"It's Sheer Bullsh*t” - Richard Dawkins on Jordan Peterson's Theology

Go to ground.news/AlexOC to see through media bias. Subscribe through my link this month only for 30% off unlimited access
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / alexoc
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- VIDEO NOTES
The full episode with Richard Dawkins is coming this Sunday.
- SPECIAL THANKS
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
John Early
Dmitry C.
Seth Balodi
James Davis
g8speedy
James Davis
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: [e-mail]
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------

[@CosmicSkeptic]

Go to ground.news/AlexOC to see through media bias. Subscribe through my link this month only for 30% off unlimited access

[@fpeverini]

Really can't wait. Excellent as always.

[@Pumpkinking64]

Alex, why isn't this full episode available now for patrons? I don't see why we would have to wait. Not gonna watch this clip as I would rather watch the interview in full.

[@mrac..]

Congratulations on 666k subscribers!

[@Luziferne]

Ground.news, at least from my european viewpoint, is heavily biased by a USA centric political standpoint. Were news papers that are seen as right-wing here, are named as left to mid leaning! iE. derStandart.at, a self-proclaimed business or neo-liberal news paper is described as left leaning by ground-news… But then, US Dems and Reps ARE more right leaning then some of our right-wing partys here in Austria... and we still have one that's more then just flirting with Neo-fascism

[@CosmicSkeptic]

@@Pumpkinking64available now!

[@noeditbookreviews]

Somewhere in a class room in Canada 50 years ago. "Tim". "Here" "Sally". "Here" "Elliot". "Here" "Jordan". "Well it's like, that depends on what you mean by role, and call. It's like it's not that bloody simple so as to just say whether or not I'm here, you know? It's like, come on."

[@mask_of_moon]

Hahahaha

[@Stafus]

"what a tangled web we weave" sums up peterson perfectly.

[@bereal6590]

Oh my, I've just been down the tribal rabbit hole of Peterson cult fans, came he to decompress! Great comment 😆😆

[@larscincaid6348]

I like Jordan...but that was pretty funny.

[@Stafus]

@@larscincaid6348 people who like peterson are dirt under my feet.

[@jziffi]

Well, that depends how you define "sheer" and "bullshit"

[@LoisoPondohva]

It would take me at least 2 days and the whole works of Solzhenitsyn to do so.

[@makefoxhoundgreatagain842]

🦞 Say it in JPs voice 🦞

[@user-ez3sj8hm8i]

Perfect comment

[@atticusosullivan9332]

It's a complicated question, man. Like what do you mean by "define" EXACTLY?

[@WayWalker3]

Sheer = nothing other than; unmitigated (used for emphasis). Bullshit = stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense.

[@jcondron]

The actual Voltaire quote is, "“There is no God, but don’t tell that to my servant, lest he murder me at night.”

[@steveabrams4314]

Religion was simply used to control the poor and keep them brainwashed.

[@shrinivaaspillai6327]

Voltaire is already murder by his thoughts there is no God,Bible says the fools says there is no God.

[@marcokite]

Voltaire's last words to his doctor; 'I am abandoned by God and man. I will give you half of what I am worth if you will give me six months of life. Then I shall go to hell and you will go with me, oh, Christ, oh, Jesus Christ!'

[@KononR-gz4vo]

​@@marcokite- What is he saying?

[@Ratinevo]

Same premise as he used, I think.

[@Durzo1259]

There was a Muslim guy (who's name I forget) who interviewed Peterson, a very far-right conservative Muslim type, but he was absolutely right about one thing: he said Peterson detests post-modernism in politics, but turns into a post-modernist himself when describing religion. Instead of admitting "there's no evidence for these claims in the Bible," it's always "Well the claims are absolutely true if you interpret them in this super-convoluted, round-about way if you turn everything into an allegory of the human condition...." It's pretty obvious Peterson doesn't believe in God, he believes in the value of belief in God and so he convolutes every explanation of religion to abstractly rationalize why untrue things are really true. This is exactly what the post-modernist social justice fanatics do, distort and twist rationality so they can serve the "greater good" of believing in lies.

[@SA-be1bn]

Peterson is saying that merely stating a belief in God is meaningless on its own. Instead, he says that belief is truly demonstrated through actions. Additionally, he says that the stories in the Bible symbolize the situations individuals encounter in life, and the choices they make have predetermined consequences, as depicted in these stories.

[@Durzo1259]

@@SA-be1bn Then when someone asks him "Is Adam and Eve a true story?" he should say "No, not literally, but here's what it represents allegorically."

[@HkFinn83]

I think he believes in the value of hawking bs to a right wing audience of rubes and numpties

[@canadada640]

... Peterson is TRYING to save Western Culture ... He recognizes that without a collective Religious Belief in a Higher Being, humans flounder, decay & disintegrates ...

[@SA-be1bn]

​@@Durzo1259 Watch title--> “Why Christians get FRUSTRATED with you” w/ Jordan Peterson,

[@stevenlukasiewicz6305]

"If you cant explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"-Albert Einstein

[@Youshallbeeatenbyme]

"I didn't hit her. I DID NOT!" - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

[@Emwye-hf5oc]

If you can't UNDERSTAND it simply, I'll have to explain it in ways for YOU to understand. It's hilarious how you assume Jordan Peterson can't explain things simply, when really he's elaborating on a complex topic, which he has MULTIPLE times explained VERY simply - it's just you guys who don't understand lmao

[@briankenyon1543]

​@@Emwye-hf5ochuughgg🤢🤮 Jordan simps have to be one of the lowliest pond scum out there... Weak little cry baby's afraid of the world..🥹

[@stevenlukasiewicz6305]

@@Emwye-hf5oc Here's what Peterson does, He takes an extremely obvious truism or platitude. Restates it using as many words in garbled mess, completely unintelligible, but his fans are impressed by this. He will pull words from different academic disciplines but they really don't apply. He keeps it vague and is never specific, acting confident. He will drone on and on in a circular fashion as his adoring fans think this is profound. Peterson has good advice on basic pop psychology-make your bed, or when he is crying on air for incels. When he comments on cultural topics, he's out of his lane and it's a total grift. Now

[@stevenlukasiewicz6305]

@@Emwye-hf5oc "you don't understand it" this is the go to comment for Peterson fanboys enamoured by his long winded conflations. It's like that kid that just took a philosophy class trying to think out loud. People will start seeing through it

[@LindsayNikole]

VERY excited for this full episode to come out

[@sidewinder9258]

Hey you're here too, what a pleasant surprise!

[@aarondobson8433]

Lobster video incoming lol

[@sum8601]

oh snapping turtles, sup Lindsay! You should reach out to Dawkins and discuss the unacceptability of gulper eels. They're the true "sheer bullshit" that needs to be confronted.

[@daelaenor]

Are you here because of Richard Dawkins or because of Alex? Very unexpected, although kind of funny.

[@hambonesmithsonian8085]

YOOO! Look who it is!!!

[@jackspencer8290]

3:14 "Yes, we sandwiched the 'bullshit' in between the respect." 😂

[@Astrophile2345]

Lol😂

[@dinosore4782]

Did he say he respect Jordan Peterson there ?

[@DavidHayes-oz9to]

@@dinosore4782 Yeah. I've lost a lot of respect for Dawkins over the last several years. Of course he respects Peterson's refusal to show common decency & respect to other humans.

[@dinosore4782]

@@DavidHayes-oz9to holy shit how can he be this stupid . “His entire philosophy is snake oil but I commend him for fighting against the people who tell him that”

[@user-nj9ru4ef2w]

@@DavidHayes-oz9to Funny, because that's the exact opposite of what JP stands for, unlike woke western liberals who are the very definition of a lack of common decency and respect to other humans (with different ideological views than them)

[@GarySchiltz]

I listened to as much as I could stand of the conversation between Peterson and Dawkins. "Sheer Bullsh*t" certainly describes my takeaway from Peterson.

[@k.t.1641]

Funny. I was gonna say the same about both of them.

[@Stafus]

"what a tangled web we weave" sums up peterson perfectly.

[@GarthShoemaker]

As somebody who often forgets a button on my shirt it's comforting to see I'm in good company.

[@KansatsuPumbaa]

Same here! Beautiful blue shirt that is btw.

[@darrenpaech1342]

😂

[@MacLaw3084]

was looking for this comment. I miss a belt loop from time to time.

[@ThePossumone]

Misses a button on his shirt but he understands the depth and length of the Universe ? Um ….

[@liamsouthwell27]

BUT I bet you all have enough confidence despite it to think that you know what's best for the planet and humanity, right?

