuancedly.
Nuancedly is not a word
If God doesn’t exist, who cares about humanity, and what they think, it’s just survival of the fittest, you’re just blades of grass.
@@LordRa88 do you spell check your leader . Trump?
He believes in a pecking order. & Surprise he is on top. He has lied about his education & degrees. He wants so much to be a peer of Hitch. Hawkins.Harris. but he's a poser
@@StevenWolfe-lx8js no, his majesty can spell. Idiot.
Is Jordan saying God is the structure and process of evolution? I like that Idea, sounds like my God. A genetic/evolutionary meme per se. Does God create humans or humans create God or both via post modern scientific theories?
depends on what you mean with existence. because according to most descriptions i hear from believers is that its outside of space and time. wich is the same as saying it doesnt exist. so no, even if their description of God is real, it does not exist.
saying that anything outside of space and time doesnt exist is an unprovable and idiotic statement
Being in the hell that brings about the hell is only worse if you are then experiencing the same worst possible missery as those in the hell you created. And if it was a worse misery. Then Sam's point is, well, then that is the one he was talking about.
So when do we merge Christianity with spirituality as the new Enlightenment religion?
As much as it pains me to admit it, Jordan makes some reallly good points. While I think I would truly enjoy a world where love governed by rationality would be attainable, I dont believe it is, and agree with Jordan's points on selfishness and intelligence/ignorance. IMO, Sam's view is a bit too Ivory tower, and I just can't see how we get there from here. Douglas brings a nice balance to the conversations and I believe his approach likely has more legs than either Sam's or Jordan's.
JP loses everytime.
But I bet if we were a good actor that he'd be great in movies.
I wish God had done something about the constant ringing feedback.
He was busy helping someone get approved for a mortgage.
In a world governed by physical laws that can be discovered by rationality, would we expect any laws that promote human well being and the avoidance of unnecessary suffering to be irrational? Some of us see rationality as the best evidence for the existence of a transcendent reality we refer to as God. Various religions have come about to help us align ourselves with that rationality. Some are more successful than others.
So does God exist or not? 🤷🏻♂️
Lol nice
That depends on what you mean by "God", "exist" and "🤷♂️".
Maybe, but its not to be found in any man made holy book.
@@BennyTwennyGranda man made book which passes on the transcendent idea correctly will do.
Look around you and tell me you believe that everything was created by chance? If that's not proof enough, than believe whatever you want.
Here's my problem. "You believe because you've seen. Blessed are those who haven't seen and still believe." -King Jesus
I've seen/experienced the miraculous. I don't have the luxury of all of this doubt and debate.
When you see the sun rise, you know there's a sun that rises. You don't need to know what is made of, how far away it is, etc..
There is a Son that Rises. His name is Jesus.
God loves us, is with us, and is on our side.
I believe He is honored by these wonderful men wrestling with the mystery. God bless you fine gentlemen.
I in a few beautiful ways genuinely can say I envy you.✌️
when they started talking about their critics it all devolved into nonsense after a very good chunk of time of interesting topics
I'm a fan of two of them and the other one is interesting. In all, I think Sam wins.
Here's my thought on how they could meet in the middle (20 minutes in, after watching their first two debates with Bret Weinstein): It seems Sam isn't necessarily concerned with religion in the sense that it believes in a higher/transcendental ethic or state of being, but the dogmatism typically associated with it. And Jordan is too caught up in defending religion as an institution. My thoughts would be: what if we can have a spirituality/religion/story/myth that isn't dogmatic? Do we need a new 'religion', perhaps? And in a way, Sam's moral landscape (I haven't read the book, but his premise in general so to speak) is it's own story/religion: rationality, which is a hard claim that it is only 'rationality' because we are standing on the foundations of thousands of years of religious and phhilisophical thought that are/were not technically rational.
Good idea, call it something like The Newer Testament. The "stories" could all be fictional and non-fictional and sourced from the greatest hits (from the likes of Shakespeare, MLK, George Orwell, Ayn Rand, even the bibles, etc.). The "origins" and "myths" could all be replaced by actual Laws of Physics (like the Big Bang, and admitting that we do not as of yet know what preceded it), and important natural theories that have gained scientific consensus (like evolution). No god or gods (or demon or demons), per se - because, well, after all, it's you and me (as the Rolling Stones said, "...every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints.").
Given the course of this discussion it is a little ironic that the communist state of China is doing far more than “we” are to prevent the very migrant crisis discussed at one point by investing and fostering development in places like Africa, that “we” capitalists have traditionally exploited...
Ask ‘Does Consciousness exist’ and you have your answer.
These were fun and very ineteresting. Though discussions about religion often turn to the 'Can you have morels with out religion.?' argument. to which I would ask, "At what point does all the bad that organised religion has done through out history, outweigh the good that its philosophy offers."
