SAM HARRIS BURNS JORDAN PETERSON ON MORAL PHILOSOPHY!?

[@Pangburn]

NEW EVENT! THE ANTISCIENCE OF GOD? Lawrence Krauss & Stephen Hicks kzbin.info/www/bejne/m6nXk5aNeNObrrcsi=zbwVhOBBgwxLtB1e LAWRENCE KRAUSS & THE FRIENDLY PLANET IS NOW ON SALE! We hope you grab a copy 🙂 amzn.to/3YWhz8W

[@smoly37]

"I'll trade two brothers or eight cousins". The logistics of genetics. The older I get (61 now) the more I learn how incredibly little I know. Because each and every story- line, to call it that way- has ten or hundred or even more sub- plots and those have plots and sub- plots andsoforth. The more I take in, the more there seems to be that I need to check out. It's quite hopeless, in that aspect, but since I NEVER run out of interesting subjects it's great at the same time. 😅

[@johnwalker6140]

Anyone else notice that anytime Jordan goes on a “rant” because he’s drastically getting out classed he literally turns his whole body to face the crowd and not face Sam because he knows he’s not even conversing with Sam anymore, he’s trying to win the crowd instead of debate Sam because he knows he’s getting walked all over

[@angryox3102]

It’s emotional grandstanding with no substance

[@shannonhenson609]

Yep. It's the tactic of a Baptist preacher. 🤔😆

[@ChuckyLad]

depends what you mean by "anyone" or "else" or "notice", and their substrates. the man is very intelligent but makes an absolute joke out of himself

[@DonCarnage42]

And the crowd loves it😢

[@TheKamperfoelie]

No, I don’t notice that. Sure I notice that he can go on rants but most of the times they actually make a lot of sense.

[@FaultyMuse]

"Depends on what you mean by literally" It means literally Jordan. This is why no one serious thinks you're serious

[@kal22222]

Another example of how disingenuous he is.

[@Longtack55]

Yeah, literally.

[@jaybee2530]

Depends on what you mean by serious.

[@donnellobrien1415]

Jordan's biggest problem in debates is that he doesn't attempt to define terms. If what you want is to understand the other person's position, you ask clarifying questions. Language isn't a precision instrument of communication. If you take for granted someone's understanding of a term [Literally, for example] you are creating space for misunderstanding and you'll never get to the root of your opponent's position so you can deconstruct it. Jordan revels in ambiguity. Whenever the person he is debating uses a word and he doesn't know how to respond, he won't ask discovery question to understand what they 'Mean by literally'. Instead he gets performative and starts a tangent. This forces whomever he is talking with to corral him back to topic. Jordan will get flustered when he isn't allowed to do this. You can see it in this clip when he was chirping at Sam for using the word 'faith' in a way he disagrees with. He'd ask questions if he wanted to deconstruct and understand what faith means to an agnostic person but he isn't interested in that line of questioning so he's got to act like some authority figure on the definition of words. Language isn't a mathematical proof. You can point at a dictionary and say 'faith means Y', but that's not a counter argument. Curious minds don't shut people down by deferring to authority, they ask questions. In my opinion Jordan's strategy in debates is to meander away from his opponent's points instead of engaging with them. Then he listens intently for semantic hooks so that his opponent is stuck explaining why it's practical to save your child from a house fire or remove your hand from a hot stove. I wouldn't be able to do it, props to the people with the patience and rhetoric to pull it off.

[@riffhammeron]

Jordan Peterson: Never has anyone spoken so much and said so little

[@willhowell4638]

sounds like he should be into politics then lol.

[@shelleyhender8537]

@@willhowell4638 Oh, but he is in with politicians…especially here in Alberta, CANADA. Jordan has repeatedly, openly and unapologetically connected the current leader of the Alberta extremists party, Daniel Smith (not the mainstream Progressive Conservative branch) and her right wing conservative government with various Trump officials to the province. They particularly like Trump’s conspiratorial HEALTH official…of which I have lost count as to the number of his invites. Disturbingly, Jordan has also brought our official conservative opposition leader, Pierre Poilievre, to multiple conspiratorial politicians within the Republican Party. Far too many members within the Federal/National Conservative Party have become increasingly deranged, dillusional, convulsive, and disresptful…to the point of actual promoting violence and intolerance…even against CHILDREN…of which Poilievre has done. Of course, the top 3 targets are Prime Minister JUSTIN TRUDEAU’s children, whom has managed to protect, until Poilievre went on his derailed rampage. Poilievre and his chain gang frequently and openly engage with NeoNazis and other extremists, as long as it achieves his objective…of which brings tremendous chaos, violence, attempted murder, confusion, and anything else in which he deems “necessary” to achieve his goals! It’s one thing to discuss, debate, and even become enraged, but it doesn’t address any of the very critical issues targeting average Canadians and those beyond our borders. Nevertheless, what truly concerns me is the violent rhetoric against INNOCENT children, women, and other individuals Jordan, Poilievre, Smith, and their minions have sadistically targeted. If you wish to delve more into this disturbing trend and topic, Joran discusses it on his personal channel. Cheers!🇨🇦

