Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer discuss Jordan Peterson (2018)

Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins give their opinions of Jordan Peterson.
Check out these Peterson and Dawkins books on Amazon!
Peterson's "Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief": geni.us/p2e8It
Peterson's "12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos": geni.us/BPjIIm
Dawkins' "The God Delusion": geni.us/i00H0
Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene": geni.us/f5aGhz
These excerpts were taken from this talk: • Richard Dawkins & Mich...
Join us on Patreon! / manufacturingintellect
Donate Crypto! commerce.coinbase.com/checkou...
Share this video!
Checking out the affiliate links above helps me bring even more high
quality videos by earning me a small commission! And if you have any
suggestions for future content, make sure to subscribe on the Patreon
page. Thank you for your support!

[@ManufacturingIntellect]

Check out these Peterson and Dawkins books on Amazon! Peterson's "Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief": geni.us/p2e8It Peterson's "12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos": geni.us/BPjIIm Dawkins' "The God Delusion": geni.us/i00H0 Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene": geni.us/f5aGhz Join us on Patreon! www.patreon.com/ManufacturingIntellect Donate Crypto! commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/868d67d2-1628-44a8-b8dc-8f9616d62259 Checking out the affiliate links above helps me bring even more high quality videos by earning me a small commission! And if you have any suggestions for future content, make sure to subscribe on the Patreon page. Thank you for your support!

[@Ambervert95]

@manufacturingintellect what's the song at the end? I liked it!

[@Lifers]

It saddens me that I never got a Hitchens vs Peterson debate

[@ceferistul05]

hitchens would have probably made short work of him, seeing how zizek won the debate they had a while back

[@onedeathbyflame]

Hitchens would revel in having a public figure like peterson in the spot light

[@narek323]

@@ceferistul05 Short work of him with what? The debate with zizek wasn't in either side's favor, it just pointed out the faults and advantages of each side. It's funny how neurotypicals see debates as things that are always win\lose. Furthermore, a debate with Hitchens would be on a completely different topic, not communism. Like what are you even babbling about dude lol? JP's arguments are usually very thorough and substantial, they're not so faulty that a debate with just anyone would result in him having to change his mind.

[@ceferistul05]

@@narek323 debates are always competitive

[@sebdetyra651]

@@narek323 Exactly! I watched that debate over and over and i fail to see how either side one. Seems anti- Peterson types are really clutching at straws.

[@DavidFregoli]

Well...it depends on what you meany by "Jordan Peterson"

[@Nathan-hs2ut]

Good 1

[@owenlee9474]

🤣

[@janpahl6015]

if dawkins its incapable to debunk the charlatan Depak Chopra in a debate, How in hell he is goin to perform better with a true scientist like peterson?... in my opinion it´s because Dawkins metaphysical believes on "memes" its even less stronger than the revised version of jung that Peteron had

[@janpahl6015]

​@@Edruezzi Beppe Merda strikes again with a vengeance part LXVIII

[@Edruezzi]

@@janpahl6015 You can't defend the worthless Jordan P anymore so all you can do is name-calling.

[@williamhunt7877]

I never offer an opinion of something of which I'm ignorant...if only most people thought this way...

[@thomas9451]

Then I think he shouldn't offer an opinion on absolute mysteries such as the existence of God either...

[@collj86]

I kind of feel the opposite

[@HK-gv5sb]

@@thomas9451 He's not ignorant about science, and science is directly contradicted by religion. Since religion has such a significant impact on society, he should give his opinion on how the facets of science and biology contain substantially more evidence and contemporary analysis than religious teachings about God. There's a difference between being ignorant about a subject, and being able to prove a hypothesis, like the existence of a God, with absolute certainty.

[@se9036]

then why did he weigh in on the Bill C-16 stuff, when it's completely and utterly misrepresented by Peterson?

[@Rembrandt133]

@@HK-gv5sb Well said mate.

[@ethereal1444]

Oh God! - Prof. Richard Dawkins

[@angelodc7371]

,😁😁😁

[@dakotamontagueyoung5488]

Lolol

[@anotheperspective]

🤣🤣🤣

[@SStupendous]

I remember that one lol

[@Son_of_aesthetics]

If Nietzsche was alive,he would have replied surely "God Is Dead"😂

[@Rvlyra67]

"I act as if God exists" - Jordan Peterson

[@AnoNymous-dh2sv]

i.e. "I'm polite and don't say I'm an atheist, but, I do believe the symbolism of Christianity has great truth in it in terms of human development".

[@thanishrao2097]

So basically he runs around in circles to claim that he is indeed a believer

[@rathernotsay2456]

@@thanishrao2097 He's a pussified atheist.

[@devanshsharma160]

@riya Hope you agree with Jordan's take on #metoo movement.

[@donaykhabbak4215]

@@AnoNymous-dh2sv what's impolite in saying I'm an atheist?

[@lievenyperman9363]

Dawkins: "I never offer an opinion on something I am ignorant about." Shermer: "Fuck, now I look like an ass for offering an opinion."

[@ahwhite1398]

Shermer was clearly very well versed in Jordan Peterson's thinking, and offered a valid critique, whereas Dawkins didn't seem to know much about him outside of the pronoun controversy.

[@ianalan4367]

What’s funny is Dawkins wrote an entire book about something he clearly is ignorant of.

[@lievenyperman9363]

@@ianalan4367 True.

[@janparchanski9242]

@@lievenyperman9363 the opposite you 2 are ignorants but why I do I bother

[@lievenyperman9363]

@@janparchanski9242 Yes, why did you bother? Perhaps you had an opinion in mind before you came out with the insult? I would be interested in the opinion. The insult, not so much.

[@suspendedanimation9458]

I feel so sad that Dawkins is getting old

[@buddhabunnee]

I'm glad he gets to live into old age and has not died too soon like Christopher Hitchens.

[@Valorince]

im happy for him. means he doesn't have to deal with this shit anymore.

[@TheConqueror009]

@@Valorince therein lies moral relativism and degenerative nihilism. Ypu are the problem what Peterson speaks about

[@Valorince]

@@TheConqueror009 - unfortunately you have no humor, because I was joking.

[@janpahl6015]

if dawkins its incapable to debunk the charlatan Depak Chopra in a debate, How in hell he is goin to perform better with a true scientist like peterson?... in my opinion it´s because Dawkins metaphysical believes on "memes" its even less stronger than the revised version of jung that Peteron had

[@a3decks764]

Replace title with: "Michael Schermer trying to answer a couple of questions from audience."

[@EasyCartoonDrawingTutorials]

Don't care about the self help stuff. The appeal of Jordan Peterson to me is his ability to articulate his thoughts in debates and under pressure.

[@Surstromming22]

Big deal. All the charismatic priests and pastors and church leaders can do that too and yet you know they're full of shit.

[@GrubKiller436]

@@Surstromming22 Sure they can.

[@thaliagarcia9684]

@@GrubKiller436 Of course they can, Peterson is just another bullshit preacher.

[@GrubKiller436]

@Meso Phyl You say that as if there actually exists a legitimate person who can explain Christianity as true.

[@EmmaKnightleyNo1]

Petersen is just an obfuscating yakker. On and on he goes, for the sake of talking, throwing in ideas of books he read, making wild claims on the go, evading clear answers, using needlessly complicated lingo to appear more substantial than he is. The only thing I must give him is his teflon attitude. But politicians have that too.

[@ewanbirch9719]

I wish Jordan would go back to being less popular. I love what he talks about but it just annoys me that as soon as something blows up it becomes mainstream and people say he is overrated. Jordan has some really interesting perspectives on life that I think could help everyone, just listen to what he is actually saying then make your mind up.

[@Skatapow]

I was thinking about this yesterday. I just think he has become so eager to promote himself and he comes across like an entrepreneur who's more interested in trolling and being provocative than the responsible social commentator and academic he appeared to be in the beginning. Have you seen his merchandise with the lobsters now? I just have this weird fear of Peterson becoming a more sophisticated Milo Yannopoulos and it's such a big shame. I want him to go back to uni and stop the touring and the exposure, he'll only have Christian Taliban followers in the end.

[@HairySeagull]

But if he is helping a lot of people, then you should be grateful that he has become mainstream. It only means the message reaches more people. Fuck the haters ya'know

[@danieldornyo3041]

@@HairySeagull right!

[@xergiok2322]

It's arguable whether he is actually helping anyone or whether he's taking advantage of people in vulnerable positions in order to shape their behaviour to his liking. He seems to be to targeting young men with low self-respect and confirming them in their self-loathing by convincing them that they are to blame. I'd say that he's trying to create, not so much mental health, as 'productive members of society'. Now, some might say that an essential part of getting out of a rut caused by low self esteem is to learn to love oneself. JP however, seems to teach them that, yes indeed they are as pathetic as they think, and can only save themselves by using that self-hatred as fuel to change their situation. The problem is that the hatred and lack of self-respect never goes away like that, and instead of healing they become self-righteous, angry go-getters. I know a person who has spent his whole life like that (incidentally he loves Jordan Peterson). He judges himself all the time and uses his lack of self-respect as a main motivator to 'get things done'. As a result he's always angry and completely intolerable to everyone around him.

[@TheCpHaddock]

You also have to realize what he used to say as an semi unknown prof was different than what he's saying these days! He got highjacked by the right wingers and he's now morphed into a Dave Rubin or Ben Shapiro!

[@ITSBurgerPT]

I like Shermer, but I feel like no one else knows anything about Peterson, he has said many times, that he "lives as if god exists" and that he does not subscribe to a literal interpretation of the bible. Also the guy at 4:30 is just straight up saying some crazy shit... I should mention that I am what most people would call an atheist, although Peterson has made me think that calling myself that is not accurate to the beliefs I actually hold, so now I don't really label myself as anything. I doubt we will find the validity of Jordan Peterson's beliefs in a youtube comment section, but I felt I should say that.

