Sam Harris vs Jordan Peterson | God, Atheism, The Bible, Jesus - Part 4 - Presented by Pangburn

#samharris #jordanpeterson #christianity #atheism #pangburn #bible #jesus #god
Join us on Discord here: / discord
07/16/2018
This is the fourth time Sam & Jordan appeared live together on stage. They were joined by Douglas Murray. This event took place at The O2 Arena in London, England on July 16th 2018 in front of 6500 people. The event was produced by Pangburn Philosophy.
(No copyright infringement will be tolerated.)
#pangburnlive

[@Pangburn]

Watch Sam Harris & Brian Greene on stage FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER kzbin.info/www/bejne/a6HFeaaIr510bdk

[@guaromiami]

Ben Stiller has really come into his own as a philosopher.

[@meewarwoowoo]

Ben Stiller has really let himself go.

[@joeybeann]

@@meewarwoowoo Clear eyes

[@ctakitimu]

I love that the Ben Stiller joke is always funny!

[@Contribute_TakeCare_Learn_Play]

So true hahahah

[@craigackerman5893]

Zen Stiller

[@ClaimedMinotaur]

I love how the announcer for all of these is super enthusiastic like he's opening the super bowl and then these three dudes in suits come out and start speaking in soft tones about philosophy.

[@TheNikosalegio]

Read your comment, so true..thought they were going to walk out with mma gloves on 🤣

[@dbrast]

Only 2 of the 3 dudes speak in soft tones. Peterson shouts.

[@tatsuyaradheya3528]

@@dbrast That's what being passionate about something looks like. At least he's not organizing genocide and wars like some Islamic organization.

[@lucasD9110]

This is exciting stuff bro lol

[@RLamberton1]

This is 1000 times better than any Super Bowl. This is very rare thing to see. Two incredibly intelligent and well read individuals Sebring deep topics in a very polite and adult manner. It’s pure gold.

[@NB-fz3fz]

These 4 discussions are truly incredible. The first time I watched these videos was 3 years ago, and coming back to them now has been an absolute treat. I was able to find so many new insights and also see how my thoughts and perspective have changed over the last few years. Also can we take a moment to appreciate how these videos have basically no dislikes. This comment section is also really great - everyone sharing their thoughts and ideas in a productive manner. It’s very rare to see comment sections on KZbin that aren’t mostly filled with corrosive arguments, when dealing with such complex topics. This is an ideal example of how the internet should be used to share ideas and foster discussions.

[@solomon05032]

KZbin disabled the dislikes viewer, I guess that's why we don't see them.

[@gistfilm]

Peterson is great but he's annoying in this debate. Peterson is stuck in the micro, the details, and what is. Harris flies in the macro, the concepts, and what can be.

[@alaalfa8839]

In Western countries, people are taught to be happy for a reason. because it makes a great profit if they tell you you are not good enough, they make you buy more products. and it's short-term happiness. In Asian countries such as Thailand and Sri Lanka, they are taught to be happy for no reason. therefore they experience true freedom and happiness. These are the happiest countries. They dont argue with each other, they are not punished for showing emotions and they appreciate each other. If you show any type of emotion in America, they make fun of you because males are not allowed to be happy they are allowed only to make money, but not be truly happy and have a normal opinion that is not approved by a majority of people. and women want their partners to feel happiness. because happy people are more creative and meaningful even though if they earn less.

[@mach7479]

Sam makes incredibly complicated things simple, and Jordan makes incredibly simple things complicated.

[@tristan8041]

Sam tries to simplify things that are complicated and fails. I watched all four parts and I still don’t know where an atheist derives their morality from. Best I’ve got is biological and evolutionary chemical impulses. Which is a massive oversimplification of the human condition. That’s the same dead end I hit trying to be an atheist.

[@lauraedgeworth6719]

Very true.

[@basrutgers79]

@@tristan8041 All morality is emergent from the interactions between people in a certain society. From the perspective of an atheist the people that wrote the bible have inserted their own human morality in the stories. Because of religious dogma, and the present perception that the bible contains divine morality, this legitimizes people to base their current beliefs and behaviour on the contents of the bible. I think Sam is somewhat arguing that this could be problematic because we now live in a different era. Jordan indicates however, that the stories of the bible contain many wisdoms that can still be valued today. Sam seems not to directly deny this, but clearly sees more danger in the dogmatic approach of religion in general and the intolerance that goes with it.

[@tristan8041]

@@basrutgers79 well I thought this was a panel about theism vs atheism. Not the Bible vs atheism. It’s easy to point out the flaws of rigid and arbitrary religious dogma. It’s not easy to explain away the possible existence of divinely created metaphysical realities that result in such dogmas. Which is what Peterson seems to be arguing in favor of. Although it is a bit inconsistent that he argues this point from a biblical perspective rather than just admit he’s agnostic.

[@JonnyB12and3]

@@tristan8041 I gathered that his main point seemed to be that morality is derived from suffering, people generally do not want to suffer and can avoid this by not causing suffering to others or have people cause suffering to them and try to avoid causing suffering to themselves. Fairly simple but effective.