[@dm_psych_]

As a psychologist it warms my heart to hear Dawkins use the phrase "sheer bullshit" ❤️

[@raphyd1466]

You must be a terrible psychologist

[@dm_psych_]

@@raphyd1466 I'll never be as bad as JP 💃

[@carlfrazer-lunn5022]

@@raphyd1466 yeah makes complete sense that enjoying one phrase would undermine the quality of your entire career

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@dm_psych_ You'll never be as compelling or interesting as JP either.

[@kingsman428]

​@@sliglusamelius8578Only for some things but he also talks complete bollocks about other topics especially religion.

[@bensdecoypoondummy1189]

Holy fucking shit.. I haven't seen your videos since you were a young teen called CosmicSkeptic lol... I'm so profoundly happy to see you still on here doing so well and getting to chat with people like R. Dawkins. Good for you dude, you've made my day

[@madmike0064]

Hello fellow Yognaught.

[@user-dq3vw6md6b]

Total crap

[@truthseeker5698]

Jesus The Messiah is there 24/7 to talk with too. Believe and life will be more hopeful in an instant. All the best.

[@user-dq3vw6md6b]

@@truthseeker5698 nope. Youre lying. There is no one

[@truthseeker5698]

@@user-dq3vw6md6b Your choice , your stewardship , all the best.

[@davidmonestes7187]

Where can i find the all interview ?

[@FaizelMoosa-og3yl]

In local Agony Aunt column son

[@JStrummer1]

Nailed it. Peterson's fanboys have a hard time telling anybody what Peterson said because his only real talent is verbosity

[@mattmyers2624]

How's Peterson compare to Shapiro?

[@jacksonelmore6227]

I say this unpatronizingly, and in good faith You literally have not raised your consciousness to a level where you can understand JP You have an intellectual ego that blocks your path Realize the Self

[@transvestosaurus878]

@@jacksonelmore6227 You sound like a cultist

[@tomyossarian7681]

@@jacksonelmore6227 I say this with best intentions - i have personally seen fraudsters with below average IQ struggle their way through academia, tooth and claw, until they got that piece of paper saying they are now PhD. After that, it’s like s painter with a degree that puts a circle over the square, paints 2 intersections red, gives it a title “The universe bleeding consciousness through the pain of understanding” and sells it for 5000€. You wouldn’t happen to have such a painting on your wall somewhere, would you?

[@jacksonelmore6227]

@@transvestosaurus878 cults are for those unaware of the Self

[@brunoactis1104]

Gotta be honest, the more i mature as a young man, the more i see Peterson as a crazy grifter that once in the past had a point, until he got into politics. Now's he's almost a demon considering the misinformation and lies he spreads while talking as if he was truth incarnate.

[@jamesedmonds7519]

He never had a point. His own colleagues thought he was an idiot.

[@teamcoalhapcharcoal]

Up yours, woke moralist! We'll see who cancels who!

[@Steelmage99]

Jordan Peterson has a disturbing view of himself and his ideas; Jordan Peterson thinks of his ideas as objective transcendent concepts, that he is merely delivering unto humanity. When asked during an interview, if he was a religious prophet, he was silent for a long time ......before worrying out aloud about how he would be conceptualized depending on his answer, finally ending on; " _No, he is not_ ". That is a man who actually *_do_* see himself as a religious prophet, but realizes how that makes him sound. As he said in an interview with the Telegraph; " _I am an embodiment of a set of ideas..Those ideas aren't mine..They are the collective ideas of the human race, in some sense..To the degree that I can articulate them properly for this time and place, then I can communicate those ideas to myself and to other people, but I don't want to be mistaken for their source. I am not their source, and I am very aware of that and I do what I can to make that clear to myself - and my family helps me out with that a lot. They understand the danger, as well_ " The opening sentence of his first book, his magnum opus _Maps of Meaning_ , was; " _I will utter things which has been kept secret from the world_ " (Matthew 13:35). Said book also contains a letter Peterson sent to his father, saying; " _I don't know, Dad, but I think I have discovered something that no one else has any idea about, and I'm not sure I can do it justice. It's scope is so broad that I can see only parts of it clearly at one time, and it is exceedingly difficult to set down comprehensively in writing_ " He believes in prophetic dreams and heavily mystifies their origin. In addition, he told Bernard Shiff (his friend and mentor at University of Toronto) that he was interested in buying a church and delivering sermons every Sunday. He obviously sees himself as a mere vessel for the truths of the universe. Nothing cultish about that, I guess. At university Jordan Peterson's students complained that, while he was engaged and motivating, he also had a tendency to dealing in "delivered truths". The aforementioned Bernard Schiff participated in some of Jordan's lectures, and noted his proclivity to present his opinions as facts. When confronted with this Jordan admitted the problem, but didn't adjust his way of teaching. He protested in principle to having his articles peer-reviewed by the university research ethics committee. He demonstrably has an issue with authority or rules that applies to him, that he hasn't gotten straightened out in childhood. - He didn't want to be peer-reviewed or being subservient to oversight as a professor. - He refused to follow university guidelines regarding teacher/student interactions, because he thought the guidelines were "stupid". - Famously he didn't want to call people by their preferred pronoun or legal name (Peterson later stated, that he would respect a person's preferred pronoun/name, _IF_ Peterson determined it was a sincere desire. That determination would be done by _HIM_ ). JP has yet to demonstrate such a willingness (see "Elliot Page"). - His response to Twitter suspending him for failing to adhere to the rules was; "WHAT RULES, YOU SONS OF BITCHES?!!?". Attempts to explain to JP, that the "rules" was the EULA he signed to get a profile on Twitter has so far failed. - Peterson doubt that men and women can coexist in the workplace and reduce harassment, "because we don't know what the rules are" - despite entire HR departments making such rules. - His reluctance to follow rules put before him has prompted Peterson to claim that he would hunger strike or rather die, than follow rules he doesn't like. - He has recently been such an antagonistic force to the organization from which he draws quite a bit of his legitimacy (Ontario College of Psychologists), that he has been asked to update his knowledge and keep his education up to date. Jordan Peterson has refused to do this. In short, Jordan Peterson is a warped person in need of help, who is one small voice in his head away from becoming a cult leader or a comic book super villain.

[@ironshoes1720]

​@@teamcoalhapcharcoalBelligerent much today, aren't we?

[@mingus445_gaming]

@@Steelmage99 i hope he does become a supervillain. he's an ubermensch, legitimately

[@MasonTorrey]

I watched you years ago as the young Cosmic Skeptic and I couldn't wait to see what you do later in life. I'm so proud of you for what you're doing now. I look forward to following you for years to come.

[@alexjp123]

This seems to be a trend now with Christians in particular, the mental gymnastics used to explain or refuse to explain aspects of the religion so they don't need to defend it is spectacular

[@FaizelMoosa-og3yl]

You clever boy .Maybe Allah open you mind

[@thepunisherxxx6804]

I don't necessarily have a problem if people find strength in faith. If it helps them with depression and motivation and they don't hurt others go for it. Its when they use it to trump what we see in reality with science and observation that makes me mad. I think the most logical thing someone can be is agnostic. There is no way to know what happens after death, we don't even know why we exist like this. That's why I'm open to faith if it helps people, but logically all we can do is concern ourselves with the world we live in now, navigating its challenges and trying to raise the quality of life and ease suffering.

[@paulM-gs7jz]

​@@thepunisherxxx6804 I find somewhat disappointing that so may people have been led to find strength and ability to cope with life in faith / god. . If there were better leaders over the millennia perhaps many humans could have developed better skills in finding strength in themselves and their cohabitants. But then i'm caught with the issue that one key output of religious belief is that people find strength for themselves in their belief in a god. Just wish this output was not garnered by a belief in a god and instead understanding and believing in oneself.

[@OuterRimPride]

When people catch me in a lie I’ll just say “well, it’s true in a sort of meta way.”

[@roykeane1922]

There are no facts or lies in this space. That is the point/problem

[@dixonhill1108]

Alright hundred buck is money true? Or is it based on a lie?

[@OuterRimPride]

Both of you had the chance to say something that made sense. Neither of you took it.

[@jameswarrren2545]

And what does that mean?

[@thejuiceking2219]

@@jameswarrren2545 absolutely nothing, and that's the point

[@FoOtFoOt542]

Jordan Peterson has credibility because he puts his fingers together when he speaks.

[@Astyl_]

You made me spit out my drink. Ahagahgahahahaghahaha.