Also JP needs to stop conflating the issues. he trys to obfuscate by using verbose and rambling sentances with the aim of confusing and miss-directing. ansd whats with his need to talk about it from a 'meta-physical' point of view instead of approching the argument straight on.
That said, GG everyone. Well played.
God used to literally rule the land, in America we we’re burning poor innocent girls alive in the 1600’s because adults believed in voodoo for real, if you claimed the non existence of god you would be put to death, when something that doesnt exist has that kind of power…it must be shut down.
It seems like JP is able to use his curiosity, vast knowledge of psychology, and extensive library of not-so-well-known vocabulary/terms to expand upon virtually any subject. And expand upon it in a way that kinda makes sense but at the same time leads nowhere. It’s like watching a computer run a simulation and the solution is diverging, but you gotta run the simulation to the end of the episode. Would definitely be more interesting if they debated something that was more tangible.
@@keenanjacob5139 Key word being "seems".
I notice Jordan isn't fighting for Christianity at all here (first hour), he is just fighting for a heirarchy.... one hour and he hasn't realy addressed the Bible in any regard because Sam does and Jordan guess off on a wild trail away from the actual Bible/God. (I love Peterson, but he is human lol)
Jesus told his followers to give to everyone who asks (Luke 6:30), to give to those who can't repay (Luke 14:13 - 14)
and to freely give what we have freely received (Matthew 10:8 ) .. Nothing about ..but don't give to much ...
Its not real, mysterious eh
Stay Safe and Stay Free ❤
yikes....staying free is the opposite of staying safe. ask any deer or bunny@@jestermoon
and other religion told other things that people are convinced that their speciic god is the true one cause of their specific scripture quote
but of course jordan peterosn god is the only true one, cause jordan peterosn isnt biased about his bias
amen
@@jestermoon It's a REAL quote .. and my point was that is hoists Perterson by his own petard .
@@BeatsbeeburBeing free is to live within nature and just be. Everything has a predator however, man is the predator of everything on earth. 😂
JP ALWAYS seems to think that there's "something deeper" when there's probably not. This is how JP smuggles in all sorts of things.
I also find it perplexing that the audience will clap for JP just after he does this. It's quite odd.
He still reminds me of tripping freshman phil/psych students.
Why do you think things are simple?
@@michaelricketson1365 Surely, if there was a God, he wouldn't make it so complicated to believe in him, like we have to crack the DaVinci code to have any idea that he really exists 🙄.
There's a difference between thinking that humans need religion and/or stories to make sense out of the world and deal with the anxiety associated with the human condition, and believing that there's an actual God who cares about humans on an individual level and who dishes out punishment and reward.
That's why Sam tries to nail him down to whether he believes in God or not, but the best that JP can do is say that he lives "as if there is one."
Peterson goes down the rabbit hole every time, in infinite reduction.
@@lifesquandered Is it that complicated? A lot of people believe in God very easily. Believing isn’t the same as proving. And uncertainty recognizes the complexity of reality, certainty does not. As Iain Mcgilchrist says, only the brain’s uncomprehending left hemisphere believes there is certainty to be found anywhere.
It would have been easier for all people to believe in God had he created us to be robots programmed to say "yes" to the question "Do you believe in God?".
But of course God chose not to create robots but humans with free will. And as beings with free will, we have chosen not to trust/believe our creator because we want to explore things which he says will destroy us in the end.
@@michaelricketson1365 You don't choose your beliefs. You are either convinced or you're not.
Does Jordan Peterson exist?
In his mind. He makes everything difficult.
That will take me 40 hours to answer. Look, this stuff is not SIMPLE. So there's THAT!!
@@4luganexistence makes no sense. if you haven't noticed. Atheist make great lawyers, but poor scientist.
Jp is complex because existence is complex
The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible”.
Einstein
@@BeatsbeeburWell you might want to tell the National academy of Sciences that because 90% of them are atheists.
I am a non believer my whole life - never had a “Christian” dream ever. Maybe non believers who used to be indoctrinated have some(?)
Yes God only exists in Douglas’s head!
Naive or what the ancient people call Hospitality(Jupiter, Zeus).
I really hope Jordan reads these comments and reassesses himself.
Lol in what sense
Why did God make hell in the first place???
I think Peterson works best when he's challenged a little bit, because it forces him make his idea's a little more clear. I think the problem with Peterson is partially that he has many many years of talking down to young students in his university classes, so he's a little too used to rely on his position of authority to make his points for him, rather than really giving himself to a situation where he's not the smartest person in the roam and his idea's still need some work.