[@angel373bcn]

Sam Harris I think said that the word atheist shouldn't even exist, we don't have a word for someone who doesn't believe in astrology for example. It's a useful word in certain conversations but it's not something that defines you as a person at all, everyone is an atheist in regard to all of the thousands of gods that exists like zeus etc... so even if you believe in a personal god or whatever you're still technically an atheist. Peterson's dishonesty running circles around questions like "do you believe in resurrection" and "do you believe in god" is sad. There's no argument when it comes to these questions, he can't say that he does believe in miracles because that would cause everyone to dismiss him as yet another religious nutjob, and that's bad when you want to come across as a man of science and facts. I have to say I quite like Peterson most of the time, like how he defends free speech and brilliantly comes out on top in interviews.

[@TadValente]

@@angel373bcn Brilliantly said, intellectual comrade.

[@brabhamF1]

@@angel373bcn That is the thing. I don't have to say "Peterson is an idiot who always missuses language and makes no sense." to be able to disagree with him. I think he has some very smart opinions/standing on certain topics/ideas and portrays them quite well (if he is one thing that is eloquent) but he has some backwards ideas I think are nonsensical. The thing is if I now stand before someone who hates Peterson and everyone he stands for and I defend a standpoint it makes me a "blind Peterson fanboy" and when I stand before someone who actually is a "blind Peterson fanboy" I am a libtard looneytooney. I wish we could get some nuance back in the field of intellectual debate. On the part of atheism. The problem is that people want to force a clear divide between religious and non religious people. Since every religion has a name for the sake of the debate everyone without a religion is in need of their own word for their "non-religion". And again we have the problem of having a non nuanced view of people anymore. If you are slightly conservative, you are the most appaling extreme (racist, homophob, bigot) and the same with having slightly left leaning ideas (libtard, communist, sissy). In the case of Peterson he is a spiritual man that doesn't subscribe to the doctrin of christianity but his system of values is build on that same doctrin.

[@fieldy409]

Maybe you disagree but when I hear Jordan speak about religion, the almost unspoken thing is "who cares if its real because there is all these benefits to society." And maybe if you ignore some things like harbouring pedophiles and religious conflict there are benefits, it can be benefical to make friends at church to form connections and have some discipline over your urges yada yada. Plus Jordan tries to attribute every idea that was ever invented by christianity to be owned by christians. As if an atheist cannot for some reason listen to and live by good ethical ideas like "thou shalt not kill" because a christian wrote it down once, why not? As an atheist I can take any christian ethic I want while discarding the rest that doesn't work like the persecution of homosexuals. So even assuming Jordan is right and religion does so much good for society, well so what? If Gods not real then God is not real, is it right to propagate a useful lie? I don't think so, isn't it better to learn how to have a good society without relying on falsehoods?

[@TadValente]

@@fieldy409 Trust me, look up humanism, and Matt Dillahunty's video on the superiority of secular morality, it's a great topic, and will help you realize how unimportant religion really is to our society. Obviously, religion has some very good moral opinions. However, it's been demonstrated over and over that religion follows societal and moral advancements, not the other way around. I like your style of thinking, though. I've been hooked on Street Epistemology videos recently, I like the way (specifically) Anthony Magnabosco will ask questions to theists about how they arrived at their conclusion; it's much more effective than debating.

[@KOdestruction]

He says Peterson gets into Nietzsche, Freud, and Jung and he calls them novelists? Really? I mean Freud with Jung were creators of modern analytic psychology and both were doctors, psychiatrists, and psychologists. I would not call them novelists in the first place.

[@sigmarck]

listen to it again. he actually ended the Nietzsche etc sentence and started another about novelists - Shakespeare, Austen etc

[@devanshtyagi1403]

@RAYfighter well generalising an entire group of people says a lot about you lmao 😂

[@deanstones2618]

@RAYfighter I'm pretty fucking sure you're wrong in a lot of ways. Firstly JP isn't irrelevant, people like us who are debating on the internet are. He's really helped a lot of young people find their place in the world. Secondly if you're certain about anything because you see some logic behind it you're right but that doesn't overrule the fact that logic cannot run an entire civilisation of animals. learn to acknowledge the good things about the world dont be a cold machine and its funny that im saying this because im a software engineer and my whole work is governed by logic. I'm not mad that you called Peterson irrelevant or generalised a lot of people , stereotypes are helpful sometimes. Also I'm a fan of Richard's work as well. All I'm suggesting is that you should be more open minded and try to first see the good things about someone before you criticize them.

[@diemanner7164]

How did this comment get 38 likes? He didn't even say that. He was talking about Shakespeare etc. FFS learn English. I am a Pakistani BTW and english is my second language. 😂

[@KOdestruction]

@@diemanner7164 How does that mean anything that you are not a native speaker? I am not a native speaker either. I am from Slovakia. Did you just want to brag about decent knowledge of a foreign language? he said: “And there he gets into Jung and Freud and Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky and all that stuff. And again, that´s, it´s okay to say novelists have tapped into deep truths about human nature, that is true“ In my opinion, he called all the mentioned people novelists, it seemed that way. Anyway, he totally underrated their arguments and did not address any of them at all. He just spoke their names and did not say anything to disprove their arguments, none of them ever did. None of them really highlighted Nietzsche´s or Jung´s argument and discussed it. I think they cannot even comprehend deeper philosophical stances like that.

[@eldonelder7254]

Jordan Peterson doesn't allow himself the luxury of pretending to "know" absolutely ("I act as if God exists and I'm terrified that he might." ~Jordan Peterson). He's courageous enough, humble enough and willing to have doubts, and caring enough to be vulnerable about that publicly. He doesn't express his views to maintain his fame. He's famous because he's willing to be open and thoughtful while expressing his views without expectation of reward for doing so. The shallow, cynical criticisms he endures are a reflection of his critics and not of him.

[@shadeassassin9248]

Oh please... Jordan Peterson is nothing more than a pseudo intellectual who attracts arrogant ignoramuses such as yourself who do nothing more than take issuance of subject matters that you are unaffected by while simultaneously acting against your own best interests. He is a complete charlatan who believes that those who are impovershed or are of lower/working class status have no comprehension on what their best interests are and therefore have no business making decisions based on government regulation because they haven't aqquired the superficial commodities that would make someone appear to be self sustainable.. So i guess trust fund babies like Tucker Carlson and Meghan McCain are our only hope. Clearly Jordan Peterson is not an expert in any of the subject matters being discussed because he has shown from his own dialogue that he clearly experiences the dunning-kruger effect and a bit of persevered bias (ironic that he is a psychologist), even though he is being given a platform to spout out all of these nonsensical pseudo intellectual answers that are being eaten up by his base known as the willfully ignorant. In my opinion, Jordan Peterson is the Sigmund Freud of our time because he sprinkles so much glitter over his bullshit, those who lack analytical skills may be more succeptible to listening to this man preach. However, If this man did in fact know anything about government policy and our nation's poverty crisis he would be quite aware that Landlords are social parasites that profit off of working-class incomes and exploit the human need for housing and shelter. ... They actively partake in and directly benefit from a system that commodifies a necessary element for survival: housing.

[@voiceofeveryone8657]

@@shadeassassin9248 lol arrogant people labeling other people as arrogant. Get some mirror.

[@shadeassassin9248]

@@voiceofeveryone8657 Get some mirror? Become literate before atempting to address my shortcomings dear. Make sure that you also relay that info back to all the other voices in your head that you speak for. 😂

[@voiceofeveryone8657]

@@shadeassassin9248 talking with a lot of big words and many sentences doesnt make you literate dear😅 even tho you present your argument but still calling other people arrogant , or like saying "having voices in their heads" doesnt make you any smarter. Because literate people never labeling other people like you did(call them arrogant) and smart people always trying to connect ideas by respecting other people instead of the way you do(instantly saying i have voices in my head, wait what?) anyway hopefuly its not you that actually have voices in head lol.

[@shadeassassin9248]

@@voiceofeveryone8657 where do you even come up with these inane comparisons? 😂

[@libertarian_ramblings]

There's a lot more vitriol in this comments section than in the video. MS merely stated that he disagrees with aspects of JP's take on religion; RD said hardly anything: what he did say was supportive of JP. Just seems to me that they would both rather not discuss some other person who isn't even there to defend himself.

[@peterf90]

Great post, I think you summed things up nicely.

[@wilburdemitel8468]

Classic RD fans.

[@123brizy]

The guy that said Jordan Peterson thinks 'people like dawkins should be oppressed'. Some people will just twist the truth and manipulate people to suit their own narrative. Definitely one of the most annoying things.

[@declanfoley7562]

Except Peterson years ago LITERALLY said that (and I'm an atheist who likes a lot about Peterson )

[@TweekDash]

Jordan Peterson said those exact words. "one of the most annoying things" is people who don't even google to check.

[@123brizy]

@@TweekDash I just watched the clip you're talking about and I apologise. The only reason I can think as to why he would say that is because he was irritable about the situation and didnt truly mean it. Dont get me wrong it was a mistake to say that and I would think that Peterson regretted it as soon as it came out of his mouth, big mistake.

[@donnyrosart8714]

Or maybe he's a dick.

[@teamtrees6169]

God works in mysterious ways and so does Jordan Peterson. He did say it but he didn't, but he did but that's alright because Jordan Peterson.

[@PepitoBasado]

Man, I am shockingly suprised that the crowd didnt clap like crazy when Dawkins acknowledged Peterson for standing up against the Canadian Goverment to shove thier pronoun-madness-policy down his throat.