[@niterainbow47]

Whoever came up with the matrix chairs... genius.

[@paulden3158]

The Matrix chairs lol !

[@allenalesna]

And I’m quite sure that was an intentional reference.

[@moeazam6358]

Nice catch.

[@mistablack5702]

The chair designer.

[@shinyheart3373]

🤣 lol

[@carolwolf9614]

I was at this event. I came away from it in a state of wonder. I wasn't sure I had heard it right. I just watched this video and it confirms my wonder, that such a thing could happen, in this time. It is nothing short of a miracle. Thank you, three great human beings, proving that such a discussion is possible, in a time when we are so deprived of deep, meaningful thought.

[@Fitplayer66]

Lol, what? I went to a University where we had these discussions all the time.

[@fastian7956]

Right....among so much meaningless, petty claims, debates and useless rancor that is globally pervasive.

[@cesaraugustus9064]

It must have been an amazing experience. I OFTEN wonder what it must have been like to be an observer seeing these intellectual giants talk about these things. Every time I listen to these dialogues I can feel my IQ rising. I am happy for you, both that you were privileged to experience this in person, and that the conversations were preserved so that you can remember the experience. And I am happy to have encountered someone who witnessed this magnificent historical event.

[@carledk123]

​@@Fitplayer66 then you must've had the time to think that most people doesn't have that privilege in their lives. Also why am I responding to a 2 year old comment. Probably ego

[@thierryf2789]

If you are deprived of deep, meaningful thought, it is a YOU problem. Don’t project on others.

[@guitarmusic524]

Thank you Jordan, Sam, Douglas and Pangburn for providing this video.

[@afrolee5654]

I think what's crazy is that Jordan never uses the practicing of a religion to think, as far I know. He is indeed using rational and contrary thinking, to justify irrational thinking because it's a way to act in the horizon of uncertainty. But the paradox is that one doesn't get to criticize that embodiment of actions in the traversing of uncertainty even when that then becomes a pattern with a predictable outcome, in at that point not having a criticism of a pattern with a possible negative outcome is to run your self into a brick wall with faith. How about this: Use WISDOM to avoid shit. Use Rationality to predict use criticism to correct. Use good faith to experiment, (meaning YOU DONT KNOW AND CANT CURRENTLY KNOW)

[@earth1710]

@@afrolee5654 You are clearly not a Christian since you wouldn't say that we don't know when we do know enough to act upon our faith. To claim or insist that we don't know the things we do know is suicidal.

[@rogerbeckham7852]

We are so fortunate to have this available online for free. And so easily accessible, too. Listening to conversations like these are my personal favorite way to learn. I end up questioning myself, rethinking my own positions, learning how to rationalize and REFINE my own positions too. Thank you for these videos!

[@felixestrada8512]

Same . I grew up Catholic but am now atheist. I feel like this is my two sides of my brain debating on stage.

[@maabownallh7386]

@@felixestrada8512 haha that's very cool :)

[@BM-zd3vs]

I m a born buddhist and I admire these guys so much. Richard Dawkins is my favourite so far.

[@f.r8580]

The winner of this debate is anyone who learned something from both of them.

[@YAHOOISNOTG]

Ah yes, we've been expecting you.

[@solaristologist]

I have this letter here for you

[@Byung89]

Truth from the heart brother. Thank you.

[@daedalusdreamjournal5925]

Would the following qualify? : "Reasons and emotions are the two shoes on your feet, you can travel further with both rather than just one." ... also, you can learn a lot not just from experience but by seeing two very different points interacting with each other and make your own point of view in the process (which is different than saying such and such "won" the debate).

[@Byung89]

@@daedalusdreamjournal5925 Very good detailed elaboration on a specific perspective. Masha'allah brother!

[@Naikonul]

Fair enough, man, I mean, hey!

[@watch3r1]

Roughly speaking...

[@randonologic4684]

as far as I'm concerned.

[@chasecleary7921]

Because, look, I mean...

[@doug3004]

Well it depends on what you mean by.....

[@ashtonbowers1122]

I mean, you could look at it this way...

[@celestialmangos8537]

I can’t relay how much I appreciate these conversations. I’ve listened to these four discussions like 5 or 6 times - probably come back to them every 6 months or so. Incredibly enjoyable and increasingly interesting. I pray to the highest value in my metaphysical hierarchy that Sam and Jordon continue this conversation throughout the years

[@tensecondbuickgn]

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled" - Mark Twain

[@nikkowade7745]

That's crazy I watched all four of these and I would rather be here than the Super Bowl Sunday

[@nikkowade7745]

And I'm 10 years late

[@michaeltape8282]

Anytime. All the time.

[@carolbaez5891]

why is that crazy?

[@justatumorboy]

👏I thought about it a lot 🤝

[@b3u0c6k]

Totally agree with Douglas’ statement that the fact we get to dedicate time to a discussion about questions so deeply effecting our culture is a very positive sign.