[@Gaston-Melchiori]

3:20 don't miss that "depends on what you mean by literally" 😂. Jordan is at it again, is a walking meme.

[@vodkarage8227]

I heard that too and was like, "Just shut up Jordan."

[@Longtack55]

​@@vodkarage8227He hasn't learned that we unwashed peasants are on to him.

[@Gaston-Melchiori]

3:38 "religion gives bad reasons to be good, when good reasons are available" -Sam Harris

[@JBAikensMusic]

Religion can give bad reasons to do good things

[@Gaston-Melchiori]

@JBAikensMusic that is exactly what i said. But we have better reasons, so we can ignore the ones religion gives us.

[@willhowell4638]

ha ha so true Gaston!

[@thomaslutro5560]

A sure sign of truly understanding something is being able to explain it in unambigous, precise and concise language. Not dumbing it down, not making it harder than it is. Sam Harris usually has it, Jordan Peterson usually doesn't.

[@smoly37]

Of course. I agree 1000%. The better the understanding, the bigger the possibility to explain how and why, from different angles and even for different "publics". Explaining a difficult filosofical problem to ten year old children, and still make them take away the essence of it, is only for those who understand their own subject very, very well. And now I'M just blabbing away without saying anything. Shame I don't get payed for it, though.

[@daveyboots79]

@@smoly37 Have you considered studying filosofy?

[@RictusHolloweye]

As Einstein was known to say, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough".

[@cnault3244]

"A bad tool is better than no tool" And an imaginary tool is no use at all.

[@susanwjoh0re735]

my dude, i agree with the imaginary tool thing, but if the imaginary tool forbids me from believing in 64 billion genders then it's a useful tool even though it's imaginary. w0keness is as crazy as religion.

[@gregorycarver1934]

Every tool was imagined before it was used.

[@RetroLuv_]

​@@gregorycarver1934that's not true at all. A tool can be be the result of accidentally discovering an alternate application for an existing object that served a different function.

[@cnault3244]

@@gregorycarver1934 Until it is physically created, it isn't a tool it's an idea.

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

Jordan is definitely a bad tool

[@SpencerDonahue]

mostly he's just the wrong tool and all of his supporters keep insisting that he's this exotic Swiss army knife of knowledge and wisdom. Reality shows otherwise, he's a terrified little man that puts frozen wagyu beef in an air fryer until its well done. NOTHING ELSE EVER NEEDS TO BE SAID.

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

@SpencerDonahue Now that is blasphemy against the metaphysical substrate of the narrative grounding of the pre and post Neolithic unconscious. 🤣🤣🤣

[@santugk]

Great take down by Sam but he is too nice. Christopher Hitchens would have wiped the floor of Jordon from the word go. He is missed dearly

[@geoffreyclark7513]

A bad tool can seriously fvck things up even if you know how to use it. So it would be better to wait for the correct tool.

[@ginofactap]

exactly. "only a sith deals in absolutes."

[@cnault3244]

And an imaginary tool is useless in the real world.

[@shelleyhender8537]

HITLER…prime example!

[@nobrescostumes]

its impossible to listen jordan petterson, what is he talking about? word salad nonsense

[@phillipzx3754]

Word salad is his shtik.