[@whythelongface64]

Nobody is an idiot there, I would presume

[@anandhua.b4589]

because that was a made up issue

[@Biggiiful]

@@anandhua.b4589 no, it wasn't. You can be fined for it. If you don't pay the fine, you go to jail. The threat of jail for compelled speech is REAL in Canada no matter how much you morons try to deny it. I have no problem using someone's pronouns, just like Peterson, if I believe the person is being genuine. I detest the threat of govt fines and jail time, if I do not speak the words some ideologue wishes.

[@whythelongface64]

@@Biggiiful Again, that is the case for service providers, landlords, employers. It is merely an extension of the safeguards for protected minorities. Cope about it.

[@whythelongface64]

Why do I fucking know about the laws of Canada. The things I've had to spend time on because some whiney anglo can't have basic decency.

[@philipnikolayev987]

Dude (Michael Shermer), Shakespeare is not a "novelist."

[@vidfreak56]

Define novelist. Define novel. Then explain how shakespeare is not either of these.

[@vidfreak56]

@Nathaniel Rojo Thats one definition. Heres another. "an invented prose narrative that is usually long and complex and deals especially with human experience through a usually connected sequence of events". Long and complex is arguable. Maybe that's the distinction, but its all in the definition used. Heres another: "The Oxford English Dictionary recognizes other definitions of novelist, first appearing in the 16th and 17th centuries to refer to either "An innovator (in thought or belief); someone who introduces something new or who favours novelty" So depending on what definition you use, SP could be a novelist. Although in contemporary popular definitions, he is not.

[@vidfreak56]

@Nathaniel Rojo Again were arguing what novel means, and what sense shermer used it. You have no idea what sense he meant. If he did mean the former, then clearly he is wrong.

[@TheConqueror009]

If you havent learned to use certain phrases or ideas in context by now in life you never learned reasoning skills. But when you're in literature novelist is a novelist according to a literature professor or classical antiquity. If you want a debate about lexicon you should have went into mathematics or linguistics. Get your head right.

[@imleksutra933]

Heavy ignorance.

[@LummyTum]

"I never offer an opinion on something of which I am ignorant" Nicely said, more people should do as him.

[@tom2659]

Didn’t stop him writing a book about it.

[@fakename7901]

Christians still accuse that man of being "prideful"

[@lobbyskids2]

I really like Dawkins and I really like Peterson. Dawkins work shaped who I was when I was growing into adulthood. Peterson has helped shape myself into my late 20s. I think they both have conflicting ideas so I think a debate between them would be excellent.

[@gianthills]

You can't debate beliefs.

[@gianthills]

@@lobbyskids2 nope. One guy saying what they believe but cannot prove. The other guy saying what they believe but cannot prove. Where is the debate?

[@gianthills]

@@lobbyskids2 a theological debate makes sense, yes, as both sides believe in God but are just conflicted on the scholarly literature. but debating whether God exists or not, no .

[@filipeporto6034]

That is precisely the same path I followed with both, very interesting.

[@killerbee1647]

@@lobbyskids2 gosh I could have written your post, except the rock bit!

[@damian.gamlath]

Peterson wants to answer one of the biggest questions of our existence I. E. Does God exist, with more than a "yes" or a "no", and *that's* wrong? OK then, let's do the same with general relativity: some dude said mass bends space. Never mind the 16 something non linear differential equations... Or the tensor calculus... Etc...

[@Lightnings]

27kdon Exactly. Honestly, after watching this video and previously (especially a few years ago as a Teen) having been into Richard Dawkins's views, I immediately lost all my Respect to Mr Dawkins. I don't think that he has a good influence on the world nor can he lead to progress, unify people.

[@aguti1111]

I don't think it's exactly true, the question mentioned by Micheal was "do you believe in God?" NOT "does god exist?". One is a personal belief/opinion, the other is an argument that can indeed take hours to go through

[@abrahamlincoln5185]

Yeah it's annoying how ppl (atheists/religious) want a one word answer to the most complicated questions. If you're answer is yes or no to the greatest philosophical questions than u clearly haven't thought hard enough on it

[@user-tf4ho2uo1e]

one thing I've learned in life is that it's a thousand times easier to destroy something that to build it. to say there must be a yes or no answer to "do you believe in God?" is to destroy the concept by minimizing the concept of God to some that either does or doesn't exist in a physical sense. but of course the very notion of a God or Gods is far more dynamic. It would take Jordan Peterson 4 hours to answer, because it is necessary to take that amount of time to build the answer

[@daan260]

@@aguti1111 like dawkins said "I never offer an opinion of something of which I'm ignorant". We don't know if there is a god, so why do we have to give a definite yes or no answer? You can have very strong believes about it or you can be somewhere in the middle, there is nothing wrong with that.

[@garrettgutierrez2677]

I love Peterson but I empathize with these guys. Expecting every public intellectual to have an opinion on everything he says must be pretty tiring for these guys, and regarding Shermer specifically Peterson's theory of truth is definitely wonky. I think his "it would take 40 hours for me to answer that question" nature is part of what makes him endearing.

[@Athul14311]

Jesus resurrection??? That question doesn't necessarily require that much time does it???

[@GrubKiller436]

@@Athul14311 Seperate the wheat from the chaff.

[@darkwolf4434]

Jordan means other truths as an example an animation is factually just pictures, but the truth Jordan talks about is the truths within those stories which are the archetypes.

[@latenightlogic]

How can you like an idiot like Peterson?

[@robrick9361]

2:05 Which is the point. Peterson looks at religion at multiple levels, which is the only way to look at it. Religion isn't like science which can be separated into different fields. It was a way to navigate the world and a way for people to live their lives. It's very complicated and acting like it isn't is just lazy thinking. Yeah something which has been around for 2000+ years, and you want Peterson to answer it simply. Jordan Peterson is taking religion more seriously than either of these two. And if you think religion is just a fantasy.........well okay, but you still haven't accounted for the fact that it's been an enormous part of every society that has ever existed. Dismissing it is not explaining anything and is the definition of anti-science.

[@22jaydn]

Just because religion has been a part of every society doesn't make it true.

[@robrick9361]

@@22jaydn No but there existence is a fact. You can't argue that religions exist see people practice them. So even if they're not true you still have to explain why they exist in the first place. That's what real science is about. Explaining the world, not dismissing the parts you think are wrong.

[@aman_insaan]

@@robrick9361 so dear, all right. They existed in first place to answer some of the questions of existence when the science was not so evolved as of now. Buddy, religion is nothing but an expression of willing to answer the very questions of life. But we have to consider that it was an improper, insufficient and in today's times out of date explanation. Only reason can answer these questions. That's why there are totally 16000 religions exists today And every religion has its own interpretation of these questions which is not even close to the practical and physical reality. And that's why some of earlierly very essential part of religion, which was then widely accepted, today do not even partially parts that religion.

[@robrick9361]

@@aman_insaan That's like calling Newton wrong because his theories didn't account for everything. The very people who criticise religion always judge it for how far from reality it is, but they never do the same to the great scientists of the past. Many things about Newtonian physics were wrong. Newton was still a genius and his work is still important. Science is only useful for dealing with specific things, not for living your life. The world is far too complex to deal with all the intricacies at all times. Religion is a mandatory simplification. You can disagree with it, but insulting it is just lazy thinking.

[@Christoffer13]

I hope this analogy might help. Let's say you're a kid in school and all your class mates are picking on you for being stupid. Science might prove that you're not stupid but it won't make the reason why you got picked on less true.

[@Antidon1]

the problem is that Peterson thinking about the system (or structure), and those two are thinking about its parts

[@dave9401]

No Peterson denies systems and structures constantly. He's all about the individual.

[@drewcrawford394]

@@dave9401 Can you explain? What structures does he not believe in? From my experience he has talked about structure in nature, in hierarchies, and in personality.

[@dave9401]

@@drewcrawford394 structural racism, the patriarchy, etc. He's always harping on about the individual and having to fix one's self while denying the impact of well documented social structures on the individual.

[@drewcrawford394]

@@dave9401 I think I may view it differently. I see it as though Peterson is identifying and teaching how to assimilate into efficient structures that we may not try to adhere to.

[@dave9401]

@@drewcrawford394 Jordan Peterson is way off base in his assumptions about people anyway. Honestly he once said that he has monetised the emotions of young men. He's way off base with women too, do not take his advice on women, the dude is jaded that he got cheated on and it's turned him in a mysogynist.

[@franekvetulani]

7:54 man you stole my heart with your joke

[@fieldy409]

Haha you can see Richard going into full grumpy old man mode. I think he'd even had enough of the jokes.

[@ahmadjamalmughal47]

LMAO the way Richard says "OH NOOO"

[@sophiarevel6952]

@@fieldy409 agree

[@djanitatiana]

It's always easy to see who wants to score some cheap woke points when they start talking about Peterson. The straw men start burning shortly after.

[@FedeArgentina]

No one here understood or tried to, any jbp class. Its nice to read ur comment, a different one

[@pillsareyummy]

Using the term ‘Woke’ with Dawkins and Shermer, yikes ... Shermer’s magazine Skeptic had an issue devoted to ‘Woke Culture’. You clearly don’t know much about these two.

[@curiosity_saved_the_cat]

Interesting to see how Michael Schermer is able to hold a pedantic smile on his face while completely avoiding the question; "My question would be, has atheism or secular society failed to provide a compelling narrative for people to grasp on"

[@TheMaggileinchen]

I was a little bit disappointed that he didn't answer my question (yes, this was me) and just gave his opinion about the person "Peterson".

[@curiosity_saved_the_cat]

@@TheMaggileinchen Hello. I can imagine you were disappointed. It's quite a fundamental question. What would be your answer to this question, if I may ask?