[@Pangburn]

Remember to subscribe :)

[@gunofapreacherman1340]

Péter Horváth Will these discussions ever prevent the barbarians from blowing up children at pop concerts, or is that just a fantasy?

[@miramusk8085]

The problem is, we should be able to have these discusions anywhere any time one on one as individuals groups whatever. They shouldn't be a privlige of scholars and elites of specialty vocations. This is part of the current problem within society today. Why shouldn't you or I be able to enjoy a debate in a coffe shop or club restaurant or train plane any public venue at all and why would it be a bad thing for us to disagree and even walk away in disagreement but still maintaing respect for the other to maintain their stance?

[@jeziscricket4448]

It is a problem especially when the world becomes a secret society.

[@lc5034]

Thoses debates and this commentary make me feel love for people and the world, maybe deep in me I love you all even if you are sickening but maybe i cant help myself to cry with you hug you and tell you that i love you and that i value you Maybe im just in fantasies who knows nigga

[@bartjebeltegoed]

The most hopeful thing about these series is not even that so many people start watching this, but that there are Arabic subtitles. That it is not just some (relatively privileged) people in the west take an interest in these discussions, but also from places where free and open debate is generally a lot more scarce.

[@madsleonardholvik3040]

Good observation!

[@4lugan]

But why Arab? Why not french, chinese, Spanish?

[@elisjongoseni3225]

Who says so?

[@devincordray4582]

​@@4luganArabic is a mother tongue for a massive amount of multilingual societies.

[@germanshepherd2701]

@@devincordray4582 ​​⁠​⁠ that’s not a good argument because so is Spanish with all of the Americas, French with parts of Europe, Quebec and much of Africa, and Mandarin/Cantonese obviously hosts a huge number of native speakers. But it also makes sense that they might do Arabic first because of Islam. Either way, right now I don’t see any captions for other languages besides English. They took it/them away? Odd.

[@sjograas]

It is rare to hear Jordan struggling like this. His argument is so difficult to motivate that he has to resort to personal anecdotes. While Sam's basis for an objective morale is by no means perfect, it provides a vastly more stable foundation.

[@endpc5166]

Sam Harris is more courageous talking about difficult subjects and more direct & clear than, say, Jordan Peterson which talks around difficult subjects, like Islam which he avoids.

[@yousufshakir2378]

Man I actually felt sad when the conversation finished, great people

[@GVSHvids]

I hope they will do more debates but I have a feeling they will just say the same things. Jordan: The profound archetypal life of Christ is a representation for imitation to get at the blah blah, Paradise, deep meaning. Sam: Yes, that's a nice story but blah blah invisible man in the sky, he's supposed to be omniscient, blah blah, dogma won't change.

[@justCommando]

This is the last video I'm watching and I feel sad to see it end too, I never knew Sam Harris before so I'll be looking into him more.

[@kevinmartincossiolozano8540]

@@GVSHvids I'm kinda late, but yes, they have dedicated a whole life to refine this ideas, obviously they would defend and even expand their notion of the right path, but you definetly can't constrain all their ideas in a few debates. Which surprises me the most, is the fact that their ideas are so profound, that they are willing to go very deep and tell us a new perspective towards their ideas. The deeper you go into their ocean, the harder it is to convince yourself that is not worth going deeper.

[@alaron5698]

@@kevinmartincossiolozano8540 "The deeper you go into their ocean, the harder it is to convince yourself that is not worth going deeper." On one hand, I understand what you mean and quite like the metaphor. On the other hand, it's a metaphor that clashes with itself somewhat, because the ocean is deep and frightening, especially if you dive into its depths, and it would actually be very compelling to go back and not go deeper, returning to the light and the shore.

[@stevenb3854]

There is 1 single great person on that stage I'm afraid. And it's not Peterson or Murray.

[@g.h.w.stewartphilosophy4123]

Has anyone noticed that Peterson is wearing a tie with tiny lobsters all over it?

[@thecake03]

It's a nod to one of his lectures about inequality.

[@unknown674]

He's subconsciously expressing the safe word.

[@PaulV3D]

And people say he's too serious.

[@omarkhan5223]

@@thecake03 Lobster hierarchy was actually a central premise of his book as well.

[@Blankarte]

Raising an irrelevant issue. Please go back to the content no matter what side you support.

[@Polski_Kabaret]

And there it is, the sacredness of the present moment. Thanks Sam.

[@raidenafc6576]

Sam lost. Didn’t you listen ? His solution is a dark void for your grandchildren.

[@tomwolfe7782]

@@raidenafc6576 One's feelings don't determine facts. I don't *love* the idea that I won't likely see my dead friends and family again (assuming that's what you mean by "dark void"), but I'm the kind of person who would rather have uncomfortable facts than comforting lies. There are all manner of terribly sad and disappointing things happening on our planet, but I don't tell myself that they aren't true because the truth would be sad. If you were the kid who came home to find their dog gone, and your dad told you that the dog was very sick, so he took them away to a farm where they could get better on the condition that they spend the rest of their life on the farm, I'd rather know that my dog was brought to be euthanized than to insist that the farm is real because to acknowledge death would be uncomfortable. Your emotions are valuable and real to you, and I don't wish to imply that you shouldn't have those fears, that sadness, that anger, etc. These can be processed a number of ways. The only thing I *am* saying is, "Sam is wrong to disbelieve in God because for there to be no God would mean there is no Heaven, and that would be a shame for my family" is not an argument that proves there must be a God...