[@zenkim6709]

JP is a fool's idea of a smart man

[@lenafelipe]

The insanity of this is that it’s Brett and Jordan against Sam. And both clowns were easily destroyed by Sam

[@johnwalker6140]

That has to be the worst line of all time. “A bad tool is better than no tool” Tell me you’ve never actually used your hands to fix anything or used tools at all for that matter. A bad tool can put you in a way worse position than what your started with

[@Bureauhometown1]

I think what Jordan was getting at was a bad tool (a method of morality that isn’t peraphs as efficient as it could be) is better than deciding not to build anything at all, meaning no moral progress. So he saying look religion maybe isn’t the most efficient tool of morality but it has allowed us to make progress and that is better than none

[@Bureauhometown1]

But I understand your point and agree to some degree I think Jordan often likes to defend religion for some reason idk why he is so loyal to the idea

[@johnwalker6140]

@@Bureauhometown1 I agree with that’s what he was trying to say I’m just pointing out that it’s a terrible analogy because any mechanic will tell you that there’s a ‘right tool for every job’ is the saying because a wrong tool will take you backwards not forwards

[@Bureauhometown1]

@@johnwalker6140 agreed bad tools are more than capable of causing more harm than good, Sam is proposing a better tool more suited for the job while Jordan is defending a bad tool and even admits it actually is a bad tool lol. Jordan definitely lost this segment.

[@johnwalker6140]

@@Bureauhometown1 👆exactly

[@jesuslopez-fe7dv]

Why is it that I understand Sam Harris 100% and very little to what Jordan Peterson says with all his word salads that he uses I guess to sound more knowledgeabl?

[@iago9711]

This is the real life equivalent to "if you'll look to your left you'll see two naked guys fighting over a can of paint." Peterson is saying nothing. He just says things like "axiomatic singularity" or some shit to fool morons into thinking he's smart. Sam is saying "we don't need religion for morality." And Eric is restating everything with a veneer of pseudo-intellect to sound like some deep thinker

[@ReflectiveRealm7]

Free Speech But Don’t Offend Me Peterson is known as a defender of free speech, especially for controversial ideas. But the moment someone challenges his views on gender or calls out an inconsistency, he sometimes bristles, even framing his critics as hostile ideologues. Free speech for all? Only if they agree with him, apparently.😂

[@getriebenesauge9683]

take a look at what it means to engage in free speech again, and what it would mean to oppose it

[@Maximum7077]

Absolutly right. He can't even let harris speak without interrupting him. He always seem to interrupt people.

[@hhiippiittyy]

Most of his "defender of free speech" reputation came from misinterpreting a basic expansion of human rights. He went hysterical with absurd and excessive ideologically formed ideas about Bill c-16, and way too many people took his self-appointed "free speech warrior" status at face value.

[@shelleyhender8537]

This is why Jordan is good friends with his buddies, such as Elon Musk, Trump, etc.

[@mryorkshire3623]

Whenever i listen to JP i just think - Word salad.

[@woodysdrums8083]

Peterson is a fool and does in no way deserve to be up there.

[@TomAbbott-gg6gy]

Got him😂

[@spinorman]

Summary of Peterson's position: It's perfectly fine to lie to people in order to get them to do the "right" thing. I wish they would have followed that axiom to its conclusion.

[@djimiwreybigsby5263]

JP still loving the sound of his own voice

[@Bureauhometown1]

What I like about Sam and speakers like him is his language is relatively easy to understand for the common person and his arguments are backed with relevant analogies like the moral landscape, Jordan uses advance vocabulary often using niche words I’ve never heard in my life, and Jordan’s analogies often refer to these niche writers or stories that nobody has read or heard. In other words Sam meets the audience where they are at and Jordan just rambles with fancy words and niche analogies never grounding his arguments in objective science, and his audience just assumes he’s right because they can’t understand him

[@cheetahman859]

He does it on purpose to hide the fact he has no idea what he is saying. He's hiding that he isn't intelligent, he's a con artist.

[@johnandersson8258]

I know close to all those "fancy" words, even though I seldom use most of them outside of special circles, and believe me: in the manner in which they're used by Peterson it is, well maybe not word salad, but clearly a way of using them - especially in combination - to confuse (charm) his audience and intimidate his interlocutor. In this case it doesn't work because Harris knows them too and understands what he's doing. There's also a clear sign of when Peterson knows he's not capable of holding his ground: He begins interrupting by criticizing details in the argument presented instead of just letting the argument be presented and then respond to it. For example: at 4:35 This usually forces the interlocutor to first respond to the nonsense objection, which, depending on how well he's doing, may be interrupted by another nonsense objection... and so on till most of the audience seem to get the impression that they're just a kettle and a pot.