[@TheMaggileinchen]

@@curiosity_saved_the_cat I was indeed disappointed, because I really did not want to make it about the person itself but more about the actual question, obviously ;) I personally believe that we can explain more things with science than most people think. Behaving in a moraly good manner has benefitted us as a species. Sam Harris has also explained how the deep, metaphysical narratives and archetypes that Peterson talked about only say something about our evolutionary psychology and not about the existence of a god or even the right or wrong religion. Thinking back about my question: I also think that atheism itself doesn't have to provide anything. And that's where it gets tricky. Coming back to the event: I thought the Peterson-Topic was done with my question. When the third and fourth question was asked I felt kind of embarrassed 😁 but I briefly talked to Shermer afterwards and he was totally cool about it. I also appreciated that Dawkins didn't say anything because he believed that he didn't know enough about Peterson.

[@gaiusjuliuspleaser]

Japan is functionally atheist. I can think of few places in the world more appealing to live. Similarly, Scandinavian countries are generally fairly atheist as well. Now compare those to rigid religious societies, like Saudi Arabia. Compelling enough?

[@psychepeteschannel5500]

Atheism has not failed to provide such a narrative, because it never attempted to provide any narrative in the first place... is the only necessary answer to that question.

[@kelvinbennis2989]

These guys have their noses out of joint because of Peterson’s popularity’s

[@maybepriyansh9193]

he is popular coz he uses deception of complex sentences to concince people of the beliefs of the deranged majority

[@maybepriyansh9193]

@Shikhar Srivastava Complex sentences that dont mean anything annoy me.Not interested in pondering over jargon

[@maybepriyansh9193]

@Shikhar Srivastava I have probed them enough and tbh they arent complex at all

[@maybepriyansh9193]

@Shikhar Srivastava not everything but a lot of it yes

[@maybepriyansh9193]

@Shikhar Srivastava btw u do know about the pseudo science and irrational stuff he preaches and professes? Even in his book

[@GrubKiller436]

4:43 This guy needs to take a seat. He took Peterson's words out of context.

[@BFrydell]

"He said that atheists should be oppressed." When the heck did he say that?

[@diemanner7164]

He did say that, while mentioning Dawkins.

[@TadValente]

@@BFrydell kzbin.info/www/bejne/amm5YaBooc6Ua7c The atheist in this vid is terrible though. Dawkins has countered every point Jordan makes ( *trying to not get your hopes up* ).

[@valelantin1991]

In an interview Peterson said something along the lines of "I act as if god exists." I take this as a maxim for social interacting.

[@EmmaKnightleyNo1]

Because he cannot decide for himself how to act? And what does that even mean? What god? The jealous, sadistic, misanthropic Christian god, or goodytwoshoe Jesus? Men, power, oppression, fear. God. No thank you.

[@GrammeStudio]

he takes anti-depressant. so evidently, not. even if he did so what? utility does not equate truth.

[@seanjones2456]

Said the guy that flew an airplane into a building.

[@KizaWittaker]

Emma Knightley Wow. Thats comment was pretty funny lol.

[@junevandermark952]

"We are all hallucinating all the time, including right now. It’s just that when we agree about our hallucinations, we call that reality.” Anil Seth … neuroscientist.

[@sophiarevel6952]

Agree

[@obscuredsatellitesinflight6034]

I don't agree with Michael that talking about/explaining/personally interpreting God for “40 hours” (exaggerating, I know) is necessarily a bad thing. Especially if it leads to healthy dialogue between two opposing points of view or into a deeper conversation. Seems more engaging then just a flat yes or in Michaels case, no.

[@AneTix101]

As if countless religions, scholars, prophets, laymen, and crackpots haven't written, wrestled, and thought endlessly the question of "God", purpose, and meaning for thousands of years, yet "40 hours" is ridiculous. I'm not even religious and the idea of having such a simple answer for such a complicated & nuanced question rubs me as arrogant and dismissive in the most condescending way possible. And the guy who said "Peterson believes people like Richard Dawkins should be oppressed" nearly made me fall out of my damn chair.

[@viljamtheninja]

@@AneTix101 You can talk about the purpose and benefits of religion all you want (and I believe it has both purpose and benefits as a compelling narrative as opposed to secularized "meaninglessness"), but if you can't straight up answer "Does God exist?" with a yes or no then you're knee deep in your own bullshit.

[@SAISAI-id4rm]

@@viljamtheninja the question that made humanity engage to find the answer in the history of mankind.. and some 300 iq youtube commenter here saying its a no or a yes without stumbling through the answer. Its a NO because religions who tell us about gods are full of contradiction and flaws and that make it claims not genuine and science can give us all the answer if we just give it more time or Its a YES cause Life is so peculiar and we still cant discover how it all starts so there must be something or someone out there who's the source of the miracle.. Everybody can answer yes or no and theres still no proven right answer. Classic reasonings that doesnt contribute to anything. Maybe you are so sure that you think you already pick the right answer and throw the possibility of the other answer being right so you already stop stumbling through answer

[@dimi3978]

@@viljamtheninja Agnostics don't agree to that. As Dawkins actually stated once, that in principle he can't tell whether God exists, it's just that he became very popular under the name atheist, but strictly speaking he's agnostic. Jordan Peterson's God isn't simply the man with the beard that created it all 6000 years ago. It goes way deeper, and honestly, I can't judge it, I'm not knowledgeable enough to right now.

[@viljamtheninja]

@@dimi3978"Jordan Peterson's God isn't simply the man with the beard that created it all 6000 years ago." Really? Then why can't he stop talking about Judeo-Christian morals and narratives? That just seems like he's being intentionally vague in order to make his story work. I'm all for agnosticism, in fact I subscribe to it; I agree that there very well maybe something that we would define as a God if we were to know it, but that we likely never well because it probably is far beyond our possibility to grasp, limited as we are by human understanding. Here, I will accept "maybe, I dunno" as the most reasonable answer as to whether or not something like this exist. But the God of the Old Testament? Nope. He is a manmade fiction, just like the Sumerian Gods, the Norse Gods, and all the other fictions people used to tell before we actually knew shit. Edit: For that matter, I don't believe Peterson is a small-minded fool. But his unwillingness to answer with a yes or no to a yes or no question seems to come from the mindset of the postmodernists he hates so much.

[@davipenha]

Jordan Peterson loves deep and abstract conversations, so never expect superficial answers for complex questions

[@Thiran]

JP dances around the question, like a politician. Whether he believes god exists or not, comes down to a "yes or no" answer. Sure u can go on and explain ur thoughts and reason to back up ur answer, but at some point u need to address the question with a definitive determination. JP doesn't do that in this case.

[@TopLobster11]

Shermer has a nut in the place of the Brain. He won’t get it.

[@albertocolombo6646]

@@Thiran i believe some questions cant always be answered that simply. Even after a fair amount of reasoning you might still be unsure. Especially when problems of definition kick in. And especially when the topic is god. To leave the wounds open and not stating a definitive propositional answer could be reasonable.

[@davipenha]

@ayy lmao we've been watching the same person yet seen so different things

[@tacituskilgore9838]

Dawkins dodging questions like matrix dodging bullets I'm Dawkins fan BTW

[@Athul14311]

Where was the dodge may i ask my friend?

[@TheEternalOuroboros]

@@Athul14311 'I don't have an opinion'

[@Athul14311]

@@TheEternalOuroboros precisely my point ☺️☺️☺️

[@TheShutteredRoom]

We all go to Dawkins, Shermer or Peterson for the same reason, we appreciate the power of knowledge and reason.

[@123brizy]

Thats very true, we have a lot more in common than we have differences. The search for truth is my religion

[@vidfreak56]

Not really. To say we all go to each person for the same reason is nonsense. All 3 of these people offer knowledge and reason to differing degrees. Peterson offers it far less than the other 2.

[@harryh628]

is this a sacastic statement.. i hope so..lol

[@BearKlaw]

@@123brizy Same here

[@EmmaKnightleyNo1]

You are putting Sunshine and Fog on the same level of brightness.

[@Eddbrain]

I know this has nothing to do with the video but, would you mind giving me the name of that song at the end?

[@ManufacturingIntellect]

Thanks. The first acoustic guitar thing is from a song I wrote and the second clip is from a band I used to be in. I can send you a link if you want.

[@Eddbrain]

Manufacturing Intellect that makes sense, I literally tried to Shazam this song, couldn't even come close to a recognition. That's a great acoustic guitar solo and a badass band, send me a link. Btw great channel.

[@jackfrancis3975]

Comparing Jordan Peterson to Tony Robins is like comparing Sebastian Bach to Britney Spears.

[@aizvass424]

@coffee one is a scientist and the other is not. One uses empirical evidence to help improving your life and the other uses pseudoscience

[@aizvass424]

@coffee Yes that what i think after reading some of his books. The way he talks in certainty about his methods although a lot of them may not be supported by research just puts me off. I'm not being a hater of the guy, because I'm aware that he indeed helped a lot of people with those very same methods. But on a personal note, I would rather take an advice from JP due to his research and academic background than Tony Robbins.

[@ezekieljarek7705]

They can't handle Jordan Peterson 🤣

[@carloschris2792]

....Neither can I, but maybe it depends on what you mean by handle.

[@anshumathew3058]

@@carloschris2792 lol ... well put

[@dianedong1062]

What do you mean by "handle"?

[@dianedong1062]

I like listening to Jordan Peterson when he stays within the limits of his expertise, but I feel disappointed when he starts talking about population, climate change, the environment, or other areas in which he isn't an expert.

[@mojo9291]

Shermer: "People like Jordan Peterson for self-help reasons." Does he think they don't go to him and Dawkins for the same reasons? The question is: why?

[@harveydodd8803]

No, Dawkins’ books explain deep scientific truths. They aren’t self help.