[@donniehardest875]

I don’t think that’s the dark void with all due respect. The dark void isn’t the fact there’s no heaven, it’s the fact that there would be no true grounding for a large portion of society to base their morals and principles in therefore their behaviour.

[@FightExcellence]

@@tomwolfe7782Such a generic atheist rebuttal which doesn’t address the actual issues people like Jordan represent .

[@tomwolfe7782]

@@FightExcellence Forget I'm even on a video with Peterson in it...the two people above me's arguments in favor of a God seem to be, "If no God, then no Heaven, so there must be a god", and/or, "If no God, then no objective moral values, so there must be a god." This is all I'm replying to, here. Our main reason to believe something exists within our Universe cannot be, "It would make me happier if X existed, therefore, X exists." Apply this to anything else, and you'd see how it's not a standalone reason.

[@danielbull5597]

These discussions are fascinating. Tja k you for doing them. Insightful, elucidating and compelling.

[@Trazynn]

The crowdsurfing was a bit excessive and the moshpit was kinda lame, but otherwise, great show.

[@ZacksMetalRiffs]

When Douglas said "MAKE A FUCKING PIIIIIIIIT" Best part

[@WBlake01]

Is this real or am I getting wooshed

[@darrenmclennan4702]

They missed a trick by not doing the wall of death at the end.

[@SDY274]

Melon?

[@crispinpollak1473]

I like J Peterson’s shoes though.

[@tomjanes3683]

I was sat behind the astrologer. He also called Sam a 'communist prat' and said his suits were boring.

[@gabmor7779]

was he kicked out?

[@tomjanes3683]

No, he kept yelling stuff out until people asked him to stop. I'm pretty sure he was mentally ill.

[@bobolinkr]

Lol

[@bobolinkr]

Sam was losing the dress battle xD

[@Mutantcy1992]

Charlatans are always the best dressed men around.

[@emp5352]

Essentially, what Harris is saying is "People ought to be smarter and derive morality through a secular and rational lens". Peterson is saying "Most people are very stupid, so the practical thing is to let them play make-believe with false stories to collectively guide themselves from things they learned from their ancestors."

[@Wildminecraftwolf]

sure but sam is also arguing for an error correction mechanisim in these make-believe false stories so they dont stagnate. As it stands you cannot eddit these books.

[@raidenafc6576]

@@Wildminecraftwolf Sam’s issue much like Freud’s is he’s thinking about the human mind in bitmap / engineering nothing could be more ridiculous. The hero archetype is linked to a religious doctrine. Everyone wants to be a hero it’s fun man. What. Is. the alternative ? Nothingness ? No thank you.

[@Daeva83B]

nice summary, i agree with Sam. I consider myself not smart, but i am a thinker. And religion is blocking my thinking, because it's a sin or bad or whatever. Can't talk with religious people either, because.. well they can't handle it, they are not a free thinker like how i am. So anything i want to discuss, it's per definition bad. Even if it's just a question, because it will be seen as an attack. I do despise religion for that and i do think it keeps people dumb and a lot of problems we have today i blame it on religion, because religion is a safe space for them and there is no need to think, god (or the bible or your ministerie, whatever) already decided for you, what you should do and can do.

[@codymelcher6947]

​@@raidenafc6576fair point, but there were heros before that religious doctrine, which I think Sam is trying to get across. Meaning that it isn't rued to the religious doctrine, someone tied the doctrine to it and it stuck. For instance, a hero looks very different from the Muslim world vs the Christian world. The effect they feel and the motive may be similar, but THAT what Sam is trying to exclude. That said, it's an uphill battle because you have to rectify all the problems at once, or Jordan's "void" will be filled.

[@alaron5698]

Cynical and oversimplified.

[@anthonycarlisle6184]

1:08 Peterson reply was a perfect lesson of completely not answering the question but making sounds to sound like you're answering the question.

[@AndresVidz]

Hater

[@luciel4502]

He was cut off many time by Sam .

[@catross3713]

​@@AndresVidzcult member

[@chazstevens3879]

All four of these were basically just intellectual boxing matches. And i loved it.

[@jayvdb]

The spectators even get to force them to go another few rounds.

[@LukeMcGuireoides]

I only think so about this one. The first three were take it or leave it imo

[@jcstroble91]

Brain ufc!

[@enterpassword3313]

And peterson had his face smashed in multiple times, avoiding acknowledging sams points, even had a bit of a breakdown and threw a tantrum to try avoid answering a question.