Or his viewpoints have never been properly challenged and it shows when talking to people that aren't kids, like with Ben Shapiro sitting across from Sam Harris. Or someone like Alex O'Connor for instance. They sound humbled and immediately lose their authoritarian tone.
Dr. Peterson, if I understand him correctly, feels as is religion brings people together in a unified matter... but that is so not the case seen throughout all of history. It seperates us & that is its purpose. Also, rarely does Dr. Peterson put any reality to the Biblical stories and if that is the case than he would be pleading no reality to Jesus.
God the father is your Sun humanity
God the holy spirit is your mother water
God the Sun is you humanity
Now if you can see all 3 of those statements as one Being , where would you find this truth if you did not have any books ?
Now you will find the answer to my 3 statements, when you 👉 Go within 👈 thats my clue between the fingers
According to theologians ... it was a creator that wanted humans to pro-create.
I suggest that there wasn't any creator wanting anything ... and that it is natural for all forms of life ... to reproduce.
God is not a religion, would love to hear a conversation on the existance or not of God, leaving out reference to religion to prove or disprove. Religion has nothing to do with God.
the only reason Sam Harris is going near that clown is to sell his own books - which is fair enough, i suppose
no one on this stage knows what a leftist is😂😂
23:45 he said we cant continue as our ancestors because we know so much more now... we are finding out almost every day we were wrong on "what we know" so much that much of the thinking world has yet to catch up with what is correct. Most people still believe incorrect information.
(⑉⊙ȏ⊙) The sun is dire. It makes some people feel dread. They are the fallen ones.
Does God exist? when you say "god", you mean...?
There's no sense of irony here when three privileged middle-aged white guys talk about the perils of left leaning ideology. Not that Im leftist. I just found it odd listening to them talk incessantly about not being Hitler. As if both sides don't indiscriminately accuse the other of the old Hitler trope. Could have turned the sound off and guessed what they were saying. A bit petulant in my view.
Please name any major person or group on the left, who is for totally open borders ?
This is the last time we saw Sam Harris not finally broken.
I believe there is a god
I stopped listening during Petersons first comment. It wasn't even a reply, it was meaningless rhetoric.
Lol its crazy how JP's points fly right over most of the naive comments heads. This man is dismantling all of Sam's arguements 1 by 1
Example?
@m0zric All I hear is blah blah blah, trust me bro from JP.
@@mikealfieri641 He comes across as someone who has made a habit of avoiding scrutiny by tossing word salads while remaining completely convinced of his own brilliance.
His inability to yield an inch in an argument without a caveat is a tell that he has a hard time dealing with shame. He seems grandiose, bitter, and mean-spirited towards anything that defies his sensibilities or puts his “flawless thinking” into question.
Just my opinion, though
@@m0zric if you are intellectually incapable of understanding his insights, then of course it sounds like word salad. Open your mind (and your ears)
@@ryanreynolds8251 That’s usually what I hear, but then I have yet to find anyone who can make a fucking bullet-point list of these “insights” in a succinct form.
Either you can’t because there really are no brilliant insights, or you won’t because in truth, it’s Jordan’s words themselves that feel insightful - not the content of his ideas - and who the fuck has the time to write like Jordan speaks?
Listening to Jordan speak is like looking at a Rorschach test. It’s a Charlatan’s trick.
So it's just aspects of your complex agendas?
Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion have had a much greater impact on me as a young man than anything in the Bible ever did even when i was a believer in Christ. I dont have to believe the Valar are literally real to appreciate any of that. I wish JP would get over the stories fixation.
No. Next question
How TO bake Sugar Cookies by Jordy P.
First of all …I hesitate-NO! Now hear me out on this! It’s the uncertainty of certain certaintudes of collectivizing these particular ingredients into the prolonged mass which is a balance of sucrose and perhaps possibly-though not always-fructose and the animalistic, non-human substance of the storage of energy cells-globbed-well perhaps that’s not the best word but for lack of a better word-say conglomerated as lard substitute-Crisco-if you may. Put those together in an atmosphere of the nether nucleuted egg-neither hot -nor fertilized, much frothing applied, and assert your sociological dominance over the containment therein. That being held loosely together in a large experimental dish, used not for-, neither categorized as for anthropological chambers yet smooth and artful such as is pleasing to particular members of the XX genomic personages-well also a few XY but-No-NO! No trans-whatevers do not count here-This goes back to our ancient ancestors, fer shore, (sp) And Believe me, Bucko- I have studied the difficult-And it IS complicated morphology of the common bowl!