[@chandyone151]

Truth isn‘t always what one wants to hear…

[@Koevid-IVFPandemieAngstPornoNO]

Self help is for people who can't think for themmselfs. Peterson = Koch Brother conservative mentality. Right wing capitalist nonsense. Something regular people should stay away from.

[@jonjacksongrieger255]

... that part about the icons is true... That’s why we need an entire scientific enterprise in order to look at things objectively...

[@juancpgo]

Dawkins is a great thinker of biology, but he often seems to think stubbornly to me in other areas. Shermeer is as smart guy but I have the same impression. And both have an bitchy attitude about them, whereas Peterson strikes me as a much sharper thinker and more humble than both.

[@jessequest8575]

Definitely

[@coreymckay5202]

Humble? Or pretentious

[@jessequest8575]

Corey Mckay The consequences of his actions are not pretentious their results get over it

[@jessequest8575]

Corey Mckay Damage has been done 😂😂

[@animeshsharma1445]

@@coreymckay5202 My nigga you just got roasted

[@cabal4171]

"If it takes you 40 mins to answer the question then we're not talking about the same thing" ...um yes that's the point. You guys think god is some bearded man in the sky; something theologians,Jordan etc. have never said is god.

[@JanKowalski-pe9lo]

Yeah... If we are creation of God how we can even TRY to understand this "entity". It`s like ant`s tries to understand how combustion engine works. Just hilarious...

[@aesthetewithoutacause3981]

He said 40 hours. 40 mins and 40 hours are very different things.

[@cabal4171]

@@aesthetewithoutacause3981 Jesus you literalists 🙄 .. it's a metaphor, he could've said a week and anyone who isn't brain-dead would've gotten his point.

[@Drkbowers1]

Theologians, Jordan Peterson especially, still use the word god as if it has the same colloquial meaning everyone else thinks it has. Often this use goes unclarified unless pushed, and in the case of Jordan, you can see in debates and interviews he really hates to make the distinction that should be fundamental to his ideas. Sam Harris has to practically torture it out of him. Honestly even this wouldn't be a problem except the majority of religious people believe God literally exists, was literally resurrected, and will literally send you to hell for your sins. And that's just in the US. And when Jordan Peterson/Theologians throw "god" around without clarification, people rightfully assume they're talking about the literal god.

[@fieldy409]

Saying theologians have 'never' said that is quite the statement. Can you really speak on behalf of nearly two thousand years of christianity all across the world? I think you'll find God was a 'man in the sky' before modern technology allowed us to go up there and see that he wasn't up there. If you read the Tower of Babel without waving it all away conveniently as a metaphor it's clear that the bible is stating that heaven was in the sky. In the Torah it even mentions they fired an arrow into the sky to strike heaven. Those people certainly seemed to think heaven was in the sky.

[@paperclip11]

Sam Harris did a fantastic job as a devout atheist pulling out a deep philosophical discussion out Jordan Peterson that challenged both of their beliefs on some level. Can't really imagine the same discussion happening with either of these two. Side Note: He mentioned a Star Trek episode in which Picard struggled with the 4 light torture. Building on that, what basis other than faith or belief did Starfleet have for following the Prime Directive. Why is interfering with other civilisations considered morally negative. Popped in my head as he mentioned it. Thought it would be a fun little exercise. Mind you, haven't seen the 4 light torture episode yet. Something to look forward to!

[@thesprawl2361]

Sam didn't do anything in those debates. Peterson just twisted himself in knots because up until now he's never had to have any kind of overarching consistency in the things he believes. The thing about Dawkins, Harris, Pinker, etc. is that their beliefs are self-consistent and exist in a framework, which is that of scientific rationalism. Jordan Peterson is: - mildly interesting on a tiny number of subjects, - incomprehensible(even to himself) on religion, truth and meaning, and - a total crank on others, like diet, gender relations, etc. The idea that he's a great thinker is very, very silly indeed. Shermer had it right with the Tony Robbins comparison. Peterson is basically a cross between Robbins and Deepak Chopra who spouts the kind of life advice you'd get from a robot who'd only ever watched adverts for men's razors.

[@Meatbun]

starfleet probably was unwilling to shoulder the responsibility, burden, and possibility of a catastrophic backfire of casting forth an alien society into a warp age. similarly to how the U.S. has gone to the middle east and tried to coach a country or two into some kind of democratic rule and increased westernization, the people there were not ready to accept it which is why turmoil still follows and the region is rife with struggle, suffering, oppression, factions that are anti-american (anti change too) and falls short of American (Starfleet's let's say) ideals of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. My guess is that because cultures are complex and different in what those set of values are, that Starfleet cannot merely impose or introduce new values on an alien culture because they may not synergize or be compatible and can be far more destructive than progressive.

[@EmmaKnightleyNo1]

@@Meatbun are you serious? Please do some research. Democratising was, if anything, just a front. Please tell me you do know that. It's aboit oil, and power, and strategic influence, and making the weapons industry happy. The way you word it sounds imperialistic, and simplistic.

[@LARESCIV]

@Mesophyl nice cool stories, peterson is extremely hard to out-logicize thats why hes still relevant, you are just ignorant by the all likes of it

[@SergioCastillo87]

On Peterson, I've seen his debates and his opinions and i agree with Michael, on some things he totally makes sense, on some others he even confirms that he hasn't made up his mind so doesnt present any factual claims. Religion for example, at some point he may claim he believes in the god of Einstein which is this great machinery we exist in, but then he totally distorts that view claiming that humans cannot make up their own values so they had to come from a superior deity and then his whole argument just falls off. He's smart, but his scientific foundation is poor,i guess he's really scared of that if god exists he might go to hell. On star trek, the decision to not interfere is moral at some point but it's mostly scientific, imagine if aliens came to us humans with such a great technology that could be both as magnificently constructive as it is destructive. What would the Chinese, or north Korea, or Russia, or even the US do is not first use it to try to destroy their enemies, impose their regimes, no matter if left or right, and get over the world? Yes, that's the moral pov, but then how do we prevent this? Scientifically speaking is a whole process of educating, learning, experimenting, little by little improve our society, improve our behavior, unify our race, then we could be ready for such technologies, why the ban on nuclear for example? Because we are not even ready for some things we created ourselves. Would you say then, does this alien race want to help us and stay with us until we achieve those goals which could take hundreds of years? Starfleet response is then we don't have the resources to do that, better not interfere then, hence the rule. Someday we, as the human race could be ready to assist our selves, only then we could think of assisting others...

[@60battlecat]

Except that he isn’t “ignorant “ of it. He says he is because his strongly worded condemnation of organised religion is left spinning in the wake of Jordan Petersons more complete hypothesis about God. I’ve read both mens books.

[@dariodelolmogarrido4045]

Richard Dawkins is an extreme rationalist and in constant pursuit of truth. He is also much more erudite in his study of evolution. "Spinning in wake"? You've fallen for Peterson's spell. But that is understandable as he is a captivating orator. His voice is choking with emotion. They're both great for different things.

[@mayankchaturvedi5950]

I like Peterson and Dawkins both and they have helped me tremendously

[@SStupendous]

Got to agree.

[@MichaelScott261]

Peterson is nothing but a grifter.

[@SStupendous]

@@MichaelScott261 *Michael Scott is nothing but a guy who says shit about people that would eat him for lunch if they ever met him in person

[@kapilchhabria1727]

neither have helped you. if you are persuaded by dawkins to reject the god hypothesis, it is likely due to that doubt in the offered hypothesis existed and and upon accessing a compendium of evidence against creationism, you are more convinced by evolution. that is all that dawkins has really offered; no small feat, but still rather reductive and derivative: here is the evidence for evolution - paleontological, genetic, and physiological. as for peterson, if you have benefitted from the nonsense he peddles, yeah you really havent done much then.

[@mayankchaturvedi5950]

@@kapilchhabria1727 that post was an year ago . Now my views have changed but nonetheless you have got a point

[@williamhunt7877]

How do you not love Richard Dawkins? He's gold.

[@damian.gamlath]

Love is a strong word

[@LARESCIV]

hes just timid, plain, uninspiring generic old man

[@torkelthunefladstad]

@@LARESCIV It would improve our world if you were inspired by what Dawkins says at 4:19.

[@LARESCIV]

@@torkelthunefladstad thats just a cool catchphrase he said, meanwhile hes meddling into religions so complex(like christianity or islam) and gives rough estimations what they are all about that are anything but precise and true. hes just a pseudointellectual thats gonna be forgotten after he dies cause had nothing original going for him

[@torkelthunefladstad]

@@LARESCIV Scientists who are innovating evolutionary biology are uninspiring, plain and generic pseudointellectuals which should be judged. Religion is complex and should not be judged. I gotcha 👍

[@LucasvanHeerikhuizen]

Love how it turns into a 1984 vs Star Trek: TNG geekout :D

[@jamesleprettre6088]

Shakespeare aint a novelist 😂

[@RH-of5cr]

Shermer is clueless about Jordan

[@devanshtyagi1403]

How?

[@emilsundbaum5221]

@@devanshtyagi1403 Since jordan is a darwinian and a psychologist he sometimes makes the case that something in a novell and our reaction to it may be more real than just the physical reality of matter. This because we’re selected for by natural selection and something kills you then it isnt true enough. Im vague but its along those lines.

[@devanshtyagi1403]

@@emilsundbaum5221 you're vague but that's the whole issue that was expressed in the video. I get what you're saying, I've done my research on Peterson's views. In his recent podcast with Laurence Krauss he briefly mentioned how subjective realities are real but by no means affect the objective truth. That's sort of self explanatory. You saying "our reaction to it may be *more* real than just the physical reality of matter" is pure quackery, and this is not an insult but that's what it is. There are two possible explanations for this, either you're not able to articulate your thought well enough or you dont really understand your thoughts or his thoughts but the appeal of the mystical makes you believe in it, and rationality is just a cover up. "This is because we're selected for"? What? "And something kills you then it isn't true enough" what? You're more than vague buddy, you need to sit down and construct a proper explanation of his and your thoughts.