[@vladimirzaitsev5085]

I don't usually comment on anything but I wanted to share. Here we have an interesting discussion between 2 radically different interpretations of how human life can be lived to its fullest potential, but that may actually turn out to not be so different after all. Sam Harris is like a manifestation of the left-brain, an orderly and structured intellect seeking precision. That is why he appears to be dogmatic and rigid to people of the more right-brain type. Namely, he is comfortable with certainty, reason, structure, and analysis. His training in Buddhism, which is fundamentally based on direct personal experience of the potential of one's own mind and the experiences inherent within it along with a deconstruction of the concepts surrounding self, seem to provide a framework via which he can confront the problems of ethics and morality. Buddhism teaches you to use meditation and laser like focus to pierce through the illusions of the ego and confront mind directly. Beneath ego and the myriad elements of the verbally constructed self there lies a wellspring of wisdom, compassion, and love. I think Sam is leading people to tap into that wellspring, which is beyond concepts, stories, and ideas, and to drink deeply of something that lives within us. Jordan Peterson is like a manifestation of the right-brain, a fluid and hard to pin down level of mind more akin to dreams and visions. That is why he appears to be slippery and confusing to people of the more left brain type. Namely, he is comfortable with a measure of uncertainty. He is trained in psychoanalysis and various theories of mind from the west, as well as his own attempts to follow the path of the Abrahamic traditions back to their original sources in ancient Mesopotamian tribes. This studying of the various stories and mythologies has revealed to Jordan a sort of luminous thread that passes through them, something more akin to archetypes and the subtle aspects of cognition. He thinks these stories are beautiful compositions of the collective wisdom of the species and, really, of Mother Nature and Father Culture, shall we say. As such, he thinks they embody a wisdom that is timeless in its essence and that can be drawn upon infinitely. Really, I don't think their 2 models of reality are too different, or utterly incompatible. Perhaps they exist on 2 different levels of the same structure, and inform each other, for even Buddhism with its precise rational methods for deconstruction is saturated with profound stories that embody certain attributes of appropriate behavior. If you have your religious stories and your archetypes but you lack direct insight into the nature of your mind and the possibilities it contains (an infinite realm of experiences including the most profoundly spiritual) then perhaps the stories cannot truly come alive and have their deepest power. And if you have insight into the nature of mind and a powerful control of your intellect through meditation and tapping into the deep underlying wellsprings of wisdom and knowledge, but lack a connection to the archetypes and stories of your culture, then perhaps there is no glue via which to bind people together, no area of concepts that people can share and use, especially to help teach the young who are not yet ready to dig deep into the mind via meditation and deconstruction of the ego through direct analysis. I don't claim to know the answers, but both thinkers have stimulated me over the course of their 4 discussions in this format. I think those that vilify one or the other and are unwilling to accept that they are perhaps 2 sides of the same coin, will ultimately fail to grasp a deeper understanding of the dimensions they were traversing, for both gentlemen surely respect each other and agree on many issues and believed that there might be some value in colliding their different modes of interpretation.

[@Yungillegalbean]

Vladimir Zaitsev beautifully put my man. This deserves way more attention.

[@UrbanKizBeast]

Well put. Mesopotomian link clever.

[@vasilysidorenko8821]

Perfect Dostoevsky inspired analysis, maladetz

[@Adm_Guirk]

Nice Word Salad.................................JK! I think the left-right brain analogy is perfect. This is why we want to see them argue because it elucidates our own internal conflicts. I still have to side with Jordan a bit more because if you watch his MOM lectures he weaves the two sides together better than anyone else I have listened to and it is why he is the more conciliatory of the two.

[@teresaamanfu7408]

Vladimir Zaitsev I don’t see how they are compatible. Sam is seeking truth and Jordan is hung up on metaphors.

[@AdityaPrasad007]

These guys deserve more fans than any pop star...

[@sonjanevalainen7189]

"I suspect that many of you are actually here because you would like to hear the void addressed."

[@collj86]

Sonja Nevalainen good observation

[@shmonn.]

holy shit, I read this right as he was saying it

[@devashbhardwaj7749]

the funny thing is I really was there for that reason( metaphorically speaking)

[@sebastiaankampers6651]

s dude I was reading your comment when he was saying it 😅

[@sonjanevalainen7189]

@@sebastiaankampers6651 haha...the void wanted to make sure you were paying attention

[@limpet9]

"You must be an Aries sir", nice

[@roddydykes7053]

I was hoping to find out what the hell he was shouting

[@Jakke101]

Brilliant!

[@drummertheangelwolfandxytr5678]

Second time listening to all of these videos again, and it was just as good, if not better, the second time through.

[@guitarmusic524]

This debate drove Jordan Peterson to the edge. No surprise. Wisdom comes from pain. More power to him. And, more power to Sam and Douglas too.These guys are here because they want a better world. I hope you do too.

[@mega4171]

yet JP fought back with all the buzzwords and metaphors he could think of. All while dodging the true matter to each point

[@corsinivideos]

I mean Douglas Murray is definitely not looking for a better world. In the UK he is mostly a right wing commentator who rallies against multiculturalism and generally hold fairly intolerant views thinly veiled under a guise of intellectualism.