[@bobsbigboy_]

hahahahaha

[@kathleendubois7128]

It is highly effective😅

[@bengeurden1272]

And he quotes Jung pseudoscience all the time and talks about hierchical structures to promote far-right 🤣

[@gavrilogligoric280]

wow you guys are dipsticks.... For real you mean so? Send me your speeches adn lectures pls

[@-Kailinn-]

This is the issue I have with thinkers and philosophers, particularly those in our modern era whom I can directly observe. They often employ overly complex and complicated language, either to demonstrate their intelligence, to establish their qualifications to speak on a subject, or, worst of all, to prevent the audience from engaging in the subject. The reason it takes so long for JBP, whom I respect and admire, to say anything is precisely because every utterance comes with a spaghetti of words strung together before he reaches a point.

[@aukemebel4263]

It's sad to see that age is fast keeping up with Richard Dawkins, but it's good to see his mind is still proper sharp. Thank you Richard for all you have contributed to the world.

[@LoisoPondohva]

Well, the man's 82

[@crossjadam]

I thought he looked great for his age in this.

[@Mutterschwein]

Damn he actually looks good still. I thought he was in his early 70's. @@LoisoPondohva

[@UltimateIrishRebel]

I think he looks and sounds better than he did a year or two ago

[@maszlagma]

I think he looks great! Apparently he is over 80 years old but looking at him I thought he was around 70!

[@Mrhaoable]

No idea how jp can link a tribal statues of snakes coiling together to them knowing about DNA when that’s what snakes do when they mate .

[@jackrussell1232]

Well, it's mostly because he's full of shit and idiots love those kinds of things. It makes them feel smart.

[@liamthomas2014]

True. How do snakes pass on there DNA. Mating. Devil advocate here

[@burgermind802]

@liamthomas2014 that's not a valid interference sir. unless you believe God created snakes as a symbol of DNA to educate primitive tribes... which doesn't make any sense either. it's all incoherent from an intellectual perspective. religion and intellectual are two different hats

[@liamthomas2014]

@@burgermind802 yeh it’s dumb as fuck

[@liamthomas2014]

My only small amount of speculation is when people take drugs like auwaska they often see snakes and SOMEHOW there self conscious showed it to them. Mental theory don’t believe it but sharings caring

[@user-qj5li7rn6n]

Everyone HAS to walk in faith. If you didn’t you wouldn’t get out of bed in the morning.

[@ivanvityazev2530]

Yes. Conversation with professor Lenox is in order

[@QuixoticIgnotism]

THIS!!!! Agreed! Dawkins stated to Peterson " You are drunk on symbolism" and I totally agree!

[@Raygun9000]

Some of what JP says is kinda like horoscopes, but using convoluted and rarely used language. You can find 'the' meaning if you look hard enough. But this is not always the case, much of what he says has great utility, it's just tainted by this woo nonsense.

[@ANTIStraussian]

​@@Raygun9000 Joe Rogan: what do you want for lunch? JP: men are order and women are chaos.

[@alexmousley7213]

I ended up with a book ("Memories, dreams, reflections") by Jung, which got returned with some items that had been stolen so I, at the time, saw it as a sign I should read it. I found Jung to be extremely obsessive about symbolism, finding it in everything as if everything had great significance, it was extrememly annoying! I can only imagine how laden with such ideas his psychological models are! Though, culturally, the more religious yoyu have been brought up, the more likely you are to find symbolism in certain things (priming in psychological terms).

[@Raygun9000]

@@ANTIStraussian order is masculine, chaos is feminine. Now, chaotically order my lunch bucko!

[@tonoornottono]

@@Raygun9000which is to say, you can project anything sensible to cut through his nonsense? he speaks gibberish, so anything you understand as “useful” is probably something you put there yourself. unless you’re talking about his obvious advice? clean your room and such? wow what a cleric.

[@FromDesertTown]

When Jordan Peterson is asked a simple question that might offend some of his cult members, he dials up the pretentiousness and answers in the abstract, hoping nobody will notice that he is dodging the question. When Jordan Peterson is asked a simple question that he knows his cult members will like, he answers with a single word or short sentence.

[@Mercury630]

That's the right thing to do when you're fighting censorship and milking screentime instead of running straight to the ban hammer.

[@marioncarbonell6047]

Basically the same thing that Ben Shapiro does, throw a bunch of random words here and there to confuse you and make it sound like I’m in the right and you’re wrong because you weren’t able to answer back to what I just said.

[@hamster4618]

@@Mercury630 nope, its the right thing to do if you want to keep the dollars from your fan base coming in. He may have prided himself on honesty once upon a time, but those days have long gone. The cash on the other hand is coming in by the buckets.

[@theloveandlogic]

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. If you understand what this means, you will see why you are completely wrong in what you say.

[@ThePetlowany]

Well said.

[@EclecticDiscus]

Gotta Love Richard Dawkins clarity. Only wish Christopher Hitchens was still with use.

[@anyoneanyone28]

Newsflash: Renowned Atheist Criticizes Prominent Christian Speaker's Views on Christianity

[@lookbovine]

Except the latter won’t admit to being a Christian. 😮

[@FernieSenders]

Tried to find a source for the Voltaire quote and the best I could find is that it was misattributed to Voltaire in the book Sapiens.

[@TomboLP]

Excellent! The irony of it being followed by a call for context and credibility is delicious.

[@YouzTube99]

The more common translation is: "“There is no God, but don’t tell that to my servant, lest he murder me at night.”" It is usually attributed to Voltaire and does indeed seem to be consistent with his work but the authorship is also challenged without identifying the actual source.

[@FernieSenders]

@@TomboLP Glad someone else caught that

[@FernieSenders]

@@YouzTube99 source?

[@YouzTube99]

@@FernieSenders It's a bit of a circular reference. In his best selling book 'Sapiens', Yuval Noah Harari, attributes that quote to Voltaire. Most people just assumed that was correct but a lot of us said "Huh??" and tried to trace it to Voltaire's writings. My own searches turned up a lot of questions but no-one was able to connect it to Voltaire. Thus, it appears to be yet another thought provoking quote credited to a famous person that likely belongs to someone who is not. I can't find any comment from Harari on the controversy and he does not document it in the endnotes. His PhD is from Oxford. Both he and his editor know better.

[@nickarvis2986]

It's so sad that hitchens isn't around to debate Peterson

[@criticalcommenter]

This channel has covered hitch and his "debate" style. Tbh I think Peterson would destroy him. That's coming from a big hitch fan

[@xandr13]

​@@criticalcommenter What are you on about? Hitch would absolutely demolish him, JP has huge logical gaps in his reasoning. His only commentary that has some worth is in the realm of psychiatry, everything else he's tried to debate was just a word salad.

[@criticalcommenter]

@@xandr13 Hitch was a bad debater. Relied on cheap jokes and confusing the audience. I guess that makes him a very successful debater in a way but as a pursuit of truth he didn't really add much. I'm a huge hitch fan but he was often wrong

[@xandr13]

@@criticalcommenter by no means was he a bad debater. Debate is not about being right or wrong, it's about making compelling arguments and destroying opponent's. He was good at that, JP is not.

[@criticalcommenter]

@@xandr13 debates are supposed to be about finding truth. Using cheap tactics to dupe an audience might be impressive to you but to people who can see through it it is very odd putting. So I'd say coming across as avoiding the point while going for a cheap laugh makes you a bad debater

[@kyawkyawwin1]

As a fellow Old Oundelian, I have no doubt that Dawkins is the greatest thinker of his time.

[@JJNow-gg9so]

Whatever brings peace to a spirit let it ride... It's called compassion. 🤔👍

[@PureNRG2]

Petersen is a classic example of if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

[@DarknessIsThePath]

I think the funniest thing about him is that he lectures people about not being paranoid and get lost in it and then he goes and does that himself lmao.

[@chocopuddingcup83]

Obfuscation and obscurantism.

[@peanutbutter4166]

More like “baffle them with brilliant bullshit” 😂

[@Thagomizer]

You don't understand what Peterson is talking about? That says more about you than it does about him.

[@peanutbutter4166]

@@Thagomizer 😂😂😂. Interviewer: “Do you believe in God?” Peterson: “What exactly do you mean by ‘Do’?, what do you mean by ‘you’?…” Hmm, I think I understand that he’s spouting sophisticated garbage for no reason. Please do inform me what he was trying to get at questioning every single word in the dictionary when asked a yes or no question.

[@aramrussell9851]

As a Christian, I strongly agree with Dawkins here. If Peterson doesn't want to actually commit to stating one way or the other if he believes Christianity is true, then he should stay out of it all together. He makes spirituality into some self help Prosperity Gospel.