[@guitar0wnz]

I think he gets Jordan but disagrees with him at some point. I've been following Jordan very closely and I actually agree with Jordan, but I think Shermer also gave the best short steel man I've ever heard by anyone that disagrees with him.

[@emilsundbaum5221]

@@devanshtyagi1403 I was a bit lazy making that comment. I found a good lecture snippet that gets some of his views on truth. A little bit about how if its not useful then it isnt true per say. kzbin.info/www/bejne/i6bPhJSlqdGJj8k

[@dianedong1062]

I always enjoy listening to lectures from Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, and Jordan Peterson. However, Jordan Peterson's conversation sometimes drifts into areas beyond his expertise, and I feel disappointed when that happens.

[@johnjosmith42]

Michael Shermer hasn't read 1984? wowzers - please change the title of this to: Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer dodge discussion of Jordan Peterson.

[@fiontancahill3338]

Anyone with the ability to read should read 1984.

[@TweekDash]

How can you assume he hasn't read 1984 just because he referenced a Star Trek episode that copied it?

[@johnjosmith42]

TweekDash that same way i can tell you haven’t read it - it’s the central conceit of the novel Champ 👍

[@juancpgo]

Definitely didn’t read.

[@johnjosmith42]

Voice of Reason - now there’s the voice of reason 💁🏻‍♂️

[@jackbrooking4754]

I wish Dawkins would accept Stephen Meyers invitation to a debate, it’d be a fantastic spectacle.

[@michael7v6]

It would be fantastic!

[@jamesdenis8058]

After this clip, I doubt Shermer has read maps of meaning. He should have listened to Dawkins more reasonable position of not commenting if you aren’t adequately familiar with the topic.

[@danbark4603]

One of things that sometimes makes me a little mad is that I keep trying to find flaws in the words of Doctor Peterson because Ive heard and read so much of his work and weirdly all of it makes sense and Im scared I may have fallen into some weird rabbit hole but all Im met with are people who either dont have the patience or have incredibly incorrect ideas of what he has stated in a lot of his videos or works. I deeply admire Dr Petersons words, not necessarily him as a man, I think he has long surrendered most of his being to "the truth" which makes his speech deadly great. And almost every time people get it wrong or try to make him sound irrational. That man next to Dawkins gladly scoffed the fact that Jordan says it would take him 40 hours to reply about what he means as God, why is it funny? Why is it scoffable? is it irrational to propose that? Matters of truth, good, evil, ethics take hours, weeks, hell even years to discuss and come to an agreement. I hate this. Everytime I think Ive found people who can maybe help me explore even more of the world they are nothing but cynical. And only the Doctor Petersons words remain true enough. Sad

[@Science10s]

I am currently were you are. I once told someone I love JBP he replied, be careful lest you don't see were he is wrong.. I am sincerely looking for someone who can counter what JBP says with superior logic, facts and truths, until then JBP is the smartest out here.

[@jamesrutterford576]

I have to say I also agree for the most part. I’m partially with Michael Shermer about some of his religious and metaphysical thinking but even then I’m careful not to discount Jordans ideas given such topics are matters of opinion as our current understanding of the facts can only take us so far without the need for inductive reasoning. On pretty much all other topics though, I think he’s almost always spot on, his arguments always are so well supported and almost anyone I’ve ever seen disagree with him and provide an actual argument rather than an ideological rant has vastly misconstrued his words into a claim that he doesn’t make. I am convinced that regardless of whether I turn out to be partially wrong about him, the man is undoubtedly a top level intellectual with a lot of brilliant ideas.

[@adep1544]

It should take 2 minutes at the longest. Does he believe in a conscious celestial entity that dictates our lives? It's a simple yes or no.

[@Idothinkysaurus]

@@adep1544 What does that kind of question even accomplish? I find there to be a lot of useless questions once you get into the weird zone of "higherish" thought, stuff like "what's the meaning of life", "what happens when we die", "where does consciousness come from", etc. It's something you could debate FOREVER because there's seemingly no concrete answer, it's all subjective garbage, and it's impossible to prove any answer 100%. If anything it's a mental toy to play with for a bit before you put it away, and even then it's for children at best.

[@Idothinkysaurus]

I agree it might be impossible. He really did give his life to his research, he says it himself. And to think he was a young drinker before something drove him in a frenzy for the truth. I once idolized him as nearly flawless, thought "what am I doing" and tried desperately, searching for someone to dethrone him. People just don't get him, or purposefully misconstrue him, and if you do get him, it's almost like you can't disagree because he's just that good. He already makes what seem to be the most generally morally justifiable arguments, that follow such hard lines of logic it's almost like a computer. He brings forth scientific reasoning and practically begs for you to see for yourself, because he's that right. It's almost like it's not his opinion, and he's ripping the wool from your eyes. He's also so wonderfully articulate and linguistic that he can specify his ideas to the T and leave no room for misinterpretation, if you understand the words. It's bonkers! If that wasn't enough, he's formidable, well read, patient, genuinely kind, has a history of struggle, the whole nine yards of a good person. How do you genuinely contend with that without being deplorable? Most of the smarter people he debates end up agreeing with him on the serious stuff, because they see it, too. It's so unreal, yet he's still just a man like any other! The only thing I can say that's not in his favour is that I don't like when he goes on tours. I know he has to make a living, but the quality of his insight dips noticeably when he's on tour. Maybe it's my own ideals, seeing it almost as a rock tour. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not right for him.

[@junevandermark952]

“I act as if God exists, and I’m terrified he might.” ~ Jordan Peterson

[@cmor5729]

That’s not remotely original- it’s a variation on Pascal’s wager from the 17th century.

[@junevandermark952]

@@cmor5729 I suggest you take your complaint up with Jordan Peterson.

[@cmor5729]

@@junevandermark952 Well, if you see him then please pass it on. You’re quoting someone paraphrasing someone else. “Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas if God does exist, he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (an eternity in Hell)” ~ Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

[@junevandermark952]

@@cmor5729 Do you believe that there is a heaven where the soul of Blaise Pascal is now residing? Oh, and by the way, (within theology) ... if Lucifer sinned against god while in heaven, that means that sin is allowed in heaven, and that if the god gets ticked off with any behavior of souls, it is just as possible that he will also boot those souls down below into a writhing hell for eternity, which is what he did to poor old Lucifer. Scribes in all religions were paid to write stories, and so they kept writing. It was and is, a much better living than digging ditches, and then getting calloused hands.

[@junevandermark952]

@@aman-qj5sx Whenever I think of Jordan Peterson, the first thought that comes to mind, is that quote by John Diefenbaker ... "I have never seen so many words chasing one idea in such a way that nobody knows what the idea was." I listened to many of Jordan's podcasts, and the one to which I relate is "short," ... to the point ... and from my perspective, makes complete sense. And that podcast is this one ... The Reason for Almost All Mental Illness Jordan Peterson … kzbin.info/www/bejne/hYjCq6OfZ82gf5Y

[@MonkeyKong21]

peterson said he's scheduled to have a conversation with dawkins, but there's a delay in the release of some of these videos, so it's hard to tell when that will be available

[@Paradox-dy3ve]

The collage of classic art at the end is really beautiful! Well done on the editing 👌

[@joshzimmer]

The way I see it Jordan Peterson has no motive other than to be helpful and that's rare

[@ashutoshsingh3285]

Perfectly said 👍

[@cgme7076]

Wow! I can't believe how old Dawkins is looking. I'm a fan of his, by the way.

[@6Gizmo101]

he is 77 tbf

[@joanketelby752]

He had a stroke in 2016.

[@samdg1234]

Can someone tell me if the logo in the top right is supposed to be the double helix of DNA?

[@fst-timer7107]

For the most part, people who listen to JP are the same people who listen to these two (and others). And that's the right way to do it. A coin needs two sides. Without night AND day, we'd be deprived of the beauty of the dusk and dawn.

[@nafloschi]

"man, you gotta be more sophisticated than that!"

[@hbbhdd7291]

Love the outro!

[@eclipsewrecker]

As far as the Peterson/Harris “truth” vs scientific fact “deployment (pre-debate)” goes: It made sense to me that Sam would hold the position he held, knowing his expertise/profession. It made sense to me that Peterson would hold the position he held, knowing his expertise and professional work. It seemed Sam wasn’t going to budge at all, even though he has, from time to time, argued from Peterson’s “truth (not scientific fact)” position. It surprised me.

[@BJSal916]

These guys talk about peterson being fuzzy or murky and that's what they are. Both seem jealous of peterson

[@99ariyaratnamj]

When he says “I’m thoroughly in his favour. Good for him!” I can’t tell if he’s being sarcastic or not

[@speakebreathe]

He's not.

[@tom2659]

He’s in favour. For a hardcore biological reductionist like Dakwins all this transgender stuff must be maddening beyond belief.

[@9535310131]

Humanist Association knows what he meant

[@Ck-zk3we]

@@tom2659 accept that the transgender stuff is biologically based

[@tom2659]

@@Ck-zk3we what do you mean?