[@Bureauhometown1]

@ Jordan gets lost in the abstract and never grounds his logic in anything scientific it’s quite frustrating. In the interview with cosmic skeptic, Richard Dawkins and jp, he kept talking about dragons and the philosophical approach to understanding predation, imo it unnecessary and a large portion of his audience already struggle with deciphering fiction from reality hence most of them are religious. Like Dawkins say he is drunk on symbolism and his words sound smart and are delivered with eloquence but I cannot understand why anyone can take him seriously. He couldn’t even answer if he believe in Christ’s resurrection, a simple fact or non fact he avoiding the yes, no, idk responses and just spewed more words about abstraction. He’s quite frustrating to listen too, even if u understand everything he is saying.

[@Rumpfunk]

He's sesquipedalian... I've been waiting a while to use that word. 😂

[@getriebenesauge9683]

really makes me see why the church fathers had to dumb down religion for the peasants

[@fifimetaphor]

Very curious title to this video. I am still not sure where the burn is.

[@HM-fg9tu]

Didn’t the guy in the center make up a lie about black students at a college forcing him to strike with them???

[@5atoru]

Never thought that i would consider Sam Harris the least insane in the room

[@TestTubeGirl]

The more I look at these clips over the years, the more I realize how little Bret actually provides to the conversation.

[@MaximoToro]

Same. And this was before he went completely off the rails after covid

[@gking407]

Yes and that is why I prefer him over D. Murray who for some reason seems to think he’s god’s gift to intellectual conversation

[@radscorpion8]

@@gking407 they're all bad...members of the intellectual dark web for good reason. Even Sam has issues but he's overwhelmingly the best of the bunch

[@WalamiFijilot]

He is a mediator on this debate, he's supposed to be quiet and only talk when things get derailed.

[@andr.y_]

I think he's the only one that makes a compelling even damning case about the flaw in Sam's thinking. Being arbitrary leading to inconsistent values 😨

[@frankwebster9110]

Bad Jordy! If you keep making complicated nonsense statements, you will go blind and hair will grow on your knuckles! Now go to your room and don't come out until you can speak clearly and sensibly. Oh, and Jordy, leave your door cracked open so I can make sure you aren't just doing it to yourself!

[@francoisathome5979]

When I listen to Peterson I always think about the fairy "The Emperor's Clothes"

[@wRAAh]

4:12 "How do you distinguish a religion system from an a-priory perceptual structure?" Neeeeh Jordan, leave it. You know he is obfuscating right? (To use an equally unnecessary difficult word.)

[@VinylCP]

How would one ask the question with 'simple' words?

[@Walker_8_8]

@@VinylCP you can't because "How do you distinguish a religion system from an a-priory perceptual structure?" IS NONSENSE, it doesn't tie together.

[@Walker_8_8]

@@VinylCP even saying "perceptual structure" is utter nonsense.

[@Walker_8_8]

@@VinylCP peterson is arguing that the superhero idea only exists because we have an innate intuition of a higher order of morality and authority. peterson isn't smart enough or honest enough to understand that the superhero (chosen one) idea comes from the incel types who are trying to leapfrog the more "accomplished" men, by imagining a more powerful alter ego. the evidence of that is clear, all of the early superheros had a relatively lowly (incel) standing in their community.

[@michaelrael3278]

Bruh... The concept of a perceptual structure is nonsense?​?? That statement undermines any epistemic authority you may have possessed. Your lack of comprehension does not inform your bs value claims, it just lets everybody know that you are most likely a sour, psychotic leftist @@Walker_8_8

[@Bungaloo]

Epicurus answered all of these questions 300 years before Jesus was invented.

[@noheroespublishing1907]

Jordan Peterson just basically argued that a religion centered around Batgirl would be essentially fine, and his reasoning is "the story conveys important things" is irrational. Millions of authors have done such simplistic things, are they all God under Peterson's thinking? Because those authors wrote those things, the stories don't write themselves, is he arguing that every poet and author is a Divinity? If so, how can he argue for any "truth" at all, other than the profound subjectivity of disparate authors and his own personal feeling of profundity at the moment of experience?

[@gl22222]

It would become all the more abhorrent if that religion gave rise to terrorists who mirrored villains in those comic books.

[@ccourt46]

Jordan acts like a parent actually could rescue their child from a fire. The unbelievable heat make it impossible. As much as we'd like to pretend we could walk through fire we can't.

[@einstu]

@Pangburn stop with the nonsense sensationalist titles. I like this debate but you’re pulling me in on false pretences and slowly whittling away and your own credibility.

[@WalamiFijilot]

This debate is like ancient confucius vs daoism, where confucius favor for rule and stuff, while daoism prefer naturalness of our being and common sense, an uncarved wood.