[@Emma-Queenofhell]

It's why I don't him I don't think he is productive to talk to

[@joel6633]

Idiots

[@HGWells1]

I have tried to explain this point to my Peterson-loving friend to no avail. If I walk into any church in the world and ask any member inside whether they believe in God, they'll say 'yes'. If I walk to the front and ask the pastor, he'll say 'yes'. If I walk into the Vatican and ask the Pope Himself, he will say 'of course'. And if I ask any atheist, they'll say 'no'. Peterson is the only man in the world who answers this question in the way he does. Yet he doesn't acknowledge this fact; instead, he acts aloof as if you're the one too ignorant to understand the complexities of this question. Hell, even his own wife and daughter answer the question with a resolute 'yes'. I really don't understand why he does this

[@dz_ca]

To me it seems JP is stuck between two bad outcomes for himself. In my opinion JP clearly holds the belief that Judeo-Christian faith is critical to why the West is the West and far superior to the alternative. But he knows that if he embraces the objective falsehoods in the Bible that he undermines his credibility to a huge portion of his audience. If he rejects the falsehoods, he alienates the other portion. So he sits in the middle being deliberately non-commital because it's working to keep both audiences engaged.

[@thoughtchanneldrug]

Why must we commit?

[@Deadknight67]

Interesting quote From "Voltaire", ... however I can't see any French quote from Voltaire that would translate to that. I wonder if it's a bad translation or from someone else.

[@TheFragPrince]

"We see, the God that Voltaire adores, to whom he raises a temple - Deo erexit Voltaire - is above all God remunerative of the good and avenger of the wicked. “The interesting object for the whole universe is to know whether it is not better, for the good of all men, to admit a God… who rewards hidden good deeds and who punishes secret crimes” (Dict, phil. , Atheism, XXVII, 168) .... For what reasons ? First, honest people “have to deal with many knaves, who have given little thought” (Id., Enfer, XXIX, 119). If these rascals do not fear divine justice, nothing will stop them when they believe themselves clever enough to deceive human justice. .... It has often been said that Voltaire wanted “a religion for the people”. This religion, which is theism, he wants no less, in the interest of the people, for princes and for the great." Georges Pellissier, Voltaire philosophe, Armand Colin, 1908 (p. 163-5).

[@Deadknight67]

@@TheFragPrince Not sure what you're trying to highlight, still not seeing the quote mentioned in the video credited to Voltaire.

[@TheFragPrince]

​@@Deadknight67 One of the problems in adding comments on youtube is that the site logs you out automatically after a while without indication thereof, when you take too long in drafting your comment. Then occasionally it looks like your comment was saved and added, but a day later, it is gone. This happened here. I thought to have left two posts, the first including the quote below, the second with a further explanation. Now, only the second is visible, but is not understood without the missing comment. So here goes: “Je veux que mon procureur, mon tailleur, mes valets, ma femme même croient en Dieu; et je m'imagine que j'en serais moins volé et moins cocu.” Voltaire, Dialogues, ABC (1768), 17e entretien, (cité in Launay & Mailhos, Introduction à la Vie littéraire du XVIII e Siècle, éd. PUF, pp. 52 - 53). It translateds to "I want my attorney, my tailor, my valets, even my wife to believe in God; and I imagine that I would be less robbed and less cuckolded." But the quote has now been added here several times.

[@TheFragPrince]

@@Deadknight67 I entered another answer 3 times now, including a Voltaire quote, and its source, that is close to what O'Connor cites, and has meanwhile been added by several other people in the comments to this clip. But it keeps disappearing. The quote above, which for some reason did not disappear, was only meant as clarification: why may Voltaire have said what he said?

[@Changgg88]

The interesting thing about the Voltaire part in this conversation: this is not just patronising. It follows from the popular theories of Hobbes and others, that people cannot be trusted without some sort of authority keeping them in line (be it religious or political). In short, it follows from distrust and the idea that in our core we never evolved from being a beast. A blatant mistake, seeing as we survived as a species, not just because of our intelligence, but also our capacity to be solidary and altruistic. We survived as a team. Biologists already know, economists are lagging behind a bit on this knowledge.

[@samuraibat1916]

How are economists lagging behind? Is it all schools of thought when it comes to economists?

[@darrennew8211]

As Dennett says, you have to distinguish belief in god from belief in belief in god. It's entirely possible to think that believing in god is good while not actually believing in god.

[@Changgg88]

​@@samuraibat1916 In my experience (I'm from the Netherlands), economists are somewhat isolated from the rest of the scientific community. This led to a whole lot of missed opportunities, such as cooperation with social scientists (for example to find a better alternative for the Homo Economicus). But until recently, economists based their theories (and thus policies) even on centuries-old assumptions from the field of biology: 'man is inherently selfish, almost evil'. The same assumptions were used by Adam Smith, Bernard Mandeville, Thomas Hobbes. By not cooperating with other experts, economists (consciously or unconsciously) made use of assumptions that were thrown out many decades ago by both biologists and sociologists. This is in short what I remember from my studies and the (unfortunately Dutch) articles I read. Even shorter: Hobbes or Rousseau? I'm team Rousseau.

[@stuartbagedonow9770]

Great comment Thanks

[@nicewhenearnedrudemostlyel489]

Clearly stating the positive aspect of condoning religion. Lol. Does anyone think it's better or worse that Christians hold a fake person at the highest instead of a real one? I mean, we haven't found a person that's liked by everyone so... it's kinda no different in my opinion.

[@CosmicSkeptic]

Full episode out now for Patreon supporters. For everyone else on Sunday!

[@David-ww2sg]

I cannot wait to see this full episode. Been following your work for like 5 years now, it's been awesome watching your growth. I have my fingers crossed for a potential conversation between you and Peterson. All the best!

[@Sammy.a1287]

Same!

[@angelamaryquitecontrary4609]

He's marvellous! He's one of the few people who make me proud of my country, and flip knows how rarely that happens these days.

[@zapkvr]

Agree. Sounds fascinating

[@davidlamb7524]

Alex is very polite but I expect he would eviscerate Peterson. JP is so full of contradictions and Alex would call him on every one of them.

[@wertyupanoptikus9787]

Thanks a lot for sharing this kind of content. It's essential to question things that are not properly discussed or only on the most superficial ways or without questioning the most illogical statements. Ignorance isn't truly a bliss it's just comfort in it's worst version. Where i live, been an atheist is a real everyday challenge, not because i had personal doubts about but because the people arround is so immersed in their collective "perspective" at the point there is no place for tolerance or respect for a different opinion even if it is much more based on a scientific truth than mere beliefs.

[@blaynestaleypro]

I guarantee Peterson is smarter than you. He's a hero. He's an important figure that has helped millions of people.

[@dailydissent6076]

Nathan Robinson's devastating critique of Peterson, and peterson's failure to respond, ended him.

[@timdowney6721]

Using complicated terms-biblical corpus-when a simpler one is at hand is generally a sign of someone who is, in the old saying, trying to bury them with bullshit if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance.

[@AurorXZ]

Yep! But not necessarily. I'm a (secular) specialist in the Hebrew Bible and generally think Peterson's psychological analysis of the texts is dazzlingly bad, but it's not uncommon for scholars (like John J. Collins and Will Kynes) to speak of the Bible as a biblical "library," "canon," or a "corpus" to emphasize the plurality of voices, the breadth of time, and it's position as a collection comparable to contemporary canons. Often when people hear "Bible" it comes pre-packaged with a ton of misconceptions (including a vast underappreciation for the historical achievement that it is), so utilizing this language can help reframe the approach.

[@mingus445_gaming]

@@AurorXZ secular biblical specialist? interesting

[@CB-dl1vg]

One can be simpler or one can be accurate

[@AurorXZ]

@@mingus445_gaming It's actually pretty common! A lot of the big scholars publishing in the field are secular, and everyone within critical biblical scholarship is united by secular principles (methodological naturalism) and a fascination with the Bible as a historical artifact.

[@vincentlaw1415]

what is the simple term for "biblical corpus" 😂? Just Bibel? Imagine you would use the same logic with every intellectual, you could take nobody seriously. By the way, he says that because the Bibel is in fact more like a collection of books than just a single one.

[@czechmeoutbabe1997]

I swear to God, Alex O'Conner keeps knocking it out of the park. I keep thinking Atheism or this set of conversations to have to dry up eventually but they keep being more and more interesting. Can't wait for Sunday

[@patricusthegreat8046]

to who?

[@MrRecrute]

@@patricusthegreat8046, interesting to anybody who considers the existence of a deity complete bunk.

[@mitchjames9350]

@@MrRecrute science can’t disprove or prove god exists, if anything there are equally good arguments for and against god.