[@peacefulmind1409]

@@mega4171 Sam Harris also dodging lots of crucial points here.

[@mega4171]

@@peacefulmind1409 if you had the confidence to specify which crucial points he dodged you would have. Instead you make vague and baseless claims. Specify or prove that you’re intellectually inferior

[@peacefulmind1409]

@@mega4171 Did Sam give an proper explanation on how atheists have an objective foundation of moral ethics? Did he ever explain how atheists have the same level of drive and passion to comply with the moral ethics as theists do? If he did, please specify me when he did it.

[@rapturestudios3179]

Sam the voice of reason, Jordan the voice of wisdom and Douglas the voice of mediation. This was an absolute pleasure to watch with some seriously contemplative arguments. I am sure this will be an excellent personal source of conversations for years to come. The world needs to hear this discussion.

[@Xplorer228]

I'd say he's hardly the voice of mediation. Even he admits that. More like Sam debates team Jordan Douglas.

[@stevemartinez1360]

@@Xplorer228 perhaps because Sam’s contention is only a question he fails to provide an answer to. I enjoy hearing him speak immensely, but he really just goes in circles after a while. He’s a lot better at pointing out things he disagrees with than proposing a viable solution to them.

[@jpgduff]

Peterson is not the voice of wisdom.

[@davidbolen8982]

Yes, yes, yes

[@onemanenclave]

Jordan is the voice of irrational stubbornness and an illustrative example of the cognitive disssonace that intelligent, scientically-minded people suffer from and struggle with when they want to continue believing in the fairy tales that their well-intentioned but ignorant parents rammed into their brains.

[@smartcow360]

Not sure if it’s just me but i REALLY wanna see them do psychedelics together hahaha

[@LS-zu4oy]

The majority of Nazi guards in the camps were raised catholic. To say they didn't think there was a possibility a god was watching may be a bit of a stretch.

[@myself4711]

They would come to an agreement.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

I'd watch an acid movie metaphor filmed inside their tripping heads, like a walk through Mandelbrot's garden with Pinocchio and that wizard mouse doing all the talking, their every detailed branching thought illustrated in glowing paisley curlicues but I think for best effect, I should be tripping too.

[@yakthemutt9140]

REDPUMPERNICKEL You went pretty far out there, buddy. I’ll have what you’re having.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@yakthemutt9140 Lol. Whatever do you mean?

[@BigWickTraders]

I love all of these guys and listen to all of them individually with so much respect. From listening to Sam speak about religion in the past, it was clear he was really trying to explain things in simple and direct metaphors that could be palatable to most people. Yet it was still at a high level of sophistication. My take on Jordan, who is an intellectual “god” among us mere mortals, was that he wasn’t actually answering any of the direct and simple questions. It was like he had to drive to the supermarket 5 minutes away from his home, but took the back roads through the most beautiful and eloquent landscapes only to never arrive at the destination.

[@nicholashayden8319]

You really think it was high level? I followed alone rather easy. To be honest, I thought they were beating around the bush. They only began to touch on their real debate in the very last 45 minutes or so. Just before the last crowd break and still didn't really get anywhere... Wish I could do a break down video.

[@keithrelyea7997]

If as you say an "Intellectual god" then why the hell does he fail/dodge points in the debate and speak these strange word combinations?

[@thyself8004]

After watching all 4 of these debates, I’ve concluded that both of them are right. Peterson is clearly correct in his analysis of the archetypal power that mythology and religion has and how vital it is that we don’t scrap them completely. These narratives have a numinosity to them that mere rationality could never foster, and that numinosity is what drives people to act in accordance with the teachings and motivates people to transcend themselves. Harris is correct that archetypal possession on a collective level can be incredibly dangerous considering the vast majority of people are completely unconscious of the fact that they are possessed by an archetype. This leads to fanaticism and dogmatism. The answer lies in educating people about the psychological significance of these stories as well as the danger that comes with becoming possessed by it.

[@dantar3760]

Great comment, I totally agree!

[@racebannon5523]

We should scrap them completely

[@HolisticDetective]

I also think that smart people, people who "think about ideas", overestimate the average individual. If you're smart enough to follow all 4 of these talks, let alone take them in and think about them yourself, then you're likely in the top 5% intellectually. Half the world, by definition, is below-average intelligence and not in a position to actually join the discussion. Jordan makes good points in that domain.

[@adas2409]

Absolute crap! Peterson seems eager and willing to ignore that religious stories legitimize the medieval and abhorrent ideas of slavery, misogyny, violence and other nonsense in the hearts and minds of their followers and this creates a very dangerous society for everyone else who value reason, empathy, equity and compassion. Peterson’s points are even more illogical when Sam Harris repeatedly and exhaustively points out time and time again in the previous conversations that the narrative that Peterson so much values in these stories can be preserved through the basis of facts and reason WITHOUT the dangers of religious fundamentalism I outlined above. How one can consider Peterson to be intellectually honest about his position is beyond me and it seems that people are infatuated by his word salad that he constantly tosses about. One the best debates was between Peterson and Matt Dillahunty. Unlike Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty doesn’t tolerate ridiculous word salad and Peterson came undone in that debate and looked like a tool!