[@richross4781]

Jordan does nothing but bodyswerve questions that he can not answer.

[@jeremytee2919]

This is ridiculous, Throughout recorded history Religious institutions have stifled progress that resulted in a more civil society, It’s a matter of fact.

[@shannonhenson609]

True on some accounts. However, Western Civilization and the human rights that it has advanced.....could not have happened under any other system than the Judeo-Christian philosophy, even if you dismiss its supernatural claims.

[@jeremytee2919]

@ not the philosophy, The fact that cults are organized and helped people in power maintain it through submission. Americans providing their slaves with slave bibles is a great example. Which was historically yesterday They killed waaaaay more children and and wasted waaaay more time than necessary to get to this point And have been vehemently fighting the the progress we are talking about, Right up until the last election. You must have a comfy life, To Not be able to see how Messed up things still are, Because of them. Just the concept of theistic thinking alone is a threat to what little we’ve achieved. Regardless of the philosophy. But again throughout all recorded history, Progress occured in spite of intense opposition from theists, Christianity is a philosophy of ***ocide And slavery, A to B

[@jeremytee2919]

@ also no, True on all counts, The church has tried to stand in the way of all progress, And only ever caved when there was no chance of regressing us.

[@Pantagana9000]

Those witches were real problem back then. Good for us they handled them properly.

[@shannonhenson609]

@@jeremytee2919No one is claiming that The Judeo Christian system didn't have it's dark periods. Of course it did. But, the "Enlightenment Period" (ironically) could never have happened under any other system.

[@francoannan]

Sam is trying to replace Judeo-Christian ethics and say life is perfectly liveable without them. And that’s the issue. His framework and entire existence is based on the task of using and replacing the very thing he’s trying to dismantle. And atheism will always have that ultimate problem - it only exists as a reaction - it needs the original ethos to then cancel it out with its atheistic equivalent. ‘You do Christmas - we do x’.

[@AvadhkumarPatel-r6c]

No. We don't do X because you do Christmas, we do X because we want to do X. This boogie perspective of yours comes from an assumption that we all seek the sky daddy you do. We don't. Also Atheism is a reaction to what? It's merely a rejection of a weak claim. We believe in different dogmas apart from that. One might be a pacifist or one can be all for revenge.

[@francoannan]

@ - perfectly fine for you to claim that - but atheism as a movement / ideology / structure only exists as a counter to Christianity. Voltaire and the other ‘founding fathers’ let’s say were clear about the idea that they could do better - better than what? Christianity is the foundation of atheism.

[@AvadhkumarPatel-r6c]

@francoannan no tf it doesn't. Christianity is not even the first religion and Voltaire is not the founding father of Atheism. Atheism started when the first man rejected the first claim made about existence of a God and that happened way before Christianity was even remotely close to humanity, unless you're a Bible thumping christian who believes the world was formed 6000 years ago, you should have already known this.

[@ThatGuy-nt4jv]

I disagree that it is better to believe a lie than in nothing, everything should be based on evidence and reason

[@warren52nz]

Reminds me of when I was doing my physics degree. In the faculty's bathroom, someone had written in felt tip above the toilet paper holder: *_"PHILOSOPHY DEGREES, PLEASE TAKE ONE."_*

[@divatalk9011]

Now that’s a cheap shot. Philosophy is the back bone to thought, including science

[@larryscarr3897]

​@@divatalk9011nope, maybe 100 years ago, now we just check, and toss what doesn't work, no philosophy required.

[@ALushPair]

​@@larryscarr3897you're an absolute brainlet. The entire framework of empiricism is a PHILOSOPHICAL presupposition

[@larryscarr3897]

@ALushPair nope just reality is real and we can know stuff about it, the rest is verified by testing. But you'd say different cuz you paid alot for nothing.

[@ALushPair]

@larryscarr3897 >Reality is real Whoa bro, how much did you spend on that degree? Empiricism is not an empirical claim. There's a free philosophy lesson for you, brainlet.

[@michaellinehan2660]

Peterson is so out of his depth. I don't know why these folks have these discussions with him.

[@SWTORDREKKIN]

This channel is an echo chamber. I mean, look at the comments. Hilarious. Enjoy your channel with click bait videos filmed years ago.

[@ThunderGenesis]

Man, you guys really hate Jordan Peterson huh?

[@jay7T6]

@ThunderGenesis He's the one who decided to publicly display his insanity. The fallout from that is what it is.