[@geozipper]

From an email to my brother who sent me this: Shermer sounds like he is in complete agreement with Jordan except for the "truth" thing. I'm going to re-watch that Peterson/Harris debate because I think Shermer got that part wrong: Jordan was countering Harris when Harris opted for "facts" as being equivalent to "truth." If that was the case, then only "scientific fact" could be identified as "truth." Jordan takes issue - - as I remember it - - with this false equivalency. If that was the case, then narratives, stories, art, poetry, religion, would then hold no "truths" whatsoever, apart from ones that could be 'scientifically verified.' When Shermer, in his essay, says Jordan opts for a "pragmatic interpretation of truth," he misses the point that this also includes the science fact that Harris is fond of. It was Harris who was doubling-down on only one well-defined, limited arena (say) wherein truth resides, as I recall. Even Shermer agrees that literary truths are valid. Okay, if that is so, then The Bible (say) still holds relevant truths for us today that may be more 'metaphorical' than 'literal.' Harris believes all religious texts can be thrown out & only their agreed-upon moral truths kept, apart from the narrative. I'm not sure about that, given human nature & our predilections for experiencing stories in an emotional, visceral way, as opposed to stone cold intellectually. Shermer also seems to unlink his argument from the philosophy of Deconstruction, which is the basis of the modernist claim that there are any number of truths to be had. Jordan (who is not a great fan of that idea), at least, is helping to put the Genie back in the Bottle, by postulating, "okay, let's say that's a given, BUT out of these myriad interpretations of truth (which Post-Modernists would say point to no truth at all) there are actually a limited set of workable ones that are beneficial & useful for human survival." So I feel Shermer has misinterpreted Jordan to some extent & has trivialized his importance. The fact that Jordan is speaking basically to/in a vacuum of belief caused by Post-Modernist thought, that Atheistic thought has yet to fill with meaning that resonates (even to atheists/non-Christians such as myself) is not a small thing.

[@topcattai]

I was upset when listening to the JP SH conversations too when that was just glossed over. The impression i get when listening to that specific counterargument from Sam Harris is that it should not matter if something fills in the void or not, that it does not have to be motivating enough to create art(etc). That is should be self evident, but it does not take into account Human nature. Which the religious stories , whether you believe they actually happened or not, do help guide you to the better decisions already.

[@speakebreathe]

Boom.

[@CP-012]

Notice how the crowd’s applause died out when Dawkins congratulated Peterson on his stand for freedom of speech. What? are Atheists not in favour of free speech? What gives?

[@Pietrosavr]

I don't understand why so many atheists have a problem with this. Science is based on empiricism which is based on perception which is based on consciousness. Values, desires and feelings have the exact same origin, they originate within the consciousness. You can apply logic to both of them and you have different types of truths, where one can't be translated into the other but they do work together. They are both a part of reality, an essential part of reality. For example, your perceptual system only works because you can prioritise what to look at, and prioritising can only work within a value system, which suggests that even science works within the value system framework. How is that difficult to understand?

[@allison01ful]

dawkins said "oh god"

[@jackking2225]

But he's refering to the Great Spagetti Monster ( with apologies to Thor and Zeus ).

[@rustincohle9678]

@@jackking2225 r'amen!

[@9535310131]

He is referring to the god of Woke

[@johnstavropoulos3699]

he's..."ignorant" cause it would ruin his arguments. I doubt a scholar like Dawkins doesn't have an opinion on a matter such as this.

[@johnlannis9535]

Personally the self help aspect of Peterson's work was never what attracted me to him. Although i didn't agree with everything, I actually believe the ideas presented in his first work Maps of Meaning to be correct. I think a lot of criticisms of Jordan engage with his popularity as opposed to his ideas. I also don't think (on the matter of psychology and archetypes) that he is saying anything extremely controversial.

[@Bluudclaat]

John Lannis Agreed here - his articulation linking of ideas expressed by Carl Jung, Nietzsche and other significant archetypal authors to evolutionary biology (non-tangible i.e meme replicators) is where his genius lies. Listening to these two, they really don’t get it.

[@viljamtheninja]

​@@Bluudclaat So personally, I've never heard him say anything that would paint a particularly cohesive thought structure; mostly just rambling random facts and ideas that fit into his narrative of weak-minded men who need to get their shit together. So, could either of you actually explain what it is he's saying that's so clever?

[@chadballsac]

Imagine being this dumb lmao

[@Bluudclaat]

chad ballsac To whom are you responding?

[@Bluudclaat]

Also, if you go to Peterson’s channel and dig into the really old videos, there are vanishingly small numbers of views. It just further supports your comment - the vast majority of people discussing Peterson online and in the media these days are unlikely to even have listened to his maps of meaning lectures. Such a pity!!

[@reecer2010]

We all go back into the “delete” bin of the universe. Wait! Is that a resurrection?

[@johnhahn9085]

I don’t respect their positions on this subject. Michael Shermer simply feels it’s too much to think about, and Richard is snarky, his usual mode of response “by my estimation” (nod to JP). End of discussion? We’ll geez, how boring. Disclaimer, did not watch the entire video, but by the applause in the bit I viewed I’ll assume this conference was a quite a large echo chamber?

[@willt3728]

The first guy loses me at the end. Jordan Peterson explains these stories from religion and mythology and he draws parallels to the psychological literature and how these things are provable in this field when applied. Peterson is a pragmatist and when he speaks of true he does not speak in matters of fact like in science. More like it is true enough to act on because it is working.

[@thomasmills339]

You sound just like Peterson... Just talking nonsense.

[@benh392]

I think one of the issues is that Jordan's definition of 'True' is not the same as the guys'. Frankly they're not even arguing against his ideas but are arguing against some ideas that they have made up in their heads or assumed he believes.

[@merqury5]

Well that Michael dude is quite sure of himself. His way of speaking is quite juvenile for such a genius.

[@PetrusSolus]

Not surprisingly, appallingly shallow responses from each, in the (usual) degree of insufficient and disingenuous engagement. Why even bother asking, except to hear either of them provide a strictly "for the record" moment?

[@zhenyakc3586]

Never really cared for what Dawkins has to say, but this response was pretty good. 😁 Smart man.😂

[@ronaldp.vincent8226]

His response of completely avoiding questions. He is rather good at that.

[@zhenyakc3586]

@@ronaldp.vincent8226 If he truly thought he was ignorant about Jordan Peterson or avoided answering the question doesn't matter all that much here. The response was clever because of the way he positioned himself. If you don't understand what makes it a good response, I would question your intelligence.

[@ronaldp.vincent8226]

@@zhenyakc3586 Dawkins avoiding questions is par for the course, so I could see how you wouldn’t think it mattered. He positioned himself directly on the fence, and there is nothing clever about that in my opinion. He avoids questions by distracting with humor quite a bit, so the charm wore off long ago for me. It’s also a stupid response to say he’s too ignorant to have an opinion, and that he “won’t give one” for a subject on which he lacks information. He then shares his opinion on the existence of God- a subject that we all lack the most information about.

[@shroudedgrove4679]

@@ronaldp.vincent8226 I think Dawkins made (somebody) cry?

[@ronaldp.vincent8226]

@@shroudedgrove4679 Yeah, I cried. I cried laughing at Dawkins dodging questions as usual. Are you attempting to argue that he didn’t blatantly ignore the question?

[@MrGwandrin]

I just recently came along Jordan Peterson and... allright. The truth is, the KZbin Algorithm ordered me to watch something from him and all I can say after 1 hour of Jordan is that he has some points and some are at least questionable.

[@FedeArgentina]

Which ones?

[@thethrawnscotsman5260]

If you want to know what the Dawkins-Peterson thing is about....05:55 especially....kzbin.info/www/bejne/amm5YaBooc6Ua7c I like both RD and JP....

[@Skatapow]

I wonder why the video has so many dislikes. I think it was respectful and interesting (and I happen to agree with them too). If it's JBP hardcore fans doing all the disliking I would like to remind them that blindly defending Jordan Peterson is so anti-Jordan Peterson.

[@ch39547]

I think Shermer and Dawkins were respectful, but the audience members seemed to be intent on getting them to do a "takedown" of Peterson. It did seem quite mean spirited and perhaps this is where the dislikes are coming from.

[@andrewbishop9068]

I find it impossible to believe that Dawkins is ‘ignorant’ of Peterson.

[@donaykhabbak4215]

I genuinely think he is, i would be surprised if Dawkins paid attention to the Peterson. Peterson is prominent among younger audiences, and not really that interesting or offers valuable ideas.( at least ideas interesting to Dawkins)

[@9535310131]

I think its because of their varying domains of expertise.

[@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353]

The art of speaking poorly about someone - in someone's absence and inability to defend oneself...

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

I’m amazed the auditorium is half empty

[@ryanvandermerwe5587]

*half full

[@johncart07]

Jordan Peterson talks about deep psychological and philosophical realities. It is a way of looking at world. It is more then just self help, I guess it just makes skeptics feel comfortable to categorize Peterson as a self help guru. As if there is no distinction between self help gurus and psychologists. To the atheist, everything is reduced to neuronal firings and physical events (matter and energy). Relativism is all that's left for an atheist after that kind reductionism.

[@pickleddolphinmeatwithhors677]

no1 cares

[@Grim_Beard]

"Jordan Peterson talks about deep psychological and philosophical realities" No, he really doesn't. His 'ideas', particularly his misrepresentation of evolutionary psychology and his clinging to Jung, are not psychological realities. Jung is taught as history in psychology, not reality (and almost no-one takes it seriously any more). As for philosophical realities, there are no such things. Once things move from philosophy into reality we're talking about science - but, judging from your comment, you would dismiss that as 'reductionism'.

[@johncart07]

@@Grim_Beard That is an interesting way of looking at things. I think people that are currently trying to get M.A.s/Ph.D's in Jungian psychology might feel a little different about Jung. I think the different people who own the C.G. Jung institute's in a number of different cities might also feel a little different about Jung. No psychological realities huh?, so there is no such thing as an ego, subconscious or unconscious.