[@thyself8004]

@@adas2409 Peterson doesn’t ignore any of that. His main concern is to convince Harris that we can’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Narratives express complex topics that cannot adequately be understood through mere rationality because rationality is devoid of the feeling tone necessary to adequately understand an idea in its totality. That’s why we have fiction, it takes an idea and acts it out in a story so it can not only be thought about, but experienced.

[@pinchaskahtan6774]

This was a good discussion. Why? Because it’s a London crowd, which doesn’t interrupt by clapping and whooping every time anyone says anything.

[@malikialgeriankabyleswag4200]

They didnt as much as the Americans but there was still some of that.

[@jeetkunedojuggernaut]

Clips on Clips None of the 4 events were in America, and after watching all 4, (Pinchas Kahtan) the beginning of the London event had the longest disrupting heckler. Please watch them before stating blanket statements like “London this.” America that.” that is exactly the opposite of what these events are intended to do. 😅 hope everyone has a nice day!

[@manastallguy7620]

Except for in parliament

[@johnnyconnors4167]

@@jeetkunedojuggernaut Vancouver is in North America

[@craigblack7951]

It was a good discussion because the people doing the discussing were good. You find the whooping in America annoying. Ok me too a bit. Your claim is silly and amazing considering the fact that you presumably watched nearly 8 hours of people reasoning.

[@VilleMetsola]

I think I can live the rest of my life just fine without ever hearing the word substrate again.

[@ballomj]

Ville Metsola - to live a fine life through reason and love in essence is the substrate in which we’re all trying to live. ;)

[@senoirmunchez]

yup. substrate, substructure, hierarchy.

[@mikeisapro]

Mushrooms are so good though.

[@runreilly]

I am *cognizant* of where I parked the car.

[@aronlinde1723]

Just think. All roads since the Roman's have a substrate. So every time you drive someplace, think substrate. You are welcome.

[@brendangolledge8312]

I believe that this conversation is a part of what Oswald Spengler called the "Second Religiousness" in his book, "The Decline of the West", published in 1917. The thesis of his book is that every great culture is based around a central idea. The central idea is always expressed in a religious manner at first, and the creative phase of a culture, which lasts about 1000 years, is the attempt by the people to express this idea through art, music, math, architecture, technology, governments, etc. The first religiousness is spontaneous and organic, which corresponds to medieval Christianity for Western culture. Eventually, the people figure out how to express their ideas more explicitly, which for us came through the renaissance/science/enlightenment. There is a crisis period in which people totally exhaust the original idea of their culture, and the values are inverted, and there is nihilism, and then the people come back to the "Second Religiousness", which is a conscious and deliberate return to and analysis of the old traditions. After this, the culture permanently stagnates, since there is nothing new to be generated from the culture's original formulation, and there is nothing left to do but to maintain what was built before. The author claims the same thing happened in China, ancient Egypt, ancient greece/rome, India, and now in the West. Among his other predictions (made in 1917), were that communism would collapse in Russia because it is not an organic expression of Russian culture, Western arts will stagnate and focus more on the form than the meaning, there will be no new fundamental math or science (like on the scale of inventing calculus), but that there will continue to be technological development, there will be "communication and transportation fantastic to the point of madness", that there will be more world wars until the west is controlled by 1 empire (note he considered Russia to not be a part of Western culture), there will be a population decline, etc. One prediction of his which has not come true yet is that eventually people will get sick of money politics, and we will return to autocracy (rule by naked force) as a response, and the West will get Caesars again. If people like Dr. Peterson can successfully make some kind of synthesis of the old traditions and modern knowledge, and if this synthesis is widely adopted, then the West will endure (since the people will again have some kind of coherent moral idea that they can rally behind), but the west will stagnate indefinitely, as India and China did before. If they are unsuccessful, then we will get another dark age.

[@0ldCat]

When the discussion is so profound, interesting and engaging, one quickly realizes one's own questions can certainly wait. Nay, they must necessarily wait!! Hence the blessed skippage of the Q&A session! 😼👍 I believe Q&A should be excluded from the agenda altogether in such fora. At least when JP is on the guest list. This man can take one's mind on such a journey of thought and reflection that is pure unadulterated bliss, as to make one's own feeble excursions into such matters (and the resulting questions) seem almost insignificant.

[@atomictoasteryo1109]

Maybe this would be a good replacement to “The View”

[@oscarbear7498]

hahaha true xD

[@4lugan]

Yes. Lol jajajaj

[@jaredlong231]

The only problem with your statement is the maybe

[@ericb4127]

Watching a dog eat its own crap would be a good replacement for "the view"

[@didilv2187]

it would be amazing to have these two team up on tv

[@TallonC]

“You must be an Aries” - Sam Harris

[@rebeccalankford8573]

I like counter balance of ideas rather than listening to one person's lecture. As long as it is done with courtesy for one another and good will even within opposing views. Sam Harris is good at this. Thank you.