[@jackweaver1846]

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@mitchjames9350 science can’t disprove or prove goblins exist, if anything there are equally good arguments for and against goblins.

[@MrRecrute]

@@mitchjames9350 it’s not up to science to disprove god, it’s up to the believers to prove god exists.

[@Zeuts85]

I love Richard Dawkins. He keeps it real.

[@toddtheboss3374]

great insight from Richard, always a pleasure hearing him : )

[@ericbaillie1098]

He's just a pissed off old fart.

[@danimal118]

A blanket judgment made with zero particulars is an insight... Go figure.

[@Garmonbozia-nc7mm]

Thank you for having him on Alex…I look forward to the full episode. He is one of my heroes. You have grown on me as one of the best logical thinkers on the internet. I have no doubt that when you publish a book it will become a best seller. I look forward to that as well. Cheers.

[@PooperScooperTrooper]

I echo these sentiments, as I am too stupid to write it out myself :-)

[@DanBerge]

One of the elements that Richard doesn't factor in is that humans aren't perfect, and it's amazing that they work at all. Some humans can't understand the scientific concepts and they need a simpler story. And then there's the hypothesis that humans evolved to have religion. It has proven to be extremely successful memetically, and has provided a banner beneath which large groups of humans have worked together to survive and propagate (and propagate whatever genes result in religion). I think science evolved from religion. Religion being an early attempt to make sense of everything.

[@vinnylewis9245]

If I remember correctly the book Sapiens touches on this concept. Good book.

[@crazytrain216]

Religion is a system of control. The people at the top of these religious organisations are very rich and have thousands of kids that they can abuse. This system of control works perfectly because people are scared of dying and would believe anything

[@thomtaylor7720]

Science certainly did not evolve from religion.

[@technolus5742]

It would be respectful if he hadn't blatantly lied about what the law entailed, and based his whole opposition on that lie.

[@farukhtanveer7571]

Great minds should talk together and find easy answers to difficult questions...rise above petty differences. You guys are bigger than this.....with all due respect 🙏

[@maggygwire]

Is what JP says that difficult to understand though? I don’t consider myself a great intellect and I can follow it no problem. Doesn’t mean I agree with all he says though

[@michaelrivera6989]

It's easy to think you understand something when you don't. Take for instance, "There is a 30% chance of rain". People think they know what that means. But when there is a reported 30% chance of rain, it really means there is almost a 100% chance of light sprinkles at some point in the day. But aren't light sprinkles also rain? In order to quantify and probability of rain, you must also quantify an amount but no one tells you what that amount is and no one even asks.

[@maggygwire]

@@michaelrivera6989 regardless of whether light sprinkles are rain or not, I’m pretty confident I understand JP. I could of course be completely deluded however. Always a possibility.

[@johndory1446]

@@michaelrivera6989 You could just leave this comment under absolutely every comment in the world where a person actually states anything

[@johndory1446]

It is indeed so strange to hear these people who do not understand symbolic and archetypal concepts, who then claim that it therefore must be all just bs

[@JulienBoeker]

I found his first book really hard to understand.

[@crowwalksalways3419]

No problem. Let's get Dawkins and Peterson together for a discussion.

[@HieronymusBosch229]

Peterson is trying to get Dawkins in a debate FOR YEARS!

[@chrissmith-lf1hz]

I think they already did that.

[@moonlightray8493]

Unfortunately, that "conversation" was mostly Peterson talking *at* Dawkins... it's one of the rare occasions where I would've actually preferred the presence of a moderator.

[@grantwalker660]

I am a big fan of both of them, but I found that video difficult to watch. Peterson made it so.@@moonlightray8493

[@user-qu9ev6pv8e]

It already happened. Dawkins won.

[@Christopher-md7tf]

I hope I'm still this sharp at 82

[@harrypowell9050]

Jordan Peterson is verbose and overcomplicated while Richard Dawkins is calm, clear and logical.

[@domari9459]

Indeed. Jordan is a highly trained psychologist, which can make a person a good bullshit artist by resorting to vagueness and verbosity when it suits them. Jordan is also good debater and analyzer of social-political issues though. When it comes to religion and healthy living(diet wise), Jordan is a clear bullshit artist. Richard on the other hand has very little to no room for bullshit. You can't be an overall good intellectual without handling personal weaknesses with some inner strength to analyze bullshit, which is something Richard is very good at.

[@tedmadu5383]

It takes great faith to be able atheist! And they have to carefully screen what they read to solidify their rational beliefs

[@domari9459]

​@@tedmadu5383 The word "faith" can be somewhat troublesome to use to describe an atheist, but I guess there may be no strict rules against it. Usually the word "faith" goes with the belief in a supernatural being. Whether we want to describe a non-believer as a believer in not believing can be somewhat contradictory. Safest spot can be sitting on the fence as an agnostic, but that may go with a requirement of a weak spine. Non-believers are there because of the cultural conditioned vast spread believing in a supernatural being. Same goes for the agnosticism. There is a fourth spot where all the other three spots aren't necessary and irrelevant.

[@jg6972]

Dennett would say "calm, clear, logical and wrong", but not to his mate obviously

[@mjy8098]

« Je veux que mon procureur, mon tailleur, mes valets croient en Dieu ; et je m’imagine que j’en serai moins volé. » Voltaire

[@Changgg88]

This is not just patronising. It follows from the popular theories of Hobbes and others, that people cannot be trusted without some sort of authority (be it religious or political) keeping them in line. In short, it follows from distrust and the idea that we never evolved from being a beast. A blatant mistake, seeing as we survived as a species, not just because of our intelligence, but also our capacity to be solidary and altruistic. We survived as a team. Biologists already know, economists are lagging behind a bit on this knowledge.

[@johannesbakker4330]

Attorney, tailor and servants who believe in God are ok for Voltaire. But what Voltaire forgets is that French society fell apart when all notions of traditional beliefs were thrown away. The Directorate was not pretty. At best the Terror involved Free Masons who believed (for the most part) in a Deist view of God.

[@oldpossum57]

Yes. The French Catholics who murdered thousands of Huguenot Protestants in their beds were so much more civilized!@@johannesbakker4330

[@TheFragPrince]

@@johannesbakker4330 Voltaire cannot have forgotten what happened after his death in 1778. Besides, that is exactly what he, and Nietzsche, were saying: when God is dead, mass slaughter isn't far. And while this may seem contradicted by the horrors of St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, or any other of the countless mass killings by religious zealots in history, it is impossible to count the number of potential murderers that were inhibited by a fear of celestial repercussions.

[@JohnMuise]

The problem with Peterson is that he can spend an hour speaking without saying anything at all.

[@afonsodeportugal]

Not true at all. Maybe you're just not smart enough to understand it.

[@nadinewhite993]

​@@afonsodeportugal Nah, he's generally full of tripe.

[@zephyrjmilnes]

You should read maps of meaning.. it’s absolutely fascinating

[@sparklingaxethus]

@@zephyrjmilnesyea fascinating but it takes a couple reads to truly understand it. I got it in audio format with Jordan’s voice as well lol. Its almost like a lecture. Truly enjoy that book as it’s very interesting to see how he understands how humans perceive the world around them. I’ve taken some things with me but I’ll have to read it another 10 times 😅

[@zephyrjmilnes]

@@sparklingaxethus Huge respect for audio booking it. I felt like I had to pore over each sentence before understanding it so I needed the book. When people say JP is a pseudo intellectual I think about that truly deep and insightful book.. obvs he’s not got it all right but damn that guy can think

[@user-sf7kl9uh7k]

God's up there, his huge rubber head mounted on a metal turntable that's spinning at great speed. His eyes are wide open as blood pours from his pulsating lips.

[@leerobbo92]

Yeah, this was the view I formed too. The free speech stuff is genuine and important, and his points on things like gender inequality and needing to look at multi-variate analysis to generate any conclusions for such complex issues are absolutely spot on. The moment he talks anything religion though, I just switch off. His arguments there are so fluffy and hold zero substance.

[@slitor]

The whole "free speech" pedestal was bullshit, the Canadian law in question was merly an addendum to allready exsiting anti-discrimination laws to include transgenders. Just as it protects race, religion and sexuality. Nobody have been arrested for using "wrong pronouns".

[@Spoons4Hands]

That table cloth and how crooked it is is ruining this video and my life actually 😂

[@andrejansen3281]

Nice pattern though 😅

[@HeavyMetal45]

Oh baby those types of cloth are impossible to get just right.