[@ThunderGenesis]

@ I agree it was a bad night for him, but every Pangburn video I see now is yet another jab at Jordan.

[@NairodTheBeast]

It's good to see that the newest comments are better balanced than the ones that rose to the top

[@wRAAh]

Peterson courageously resisted Bill C-16. Eternal gratitude. But this religious nonsense of his is laughable. You agree, right?

[@FECtetra1918]

I like him. But his religious nonsense is tiresome.

[@billyhimpy5216]

Definitely agree

[@getriebenesauge9683]

no, i dont. have you really tried listening to his Genesis series? its free here on yt.

[@CommanderCodyChipless]

100%. He's a smart man, smarter than any of us. But a very dumb person in good faith can see he is obviously grifting towards the right, which is largely an extension of christianity. That's why he never wants to give a straight answer, because he doesn't want to upset his core fanbase.

[@HistoritorJimaldus]

He lied about the bill to grift the gullible, the religious bs he spouts is more of the same

[@bigtoepapa]

Sam is so patient

[@jwbjpb1338]

Peterson tries so hard to argue/debate, but he strains so much to even be on the same stage. He is far less intelligent than he wants to admit and has zero business on the stage.

[@pascualmunoz55]

You’re just envious that you’re not anywhere near the intelligence of any of these men on stage how can you understand what they’re saying when you couldn’t even begin.

[@cheetahman859]

​@@pascualmunoz55okay Jordan if you say so.......

[@jwbjpb1338]

@ ROFLMAO. Peterson is a jerk and not smart. Sam Harris is flat out brilliant

[@billyhimpy5216]

He uses his immense vocabulary to confuse and to avoid actually answering a question. If you really listen to what he is saying it is in fact nonsense

[@HuzonFurst]

Stop wasting everyone's time letting Jordan Peterson run his mouth!!

[@paper4dayz]

Sam seems so much more sincere than Jordan. It always feels like Jordan is asking questions as playing devils advocate for the sake of playing devils advocate.

[@biedl86]

3:39 "Religion gives people bad reasons to be good, where good reasons are available."

[@rustyxof]

How is a conversation on morality honestly being conducted without talk of Plato. This is an incredibly dishonest debate.

[@atmoo3447]

I would love to hear Sam Harris explain what makes up religion, I would love to hear his explanation of belief, morals and rituals

[@SteveKershaw]

I have and use Sam’s app, waking up, I also have Petersons book “he who wrestled with god” on preorder, read all of his books, Both these men have a lot to give, I have no interest in comparison and will take the best of them and make my own conclusions

[@healdogtoe2c]

Arguing about faith by means of playing with language can extend the conversation to the point where the subject just gets buried in the will to remain “correct” in your own mind. Peterson is tireless in his will to recreate identical points through different terminology, where nothing new is being offered up even as we see the minutes pass on the clock.

[@graemerose1616]

"But that depends on how you define a fire. First you wuld have to look at the cause of they fire, why it was allowed to star, which shop did the home owners buy the products. Where they work to get the money to buy...." By the time he stops, the hose has gone, with everybody in it.

[@patricialauriello3805]

Harris who said he doesn't have to respect anyone's faith. Ditto Mr Harris.

[@Timrath]

I the Bible has examples of self-sacrifice, but they fall into one of two categories: Man sacrficing himself for Jesus, and Jesus sacrificing himself for mankind. Also, all instances of self-sacrifice seem to be taking place in the New Testament. How did the Old Testament promote self-sacrifice? And would Christianity actually advocate sacrificing oneself for the sake of other peoples' children?

[@starfishsystems]

Harris opens with very strong evidence in favor of "is" over "ought" assertions. We do not, in general, need to develop elaborate moral arguments for choosing one action over another because of some externally imposed "ought." Usually our instincts tell us which action to prefer. This is how our species has survived to this point. Many of our instincts are not only evolved in favor of our personal survival but also to promote our survival as a group, because we are a SOCIAL SPECIES. And yes, these various instincts come into conflict sometimes, which is why as an INTELLIGENT social species we try to anticipate such conflicts and formulate a compromise solution wherever that may be possible. But the very idea of an "ought" suggests an externally imposed code, not a product of introspection, but of a more absolute authoritarian order. There is no ground for "ought" otherwise.

[@VinylCP]

Jordan does a very bad job of trying to help Sam understand this.

[@mangarang]

Digesting their collective word salad is so taxing that the paltry nutrition it provides is not worth the effort. A diet of their debate renders an astute audience member malnourished.