[@Grim_Beard]

@@johncart07 The ego, subconscious and unconscious are not Jungian ideas - you're conflating Jung with Freud. Also, depending on how you're defining them, they may or may not be real. The ego as metaphor for the sense of self is real. The unconscious and subconscious as metaphors for automatic processing and/or memory effects such as priming are real. However, that's not how Jungians and Freudians use the terms. Also, you can do a PhD in anything you can find a supervisor for, even if your supervisor is a crank or on the fringe. That's not how you determine what's supported in a scientific field. You need to look at what's on the standard required curriculum, for example what's specified for accreditation by bodies such as the British Psychological Society (BPS) or specified in subject benchmarks by organisations such as the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA).

[@johncart07]

@@pickleddolphinmeatwithhors677 Who is no1, he really cares?

[@vidfreak56]

LOL you can't put JP into the same category as Dawkins or Shermer. Peterson speaks truth and has many important things to say, but hardly is peterson in the same category as true scientific individuals.

[@dimi3978]

And what are true scientific individuals? In my opinion nobody is a true scientific individual. What makes the scientific community so powerful isn't an individual absence of bias but a collective absence of bias, which happens through peer review. I think Jordan Peterson has a bias towards religious viewpoints BUT what he also is is an intellectually honest person, and in that intellectual honesty and having a slight bias towards religion (and all people have bias) he explores and aspect of being people like Dawkins never have touched, which too holds many interesting truths about being.

[@vidfreak56]

@@dimi3978 True scientific individuals are those that follow the scientific method to, at least, most conclusions. Peterson does not do this with a lot of things he proclaims. At best he's correct and at worst he's a cult leader. Which makes him very dangerous. As far as i know, Dawkins hasn't said religious people should be oppressed. Peterson is on record saying that atheists should be. There are no people like this? Maybe not purely, but certainly there are people like this to more or less extents. Peterson, compared to Dawkins is far less scientific than he is. And Dawkins may only slip a few times into the unscientific, but only emotionally, and nowhere near as much as peterson does. And of course the peer review process is what seeks to keep bias at bay. At least as much as it can. Intellectual honesty? That i disagree. He most certainly has the ability to be intellectually honest (mostly its ONLY when that honesty leads to him winning an argument with a so called SJW), and has been, but a lot of the time he is anything but intellectual. Especially when pressed on real issues that he can't fudge his way out of. In the end, the problems amount to the scientific validity of what he says. Look up lobsters and PZ Myers rebuttle to see what i mean. Peterson dangerously fudges facts to fit the world he wants to exist. Peterson says some true things about being, but hardly anything that his conclusions fit. Hell say one thing then formulate a false conclusion that doesn't fit the premises. His religious rants are meaningless and hold no water in reality. Everything he says about how religion comes into being is used to keep religion alive. Its why people love him so much.

[@suttree3233]

"I never offer an opinion of something of which I'm ignorant." If that were true he'd keep schtum about every subject north of ethology.

[@joelyazell7380]

Wow,I can see clearly now how much more and why,I relate to Jordan over them. Jordan gives room to ponder yourself. The key to you,not him

[@danielbertola7868]

JP, being a clinical psychologist, has at his core a desire to help people, based on his selected profession. The way he is reduced here to some sort of discount self-help "guru", which in itself has a bit of societal stigma, is appalling. The tone in which this comparison is delivered shows its intent to be derogatory as well. The entire segment reeks of jealous slander and uninformed mockery. This reflects more on them than on JP. While they mention his typical references here, JP has managed to wring so much value out of his studies to share with anyone who will listen. I have never heard a fraction of the passion that JP exudes from either of these men. My belief is that they both envy his charisma and fervent desire to make mankind the best it can be. The true Cain.

[@peterruane9220]

I don’t agree entirely. Dawkins really distances himself from the discussion as he does now know him. Harris is a bit off probably tired. Different styles from JP. I’ll listen to that debate though to form my own impression.

[@laddie-1479]

Think JP does a lot more to increase his revenue streams than he helps others in clinical practice. I used to find him very engaging, then began to think he is a very intelligent con man

[@GeekyMedia]

...I think they've completely missed the mark on this.

[@ExMachina70]

People keep asking, and Jordan never wanted to bring it out, but somehow people want to use Peterson's religious views to debunk his psychological views.

[@drmedwuast]

Hi people from the past. It's 2022 and Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins recently had a public discussion. The video will be out soon. Ok bye.

[@nebulous6660]

Dawkins says he doesn't have an opinion on Peterson...then proceeds to state an opinion about him...then claims he never states his opinion about things he's ignorant about? Dawkins asks why he should have an opinion on Peterson...after saying that he sees him every time he goes on the internet. After he repeatedly gets questions about him. Sounds like a good reason to me. It seems to me Dawkins holds some level of contempt for Peterson and would like to be dismissive of him. It seems he may be, in part, resentful of his notoriety and success...I believe there's a word for that.

[@viljamtheninja]

God, you seem like such a boring fucking person.

[@scdobserver835]

@@viljamtheninja Dawkins' minions sure love to swear...

[@viljamtheninja]

@@scdobserver835 I swear for emphasis when I feel it is useful to drive home my point.

[@internetwanderer9053]

You all should chill

[@thethrawnscotsman5260]

Conservative Atheist Well..he did give an opinion on something that he wasn't ignorant about. Maybe RD holds a bit of contempt against JP because JP at one time seemed to be resentful of Dawkins notoriety and success and said of Dawkins that, "...there's no evidence that he is being oppressed, but maybe he should be." From 05:55 on in this vid...kzbin.info/www/bejne/amm5YaBooc6Ua7c

[@TheNahrstedt]

Out of touch lol. He speaks about fundamentals. Religion does not exist for no reason and to entertain its use is where you begin to align yourself with Peterson's thinking. Good luck, academia...

[@declanfoley7562]

Religion exists to control us and to promise us an afterlife (and because we had no clue about anything at the start

[@TheNahrstedt]

@@declanfoley7562 afterlife exists if referring to offspring. I believe heaven is something to strive for while alive because that's how you'll experience it. That's how I look at it. That's also afterlife in itself: reinterpreting the teachings. The word lives on to be adapted and applied today

[@viljamtheninja]

@@TheNahrstedt What you apparently fail to grasp is that all of that is sophistry and bullshit, plain and simple. "Afterlife exists if referring to offspring." Religion (well, some religions) promises a conscious afterlife where you live on as yourself, as a reward for behaving (acting according to certain moral values) in this life. Having kids is amazing, but it is by no definition an afterlife. There is a point to living morally in this life, but the point is not heaven or afterlife - and if you try to make it so by claiming that Western culture has Judeo-Christian morals because of vague metaphors, then you're disingenuous, shallow in thought, and full of shit.

[@TheNahrstedt]

@@viljamtheninja in hard times maybe that promise is what allowed us to persevere long enough to make it here today. I don't personally believe that a conscious afterlife is the case, but I don't find the idea of death very frightening either. My focus is on our time here. Religions get outdated, but I am here to combat all of the hatred religion receives because I believe when done well it is a necessary agent. I don't isolate religion much from philosophy itself and I believe Jesus was created as a model to embody the best humanity can offer. Religion has been great and has been terrible, but so has philosophy. Religion can spark ideas, then you can take that wherever you want. Living forever...well we've made it here haven't we? Humanity itself has been living on for quite sometime now. If religion leaves a bad taste in your mouth, it may be time to adjust because much of the world is religious and if you learn to speak their language they'll open up to your critiques. My first tastes in ethics stem from teachings in the Bible, but just as humanity has evolved, so have my beliefs. I imagine what Jesus may look like today with the knowledge we've mined utilizing the scientific method. I use a model human as a guide and it provides much ease in my day to day. It makes simple acts of kindness much more believable. If minds come together and offer up someone they believe to possess all of what is good about us, it's a shame if you fail to see the light in that when done properly. Function serves the form and the man religion produces informs so much. Could be wise to start a dialogue with this character instead of dismissing all of religion as bullshit

[@viljamtheninja]

@@TheNahrstedt I actually have the utmost respect for religion as a means for people to find purpose in life and all that jive. But you have to be clear about the specifics. Does God exist? No, all evidence points to the contrary. Which is very, very important, because the idea of God makes religion stale and unmoving; it makes its followers a band of homophobic bigots living by 2000 year old morals that simply don't work today. If religion can be separated from the idea of God and simply say that "What Jesus preached - just fucking be nice to one another, basically - is still important, and it doesn't matter that he didn't heal the sick or turn water into wine. Being nice is still a good thing", then I'm all for it. But when asked whether or not God exists, whether or not people who don't believe in Jesus burn in hell for all eternity after death (regardless of how they actually lived their lives), you gotta be honest and say no. These fairytales no longer have a place in the world, and they can be actively harmful. And Petersons refusal to say so honestly to me just sounds like so much postmodernist blabber that he himself hates so much.

[@jhibbitt1]

next time peterson says "it would take me 40 years to answer that question" someone should say "Why don't you write a book about it then?" and i mean that both ironically and seriously. a book about it may in fact be helpful

[@yj9032]

Peterson has an advantage if a religious following that can shout down opponents.

[@Aj-ch5kz]

This is a very good example of the blind leading the blind.

[@MrHopeTelevision]

didn't get much applause when he agreed with the pronouns stance..

[@EmmaKnightleyNo1]

Good, because I'm sick of middle-aged or old men unable to go with the times. Even if it's just a fad, why not go with it, view it as fun, or at least respectful to the people represented. Where ARE the women, gays, transgs etc in the atheism debate anyway??

[@valsan1323]

@@EmmaKnightleyNo1 How old are you anyway? You seem to be hostile towards older people.

[@ihsahnakerfeldt9280]

@@EmmaKnightleyNo1 "Unable to go with the times" If you think the Bill C-16 issue Jordan Peterson was involved in was just about old men unable to go with the times, you have no idea what you're talking about

[@rickyscott9719]

Peterson is just willing to admit that things are more complex than people are willing to believe.