[@markp5417]

Never look at Dawkins' missing button... it's... irrationally infuriating me. :)

[@al28854]

I have sudden urge for another round of Guitar Hero 6, time to dust off that ol Xbox 360

[@mikewood9514]

​@@markp5417hahahahaha.

[@rosstaylor4049]

This is brilliant, very glad to see Dawkins back on the channel. Looking forward to watching the full episode

[@wendenworkshop]

Me too!

[@TheAmericanAmerican]

The old man needs to learn to keep his Old Man opinions and feelings to himself and stick to talking scientific evidence.

[@TheAmateursOriginalMusic]

Obviously there is no evidence to prove 100% that there is or there isn’t a god 🤷‍♂️

[@feonor26]

@@TheAmericanAmerican Why? He was asked to give his opinion and he did. Why don't you keep your opinions to yourself instead? If you don't like this video you do not have to watch it, shocking I know.

[@feonor26]

@@TheAmateursOriginalMusic There is no evidence to prove 100% that there is or isn't unicorns, or Santa Claus or trolls inside the mountains.

[@tehspamgozehere]

Good interview. It's great to see Dawkins comfortable and relaxed enough to state his opinion clearly and without obviously policing his words, and it's great that you can present that atmosphere for your guests, Alex.

[@07browe07]

I've understood what Jordan Peterson says about religion and it IS profound. Appealing to the notion that people are generally stupid is not only self defeating, it's prideful "bullshit".

[@UmarAli-tq8pl]

Can you elaborate then?

[@CrabLightning]

of course he can’t lmao

[@FaizelMoosa-og3yl]

@iklijkwelgekmetmijneigennaam Dont need your input boy

[@lovetownsend]

Richard Dawkins is one of maybe 3 or 4 people alive today that I actually look up to. An astounding human being.

[@DerPanzerLP]

who else?

[@jordandthornburg]

In what way?

[@russmarkham2197]

Me too. Integrity. Searching always for the truth. Contributions to Science. Champion of evidence-based analysis. Champion of the scientific method. Intellectual honesty. Courage to speak out bout the ills of religion and superstition. Ability to see topics from different angles. Objective. Applies the scientific method in creative ways. Great speaker. Great writer of many books. Great philosopher although he might not like being called a philosopher.

[@echomjp]

I have been a fan of his for years, and even read some of his books which were very interestingly written. The Extended Phenotype in particular is a book which I found to be immensely interesting in broadening my world view - by making it clear just how many things biology leads living beings to do to their environment can still be traced back to genetics. It is less well known than his book "The Selfish Gene" (also a good read), but I think does more to give a good view of biology and genetics that actually has a meaningful impact on how the world works. Besides that, he has also always been a good skeptic when it comes to any unscientific or faith-based beliefs, especially when those interfere with actual scientific research. He is a man I respect greatly, and I say that of very few men. He has been consistently attacked by religious conservatives for decades for being an outspoken atheist effectively, and in spite of that he still speaks with conviction and honesty. He also has been attacked at times in recent years by many "Social Justice" types for putting his belief in science and the like above whatever social issues are popular at the time, and he has stuck by his values very consistently. Edit: Even the fact that he is willing to give Jordan fair praise despite thinking the way he speaks about religion is something that I find commendable. Very few people speaking on such issues would be willing to look at another they disagree with in such objective terms, and that shows a level of integrity that is impressive.

[@eaf27]

I look up to many people. That could be because I'm short though.

[@Fighterofthenightmanaaaah]

It’s a shame Alex didn’t press Dawkins on ‘standing up to the Canadian government on the laws on free speech’ when it was Petersons misinterpretation of the law that prompted the Canadian Bar association to weigh in and clarify nobody could be arrested or lose their job for accidentally misgendering someone.

[@BOREtism]

I get why he didn't as it was a huge aside to get into when the topic was on something else, but yes, it would be a conversation I would like to see Dawkins get challenged on.

[@Yomil]

Yup It's easy to "stand up for free speech" if you first lie about folks attacking it.

[@howaboutno2050]

Happy to see someone talking about that comment

[@QuiveringEye]

Has Alex made a stance on anything trans related? To me, it seems he specifically does not want to be on record (and I don't blame him).

[@theweirdo61]

lol also glad to have found this comment, I was looking for someone peointing this out. It had been a while but I do remember looking up that particulr legislation and seeing videos covering that it was nothing what captain word salad was characterising it to be

[@EwingAmaterasu]

I would love to see an actual face to face debate between Dawkins and Peterson. Let them fight!

[@binchilling5768]

Dawkins will simply destroy him in a debate religions are just fairy tales it is a shame to compare the myths with science so debates are just waste of time most of humans are just too emotional and seek comfortable answers that give them hope in life

[@joeycurtis1872]

Peterson won't, he knows Dawkins comes at things with such valid reason he'd get beat down by his own logic.

[@vanfja]

Very good explanation, cutting out the crap and getting to the point!

[@Mrballerize]

I view Peterson as a conservative grifter. That being said, religion is imo a sociological phenomenon (Emile Durkheim definition). As such, people will engage in this phenomenon in ways that are meaningful to them. Some people would care about the "truth claims" of religions that they are involved with; other will care about other things like ritualistic practice, liturgy, community, etc. I myself am a non fundamentalist, and engage and enjoy religion in ways that are meaningful to me.

[@TryingtoTellYou]

Nobody cares lol. In fact, the only reason atheists comment is because you force our hand by insisting on "spreading the word". It's one thing to have a stupid belief. It is another to use that belief as pseudo justification to twist and confuse good people. It has and will always be the case that if you leave atheists(sane people) alone, you can play with whatever imaginary friends you would like.

[@Mrballerize]

​@TryingtoTellYou I think you misunderstand, I have 0 interest in evangelizing any religion. I was just messaging in response to the idea that is being posited in this conversation, that one must neccesarily view a religion as a "truth claim" and/or have a fundamentalist view to legitimately be a part of that religion.

[@TryingtoTellYou]

​@@Mrballerize That is silly. If it were up to religions, they would ban the word 'religion' itself. Most organized religions promote themselves as truth claims. For example, I don't know what your religion is but if I were to take a wild guess, it is probably Christianity or Catholicism which both make truth claims about the universe.

[@Mrballerize]

​​​​​@@TryingtoTellYouJust because a religious organization makes a "truth claim" about the universe, doesn't mean that all of the followers and/or participants in that religion must/willl neccesarily agree with that sentiment. That's what you are misundertanding. Non-fundamentalist participants of various religious organizations exist. That was the point I was making in opposition to the idea that is seemingly being posited in this video; which is that one must neccesarily view the religion they are participating in as a "truth claim". In other words, one can choose to be a part of a religious group without agreeing on all of the "truth claims" made by the group. Eg: "Atheist" who choose to be Buddhist; or ppl like Gretta Vosper, who is a self proclaimed "Atheist" and an Anglican Priest.

[@TryingtoTellYou]

@@Mrballerize Yes "one can choose" to do wrong. What an enlightening conversation this has been... not.

[@tastethejace]

When I was a kid, I had a couple of cousins that were a few years younger than me. When I'd visit them every once in awhile, I'd say mathematical nonsense really fast to cause them to think I was a genius. Jordan Peterson just took that and does it with adults.

[@morpheus3128]

No doubt when Peterson speaks you are confused.

[@heckingbamboozled8097]

@@morpheus3128 Because he dazzles with nonsense, yes.

[@jabbrewoki]

I was cross exchanging fractal integers as a small child. No one could understand, but it was just trigernomic intergers used to fabricate basic math.

[@xhawkenx633]

​@@heckingbamboozled8097 only people I can imagine getting dazzeld by him are idiots and people with bad english profiency. Most of the times he is just saying "did you notice this thing, yes it is very ordinary, which is exactly why you should ask yourself why is that" and then he gives his answer to that and how he arrived there usually inviting you to think about it for yourself. It is actually quite funny when you see people, apparently allergic to independent thought, attempting to engage with him. I recall a video where he discussed how people knew what beauty was/is. And people where like "yeah, there is no deeper explanation for why people go to museums and look at beautiful works of art, I look at and it makes me feel a certain way" Completely ingorant that it requires an a priori idea of beauty in your brain that you aren't necessarily conscious of to recognize beauty in the first place so it can give rise to make you feel a certain way...

[@omp199]

@@jabbrewoki That's cool. Did you complete the classification of their gauge symmetries and take the limit as the modulus tended to infinity?

[@DetransLizard]

what does he say here? 4:54 battle against who/what?

[@jdolew]

"the battle agains Putins, well not the" (talking over each other bit)

[@eugene_iodine_psychedelia1960s]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putin_khuylo!