Now add 1 cup of chocolate ch-oh did I tell The fascinating Jung once said the attraction of chocolate-Cacao from the jungles-the bean- yes the bean came about because the bean looks like a fetus? YES?! Yes, and women instinctively, collectively even, have a chemicalization and crustacean visualization and verbalization-even a vibration, a vastly viscerous vaccinationvacation of-oh never mind! Chocolate chips! You know what I mean. It’s the substrate of the metaphor of the ethos of the cookie we are looking for here. The bilious barbery done in Barbados is what Niche was speaking of word word salad when the domination theory of the particular patina of the cooking chocolate chip cooling as it enters the open flaming red lips of that classical temptress who -if she still lived in the jungle would KNOW those lips are just antropomorphized clitoral lips. But she knows. SHE KNOWS what she’s doING.
So after portioning the cookie dough onto cookie sheets grasp the dial which likened unto a sundial is neither too far right or -Heaven FORBID! Too far left! Set it about 335.6788° degrees referencing of course the 360° divisions of the ancient circle which of course divided into either 3 parts or 4 parts represents Christ as the trinity or the Cross itself, and thus I reject the hypothesis of the actual Christian belief system, but reiterate most vehemently that we cannot lose the stories that make us superior AS christians, especially the non-Melinated Canadadaian most worthy ones. Enjoy your cookies and You are welcome!
brilliant hahahahaha
So much material to work with! He/you should go on tour. 😊
Logically / rationally derived values from facts are going to get us in all kinds of dilemma's really fast. It won't even hold in a simple household with children...
Gods ways are incomprehensible (Romans 11:33) and look immoral, but who are we to be so arrogant and ignorant and hypocritical to discard of a supernatural creator and it's intentions, based on our, limited scientific and rational conclusions and making up our own values, purpose and how to get there?
I believe (and through faith KNOW) God is real, and even though he's omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, we are created in his image and he's left hanging for our love! But we have to choose to love him. That's the whole exercise! But only people that are [...] enough will be enabled to hear this supernatural calling. And that absolute "reality" is way more than the natural.. say physics. Even astronomers like Hawkings have admitted that the most basic physics brake down at the event horizons of black holes and just after the "big bang" so when these laws of physics arent even solid...
No Jordan, You are the only one on that stage who has failed to properly convey your beliefs, that's not an issue everyone has, Its not even an issue all religious people have, that is you fumbling as always because you don't actually believe anything you're supporting so you talk in metaphors and riddles to intentionally be vague because not even you understand wtf it is you're actually trying to convey.
the Bible is written in metaphors and riddles.
obviously not everything that is written there should be taken literally.
just like Homer's Illiad and Odyssey, the story of the Trojan War between Mycenaeans and Trojans did happen but it obviously wasn't over some kidnapped princes Helen by a Trojan naked Paris.
most likely the Trojan War was over the control of the Aegean Sea and all the Greek islands and trade routes and networks.
Mycenaeans also had a war against Minions but obviously there isn't some epic tale about it.
with the Bible, a person named Moses might have existed during Bronze Age Collapse and he escaped together with a few thousand Jews out from Egypt when the Egyptians were busy fighting against the invading Sea People pirates.
and wondering the Sinai peninsula and deserts for 40 years was most likely 4 years of nomadic life before eventually reaching their destination, the promised land of Israel in Canaan.
it is because of the Bible that many places, names and now extinct peoples are important in history classes.
without the Bible, we probably never would have bothered to look after archeological ruins of ancient Assyrians and their cities of Babylon, Ur or Nineveh.
@@LevisH21 the bible is a crock of harmful magical bullshit, you can't say what is suppose to be taken literally all not, as there's no original copies of any of the books in the Bible, it's not smart to make up your own solutions to make it make sense, it's simply making excuses for stupid shit you know is bullshit so you make up your own interpretations... Especially considering the overwhelming majority actually do take it literally, you can't sit and compare the bible to shit that isn't riddled with magical bullshit, you're smart enough to know that comparison doesn't work in the slightest.
I'm not really sure how anything else you said really has anything to do with anything.
@@LevisH21 "obviously things in there aren't suppose to be taken seriously" although they are, because from the get go it's laughably fiction, people do take it all literally... So "obviously" is clearly misplaced and the entire statement is just... Baseless... Ironically enough like the vast majority of the bible.
Then you get people like Jordan and I assume yourself who are smart enough to know it's bullshit but are too warped to actually admit it, though Jordan pretty much has admitted it and you'll notice how many Christians straight up disagree with many of his takes and people he debates with literally always leave thinking it's senseless rambling.
I love how it's the moral relativists who argue for there being a hard foundational level of facts. Yet change their definitions and views constantly. Lolz
Very interesting that Jordan believes religion is like a low resolution image, it is almost like he is caught between religious supserstition because he actually believes it and superstition because he thinks it is advantageous to be superstitious.
Like all people, here's a pair unable to logically convince each other about opinions held/acquired in illogical/irrational ways.
Does God literally exist?