[@travistheangrychimp]

Peterson really did call him "Spidermin." Such a weirdo.

[@scottjensen7555]

This was an interesting discussion, but the only edge I see for Sam Harris in this clip is, he did most of the talking. I think it can be accurately said, all stable and long lasting civilizations known to have existed, had a religious substrate as an organizing principle.

[@TheKamperfoelie]

Peterson values the stories of the bible, arguing that even now, they hold significant truths of the human condition. I think what he found even surprised himself. That makes him weary of denouncing the christian and jewish faith, since in his eyes, from what he actually distills from the stories in the bible, the stories hold valuable insights on life. That isn’t in this clip, it only shows Sam arguing that holding a religion as belief is detrimental, which he explains well. Peterson is the Jung of our generation, perhaps even larger than that. If you cannot look beyond what the bible and religion mean to you, you’re going to miss out. Even Jung had bad days.

[@TeamTriadJob]

Man, although I don't believe Jordan could win this argument with Sam on a good day, you can tell he was clearly very unhealthy at this point in time and it hindered his performance.

[@NotJaybo]

Why does sam give these two plebs the time of day

[@andrewstrongman305]

I've never seen Peterson so quiet before.

[@renevalice3056]

The awareness to breach the barriers of "Heaven or Hell" dictation for life is our own signifying mark on the grand timeline for humans, in this 21st century. The new acquired knowledge of the cosmic occurrences, proposed ideas for structure of sentience within a complex universe, and enhanced vision for future technology as inventiveness continues, is why tribalism, theocracies, and doctrines are anachronistic: not everything is contained in human texts, languages, and codes because of invention itself. Cherish inventing, and not manipulation.

[@allrequiredfields]

I agree far more with Sam on this, but if you're accusing Peterson of 'word saladry' you're unwittingly exposing your own ignorance. I might disagree with Jordan here but it's not just nonsense coming out of his mouth. It just kills me that he got into religion and politics, because when he sticks to his field, he's the objectively demonstrally brilliant. He's unquestionably a net positive for this world, he's just caught up in stuff that he simply shouldn't be caught up in.

[@davidvincentyancey3231]

Sam is correct. You can program a child or the weak and ignorant minded adult to believe anything or to follow anyone by telling them what they want to hear. The Bible is correct. The "faithful Christians" are "sheep" needing a Shepard to tell them how to think and feel. If they need the "faith" crutch to get them through the day, then fine, but faith doesn't always equal fact.

[@BlueAvianProductions]

I miss having Sam and Bret on speaking terms

[@RogueBurn]

Oh, the humanity! That's what is called a Hertz Doughnut. 😅

[@Mr.Braggadocio]

Sam sneaks in normativity with his first sentence. Jordy Pete's is always lost

[@anglomandingo666]

This world needs more Harris' and less Petersons

[@Anonmillenial]

Good clip, thanks!

[@stinkwink695]

God is an invented super hero based on an a priori desire for something that has that psychological function. God is just one of the fictional super heros, not the original real hero that all fictional super heros are based on. There were 1000s of fictional super heros before God that were Frankensteined together and evolved into the ultimate omni all super hero.

[@99guspuppet8]

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ are used to like both of these guys …… Then I quit liking Sam Harris ….. Then I stop liking Jordan Peterson so much ….. SO WHAT !

[@daveybalmer]

I have just invented a new salad dressing. It's called the "Jordan Peterson". A smothering melange of over-striven desperations . . .

[@mirapilates]

Jordan Peterson- his Indian name is "He who talks a lot and says nothing".

[@grayhamgrayhamson1466]

Why is Sam talking to the two old dudes from the muppets

[@researchtech4881]

Jordan Peterson doesn't care what is true. He loves ideas and their power whether they are true of not. This is destructive. Because bad ideas are often powerful, and he locates their value in their power, not their truthfulness. This is folly. A smart man doing something foolish because he likes it. Sam is right. Jordan is defeated. Period.

[@theghoulshow]

Sam Harris sharpens the dullest knives

[@ajzma]

The most difficult GOAT debate to resolve is btetween jordy boy and dinesh dsouza who is the hreatest bullshitter of all time.

[@Zaimless]

Faith is not Fact

[@bryangaydos6628]

Jordan peterson uses complex words.

[@Progmium]

4:38 Mic drop!