[@DetransLizard]

@@eugene_iodine_psychedelia1960s of course he is haha. I am Ukrainian btw. I just wanted to make sure I heard Richard right.

[@mmw5656]

Everyone develops their own metaphors to make sense of the world. Whether these things are true or not are irrelevant. What’s relevant is how one chooses to live their life in relationship to others.

[@ouwebrood497]

Wow, Dawkins worded it very precise. When I was a christian I hated him, but now that I'm out of the woods (at least in a cognitive way, socially I'm still christian) I understand him so much. The 'cultural christians' like JP and Ayaan Hirshi Ali have not the slightest clue what religions really is. It is to be sincerely convinced something much bigger than yourself has the ultimate say over you and you either confirm to it willingly or you are scared all the time. It's not just some shallow 'feel good in an old fashioned way' game. I also don't like how JP totally goes of on his way of 'christianity' making it kind of 'acceptable' for (self proclaimed) intellectuals. Meanwhile preaching backward standards when it comes to sexuality. It's especially ridiculous when you know how he hates postmodernism, but his 'kind of christianity' is maybe the most postmodernist thing I have ever heard.

[@botno69420]

You're confusing institutionalized christianity with christianity as the most refined written example of the inevitable phenomenon called religion. Christianity to him seems to be just the best neat package of ideas that have existed everywhere in some form or another. Otherwise why would he 'accuse' christians of straight out copying things from other religions? You say "what religion really is", but I think you've got it backwards. The religion you described is the phony one, and the religion he's exploring is him trying to figure out what it really is.

[@slang1517]

@@botno69420 If Peterson thought Christianity was 'the best package of ideas' he'd give all his money to the poor and have no thought for the morrow. Rather, he knows it's profitable to say Christianity is the best.

[@freshliving4199]

A true Christian would not hate him. I would go as far as even saying could not hate him. Not possible. Means there is a fly in the ointment of the basis for your argument.

[@user-to2vc6of4v]

@@slang1517 I’m sorry but this is just a bad argument the only one Jesus ever told to give away everything was the rich young ruler because he was calling his bluff and give no thought for tomorrow is about not worrying in general…

[@ouwebrood497]

@@freshliving4199 Psalm 139:21 Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you? Those who pray for Dawkins have no clue.

[@rodolfogranadossalas]

The conversation that Dawkins mentions between Michael Shermer and Peterson actually occurred in a debate between Sam Harris and JP. In this debate Harris presses Peterson to answer the question “do you believe that Jesus was really resurrected?” to which Peterson says that it is really complicated and it would take him 40 hours to answer. Then Harris says “how's this for an answer: almost certainly not”. It was really hilarious. (Link to the Harris-Peterson debate kzbin.info/www/bejne/eYDXmpWEr9OfhpY. Watch around '8:45.)

[@newmankidman5763]

@rodolfogranadossalas, unless you mean that in addition to Michael Shermer's question Harris posed the question that you mentioned to Jordan Peterson, you are talking about something else. The question to which Richard was referring, as he clearly stated, was posed to Jordan by Michael Shermer, not Harris, and it was not about "resurrection of Jesus", it was about whether or not Jordan Peterson really believed that "Jesus was born of a virgin"

[@rodolfogranadossalas]

@@newmankidman5763 I understand they are different questions, but the type of response makes me believe that Dawkins might be wrong in his recolection of the circumstances. As always, I could be wrong, but I have never seen video of the Shermer-Peterson interaction as recalled by Dawkins.

[@newmankidman5763]

@@rodolfogranadossalas, you could be right, but 4 things were different in Dawkins story: The question, the person who asked it, the answer "at least two days", and Sherman's rhetorical reply "how about one sentence or word, no", but again, you could be right

[@rodolfogranadossalas]

@@newmankidman5763 Here is the exchange between Harris and Peterson I'm talking about kzbin.info/www/bejne/eYDXmpWEr9OfhpY around the 8:45 time

[@newmankidman5763]

@@rodolfogranadossalas, I watched it. Thanks

[@InternationalBritishModeler]

Quote: "Where people think it must be terribly profound because I can't understand it.".... commonly known as "Blinding them with bullshit!"

[@surveysays8335]

What I don't understand is how you can make a statement that is something like "When you talk about religion, your not really saying anything at all" when in fact that statement is an example of that very thing your accusing the other person on.

[@RandomAussieGuy87]

Can't wait for the full convo!

[@mikenewbold1699]

wait for the ten clips of it first

[@jpjrobot]

Keep on keeping on please Alex. Articulate, clear, calm and straight to the throat of the nonsense. Thanks to you for being a powerful voice for logic and reason.

[@C_R_O_M________]

Nonsense! These people have no idea what Peterson is about. Much like an ant can't judge human affairs so is with them (and probably you).

[@jeffrunyan2691]

Depends on perspective.

[@joel4535]

Isnt it interesting ,so many diversities continue & keep on pushing through each others ideologies? The balance of yay &nay keeps us afloat. One funny note from Dawkins is he said he would add another chapter to your "book for athiest belief" there are never enough words to make clear what/how we believe.

[@cortext_io]

"The belief of belief" sounds like: it is good that THAT is true for THEM (but not for THEM OVER THERE)

[@QuickProgramming]

i must say, am understandably excited and cant wait for this episode. Its always a delight to get new material from Dawkins. Also to get some new insight from Alex's admirable intellect

[@LCDRformat]

After reading "I must say," I read the rest of the comment in Richard Dawkin's voice

[@QuickProgramming]

@@LCDRformat 😁

[@christopher_ecclestone]

He hasnt had much new to say for abot 10 years though, so I could tell you his views on everything without needing to watch.

[@realitychick4502]

We are living through an era of peak narcissistic word salad 😢

[@whatsupbudbud]

I wonder has it ever been any different though.

[@kenpower888]

@@whatsupbudbud probably not

[@youmothershouldknow4905]

Salad that no dressing can make edible.

[@paultyson4389]

By George, I think you may have put your finger on it.

[@phuckweed]

But salad is supposedly good for you? More like a greasy burger 😂

[@michaelriches2362]

Well the actual quote is "There is no God, but don’t tell that to my servant, lest he murder me at night.” ― Voltaire", but that doesn't tell me whether the servant would murder him out of ordinary consequence of having to be the servant of voltaire and perhaps therefore abstaining likewise in the belief of God and therefore abstaining from the recognition of Divine morality, or perhaps because the servant might be so appalled by the lack of belief of his master in God, that he might take it upon himself to go against the teachings of Christ and therefore murder him in disgust or through some early Christian ideal similar to the Islamic Jihad.

[@markorbit4752]

"it must be terribly profound because i can´t understand it"....that´s what all my Cameroonian friends sound like. I think i need new friends

[@izzo2271]

Finally! This is exactly what I keep telling people about Jordan Peterson!

[@chemquests]

Dawkins answers questions exactly opposite of Jordan’s style. 2 word answer to Alex, it’s bs.

[@welshevo1]

People are welcome to approve or disapprove of anything Professor Peterson says, but just calling something BS and not actually explaining why is not good enough . Professor Dawkins has an incredible mind, but to just disregard things without explanation is something we see far too often. Especially as most of the topics that Peterson talks about are things that clearly are up for debate, they are opinions, guesses or beliefs. Dawkins is a renowned genius when it comes to his field, but seems to have massive issues when it comes to anything that isn’t fact based and is still trying to understood like faith and religion.

[@xomox5316]

Peterson said people that meme on the internet should be jailed... he is heavy heavy anti freespeech.

[@davesutherland1864]

@@welshevo1Listen to the interview, he did explain why to the extent possible in less than five minutes for a rather broad based subject. ‘it’s bs’ is the just the executive summary.

[@TheLastSisyphus]

I, too, have been trying to tell people about Peterson's insufficient explanations when it comes to religion. I'm not sure that it does any good...

[@jayedgardyson1920]

Isn’t it refreshing to watch/listen to 2 wonderfully articulate (and entertaining) adults have a meaningful, two-sided conversation free from interruptions and grandstanding. Courtesy and respect go a long way - as both Alex and Richard prove in this clip. PS I might forward this to Peter Hitchens, as I reckon he could learn a lot from it!! 😅

[@christinavarvakis5523]

Truly a rarity these days.

[@ozzy7590]

This is the art of conversation ❤️ Listening attentively and responding respectfully. Love it.

[@janecooke9151]

This is what happens when you get 2 people who believe the same BS. Hitchens saw the BS and left, simples 🤷‍♀️

[@piping9153]

Here is where all the degenerates are 😂 why teach us oh wise ones

[@johnsutcliffe3209]

Should listen to less left wing idiots then. Plenty of good debate among proper accedemics and problem solvers and creators. Ironic this man uses the baffle with bullshit argument against Peterson. Typical left agenda. Don't lift yourself up just drag others down.

[@trlltrllenheimer9270]

Why anyone gives a shit about a clinical psychologists view on religion is beyond me. This is a nothing burger...

[@murraykeithhayes4046]

But you watched the video, didn't you?

[@trlltrllenheimer9270]

My comment gives the reason why you don't have to watch it@@murraykeithhayes4046

[@trlltrllenheimer9270]

@@murraykeithhayes4046 No. I just commented on it. Clicking on a video link due to a 'gotcha' title is not the same as watching it.

[@puiacalinadrian]

As a son of a christian orthodox priest, I believe in the chapter that he wants to add!

[@TridTV]

Peterson has taken an unexpected turn with his ideas on religion I’m glad you guys are pointing this out

[@The07vinny]

The word of God transforms people.

[@TridTV]

@@The07vinny for better or for worse only time will tell

[@getasimbe]

@@The07vinny you do realize that this isn't a good transformation being referred to here

[@GaslightGatekeepGirlboss372]

not sudden mate - it was a progression

[@Kingsx01]

Not really unexpected for Peterson at all, this type of rhetoric is exactly what I’d expect from him

[@eriklobo7622]

Clear, concise, nuanced... We love you Richard. And thank you Alex.

[@TBOTSS]

Richard is also a fast runner - look at how quick he moved when William Lane Craig came to Oxford.

[@semosancus5506]

Dawkins is the reason I believe in God! His arguments are such garbage, you can't help but think he's got it all wrong.

[@MohammedAli-hl4mr]

@@semosancus5506 which arguments in particular do you disagree with

[@loganleatherman7647]

@semosancus5506 Dawkins isn’t a philosopher, he’s not in the business of making the best arguments possible for anything other than the biological sciences. When it comes to actual philosophy he has a major blind spot, but his atheistic position is still shared by many philosophers who can in fact explain why they hold that position much better than Dawkins can; Graham Oppy, for instance. Dawkins isn’t the person to go to for any deep analyses of philosophy of religion

[@SpielkindFR]

I never got why so many atheists like Richard Dawkins so much. I find him to be badly researched, often rude and at times openly condescending. His arguments are weak, he talks before he thinks. Not a fan. By the way, anyone who spent all of the 30 or so seconds it takes to read bill c-16 will know that peterson lied. So literally the first thing coming out of Dawkins mouth in this video is him talking bull about something he doesn't know the first thing about. Oh and before anyone here tries to be smart and tell me I'm wrong, here's the entirety of bill c-16 in text: BILL C-16 An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: R.‍S.‍, c. H-6 Canadian Human Rights Act 1998, c. 9, s. 9; 2012, c. 1, s. 137(E) 1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following: Purpose 2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. 1996, c. 14, s. 2; 2012, c. 1, s. 138(E) 2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following: Prohibited grounds of discrimination 3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

[@rezatay]

Alex, as a man of reason, I'd like to get your thoughts on this new theory of Stephen Meyer's. Stephen Meyer argues that the West's Judeo-Christian worldview, which offers an accurate perspective on nature, enabled science to flourish in the West. He suggests that science didn't develop similarly in the East due to differing religious beliefs. According to Meyer, the West's scientific progress is a direct result of its religious foundation. This type of reasoning appears to have many adherents among religiously conservative individuals on the right, as Stephen Meyer is frequently invited to promote this somewhat bizarre theory without being challenged or critiqued. It's unclear to me which aspect of Christ's life exemplifies a naturalistic worldview - his extraordinary life, his supernatural ability to resurrect the dead, or his own resurrection? It's challenging to argue that Christ embodies a natural perspective on the world. I always thought Western scientific progress gained momentum when the West began to separate itself from Christianity and eliminated the need for divine explanations in understanding the natural world.

[@HotPocketsBoy]

“Woke bullshit?” Oh brother smh

[@user-yu9lr7wb6z]

Those two words are synonyms of each other, you know.

[@Beeso]

The best, most concise summary of Jordan Peterson's ramblings right there between these two quotation marks.

[@OfAngelsAndAnarchist]

When I first found him, in like 2017 or 2016, i grew to deeply respect Jordan peterson. But as he grew in fame, I realized he was becoming more and more ideological himself. I think he got dragged out to deep waters , well past where he knew how to swim, and lost himself. These days… I mostly think of him as a sad case of another person who forgot they were meant to be expanding minds, not constraining them in the narrow walls of the culture…

[@OfAngelsAndAnarchist]

@@adamp108 he talked about this book, ordinary things, in which people got pushed little by little to become monsters. He hasn’t become a comparable monster to the people in that book or anything, but he has been pushed well away from the man I admired.

[@eniooliveira9196]

He has developed a serious case of messiah complex.

[@nighthiker]

Maybe it's not that he changed, but that you have grown as a person since then and learned to identify the flaws in his "arguments".

[@mkbcoolman]

Wow. You just perfectly articulated my thoughts on JP. It’s uncanny. Thank you.

[@johnloving9401]

A priggish lack of humility perfectly encased in a starch shirt. RD should respect JP for a lot more than his battles with Canadian thugs.

[@oftin_wong]

Im not religious at all but im totally interested in most religions amd psychology ... there's so much information packed in there you can learn a lot about human nature and how humans think how human nature works...why would you want to reject all that information because of an argument you have about wether its true or not

[@fromthedumpstertothegrave3689]

Yeah, the similarities between most religions at their core outweigh the differences. Its interesting to think that millennia ago all over the world people started arriving at the same conclusions as to what living well means. Regardless of that being because of divine inspiration or a shared humanity as a result of evolution its comforting to know people generally all aim in the same direction and its one of love.

[@oftin_wong]

@@fromthedumpstertothegrave3689 Once you get a group of over about 20 humans ...you need a set of rules to keep the peace it's that simple

[@asloii_1749]

The lore of religions can be really cool imo

[@bas919]

This scene with these two fine gentlemen is one of the few examples of a great generational progress.

[@ac1646]

Yes. And I am happy to see Richard coming back for another interview with Alex. That has to be a pat on the back for Alex. 😊

[@Sammy.a1287]

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@NIMM_VOID]

thank you, Alex. i started deconstructing 10 years ago and folks like you have helped me immensely

[@whade62000]

He handled this beautifully. He said in very very polite terms what we all know about Peterson.

[@djroccaL]

“Christianity is absurd, but having Christianity as the bedrock of my society is quite nice”

[@Yeeted_Utensil]

^^^ I was thinking the same thing, this has aged like milk...

[@henry6451]

Excellent observation on Peterson's verbal tactics,

[@ztgglis]

Here here!

[@cyphus5]

I don't think they are tactics. I just think that's how his mind works.

[@henry6451]

@@cyphus5 then it seems he has a mental handicap which prevents him expressing his ideas. I think it is contrived to decieve.

[@youtubegonewoke]

@cyphus5 if you can't convince them,throw bullshit at them that's his tactics...

[@theskorpiqn3789]

He's totally understandable. I sense some kind of negative bias.

[@kalenluck]

At the start of the video Dawkins says he respects Petersson for standing up to Canadian free speech laws. This sadly means Dawkins took Peterson’s word for that. Nothing changed in Canada, none of what Peterson said would happen has almost ten years on. A group was added to existing hate crimes laws. No one has been so much as fined, let alone rounded up and arrested for misgendering someone. JP just used the right’s victim complex for clout

[@annnee6818]

Yeah picked up on that too guess he wants to buy into the persecution complex as well...

[@ThisDonut]

@@Darwinwasright167 so...a law that compells someones speech. who cares if its hard to prove when the law itself is bs anyway?

[@chinkasuyaro8983]

Just for pedantry: While true about nobody being fined, rounded up, or arrested is true, there was a civil judgment of $30,000 in BC for employers repeatedly harassing their non-binary employee by calling them 'Sweetie', 'Honey', and using the wrong pronouns. This was more a case of workplace harrassment, rather than innocent misgendering, and was demonstrated to be malicious. Obviously, still not authoritarian overreach. Just the bare minimum of common decency.

[@murraykeithhayes4046]

You are 100% wrong.

[@murraykeithhayes4046]

Wrong @@Darwinwasright167

[@asifhamid4849]

That quote is not by Voltaire. It's actually a paraphrase of a sentiment expressed by A. J. Ayer, a British philosopher.

[@sly1465]

Jordie gets schooled for jousting with one of the giants in the intellectual arena...Hitchslapped some would posit...lol