[@hamburgler227]

I don’t think anybody said a fkn thing here

[@vodkarage8227]

Religion was invented to try to explain what humans couldn't, and still can't, understand. Religion also allowed man to cope with death and the hardships of living. If religion didn't exist, our brains would find a new way to cope and eventually infrastructure would be built up around those new ways. We can learn to cope by dealing with reality and making life as easy as possible so we can spend more time doing what we want and not what we have to do.

[@susanwjoh0re735]

agreed, and now the religion of 64 billion genders was created for people to cope with their own confusion.

[@Lijaci]

Mister Petersons - Benzo neighborhood

[@pascualmunoz55]

Sam, you’re trying too hard just listen to Jordan you’ll learn something

[@djimiwreybigsby5263]

Who can listen to him anymore? He's so full of tryna be right that he'll argue against anything

[@321bytor]

Peterson 🤦‍♂️

[@shannononeal9680]

The best part of the whole video is at 5:53. Spiderman (the Jewish surname?)

[@mptyyegdlc]

I wonder what Jordan means by "mean".

[@sunyata4974]

They are both wrong. Science and religion have the same ultimate reality. Their natural laws are objective and can be derived logically. They complement each other. Also, one can't invalidate a principle with bad practice.

[@dbossmotiv]

Wrong. Hercules, gorgons, giants ,talking snakes and magic fruit do not exist in our reality.

[@lorenzodicapo6305]

Right. Try telling that to a Christian

[@getriebenesauge9683]

so, he doesnt. what is up with these clip titles unfailingly casting Harris as the protagonist?

[@orthochristos]

Off the Peterson train for a while, although he has offered some insightful perspectives, not to mention he helped plenty of people in their lives with his advice. But Harris has lost his marbles for some time now. He is a complete joke

[@mchammby]

Worst stand up I’ve ever seen.

[@Walker_8_8]

peterson is arguing that the superhero idea only exists because we have an innate intuition of a higher order of morality and authority. peterson isn't smart enough or honest enough to understand that the superhero (chosen one) idea comes from the incel types who are trying to leapfrog the more "accomplished" men, by imagining a more powerful alter ego. the evidence of that is clear, all of the early superheros had a relatively lowly (incel) standing in their community.

[@Pantagana9000]

Peter Griffinson

[@codyburgess7034]

Jordan is speaking on a level above Harris on avg. That doesn’t mean truer. Imagine a microscope and each lens reveals more information. Harris looks zoomed in all the way. But perhaps his understanding of an organ doesn’t understand the purpose of the organism.

[@Ronald-ss6gn]

Well placing your hand on a burning stove and being burned doesn't teach anything about moriality. Just as falling into a deep pond will certainly take your life if you are unable to swim. Morality, is the subjective of what is inherently, good. Yes, you were severely hurt, however, the lessons learned are that you should not burn anyone and a hot stove will make you yell. Hence, we can argue that this experience leads to the development of a morale which supposes that burning of each other is wrong. This experience may be observed as contributing reason for those believing in instincts. However, this experience is not a genetive of 'good.' How do we argue moraliity where pain isn't a contributing factor, for instance, " And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." Mark 12: 31. Is there pain of a stranger not showing another stranger love whom he or she passes by in a market place? No! However, this this is a moral since it is a subjective of 'good, or only of God' which represents tremendous benefactors for the human race. How can a hot stove teach morale???? What is wrong with us?????

[@SpencerDonahue]

LOL you are SO confused, but literally every christian is chronically confused 🤣🤣🤣

[@gerardgauthier4876]

I always find the religious defenders(when pushed hard) will retreat to, we can't know anything so we are on the same level... I always find the religious defenders who make the claim that we can't know anything, are alright broadcasting that message over the Internet but fail to use their God for transmission to the human race.

[@prasvasu4217]

Sam's great but when it comes to supporting the democrats and free speech, all this well reasoned logic and beautiful articulation just drops...

[@Mavuika_Gyaru]

What's wrong with supporting democrats and free speech?

[@tchristian04]

“William Lane Craig Burns Sam Harris on Moral Philosophy” is one you’ll never have the courage to upload or even admit that it happened.

[@Druid75]

Cause it didn’t 😂

[@tchristian04]

@ you can say that all you want but Craig gave a demonstration of the incoherence of Harris’ moral landscape, which Harris didn’t even try to defend but instead followed with emotional attacks on the Bible.

[@larryscarr3897]

​@@tchristian04low bar bill? That guy? Yea magical nonsense from an idiot.

[@Druid75]

@ not even close

[@BatWayne6]

Common Harris L