[@heads_together_crypto2422]

I'm hopeful for Part 5 and would like it to be mostly about practical ways these two philosophies can produce positive impacts in the present world.

[@TgfkaTrichter]

Very unlikely sadly. Petersen is no longer on the same level then he was during these discussions. He is now a crybaby, who is obsesed with gender issues. It is really sad to see.

[@Jot78]

It's not exactly what you're looking for, but Jordan and Sam had a discussion on Jordan's channel. It's titled "Questioning Sam Harris". kzbin.info/www/bejne/pqPXandvZaepfKs

[@emp5352]

​@@TgfkaTrichterSeems like he was right about conservatism

[@mr4nders0n]

@@TgfkaTrichter cry baby ? He was at risk of having his practice licence taken from him and potentially prosecuted. How many people would brush off being stripped of their livelihood and thrown in jail without a vehement fight?

[@mattisjohannesson4312]

Brilliant minds all three, One thing missing though, A big ol Hitchslap !

[@bobolinkr]

Dead mate... move on

[@charlsalash]

I really miss Hitchen, but I can appreciate Sam getting better in a less flamboyant way.

[@keylanoslokj1806]

not brilliant only a waste of time. those discussions are meaningless. protestants are helpless. and western apologists in general. christians should have NO discussions with heretics like antitheists (what we call atheists). as the Apostle said we didnt come to preach logically conceivable things. we came to preach Incarnation, Passion, Ressurection, and the ressurection and divination of the entire human race. God is NOT put under the microscope. want to find God? there is a very simple scientific process called faith to do it. God is revealed to the humble hearts. NOT discovered. such discussions are meaningless adultery and a waste of breath.

[@Mutantcy1992]

Hitch would have ended JP's whole career. You can tell Sam is holding back because of the IDW and the fact that they are developing a friendship outside of these talks so he doesn't get as aggressive as he could, not even as aggressive as JP gets. Hitch cared more about truth than personal relationships and would have flattened JP in 3 hours.

[@mattisjohannesson4312]

"scientific process called faith"..... Cant be sure you are not just trolling.

[@FreddysFrets]

my first thought? nice chairs!

[@madzangels]

London has good chairs

[@AP-ss7lt]

lol, i think its the same chairs they used in all the talks

[@Volatile-Tortoise]

I know, and they seem to keep on getting better as the talk goes on. I wish more people cared about comfort and aesthetics. They look like seer chairs!

[@nodrama490]

FreddysFrets 😂😂😂 my thoughts exactly

[@blakeweigel6475]

ha I would want those with a fireplace and a good drink

[@OmegaRacer]

I've listened to all 4 sessions now. Truly love listening to them. Still, it left me wanting. As far as I know, Peterson was an atheist when he had a mystical revelation. He then tried to make sense of it with the help of Christianity. On one hand this was good because it gave him a framework that was readily available and familiar to him. On the other it put him in a box, so to speak. I just wish he will realise that this is only a phase and that an even more intuitive, clear, precise but also loving and inclusive framework exists beyond that. One that is dynamic, immediate and free of dogma. One that transcends individual religions and has no need for intermediaries. A framework based on direct personal experience. Such a framework exists and if only Peterson could access that, this discussion would have been truly mind blowing. I hope you read this Jordan. 😅

[@FightExcellence]

You haven’t understood Jordan’s points at all if that’s the question that arises after watching all 4 of the discussions .

[@markuspintzinger5511]

​@@FightExcellence I doubt you understood my point....

[@knightblade87x]

Such a framework exists? Could you elaborate, since I think that was the crux of his argument in debate #2 I believe

[@markusomega6004]

@@knightblade87x Yes, such framework exists. Human evolution (and personal evolution) happens in stages, each new stage builds upon the previous one, transcending and including it. I recommend looking into Spiral Dynamics and Ken Wilber for more info on this. Peterson was at a threshold when he had this experience, but instead of opening up to the next higher level (spirituality as a dogma-free description of reality based on direct experience), he regressed to a previous level (religion as a dogmatic teaching based on faith). Both religion and spirituality, offer frameworks to make sense of the human experience, but do so in fundamentally different ways. The first focuses on faith, ritual and externally imposed morals. The second stresses that spiritual knowledge comes from within, through a journey of Self-discovery by way of daily practice. Direct experience is key.

[@tonylipsmire5918]

By pt 3 I was already exhausted by Jordan’s myriad obfuscations but I can never hear enough of Sam even when he has to rehash the same points that Jordan continues to get stuck on

[@Whateverworksism]

Jordan: "Douglas, you were going to say something." Douglas (looking at Sam): "You were going to ask something" Sam: "Was I going to ask something?" Douglas: "Yeah" This cracked me up more than it should've. 1:16:11

[@davidjohnson8655]

It's funny to me because they had spent 7 hours to that point pretty much never shutting up. Of course he has something to say :p

[@Pangburn]

Remember to subscribe :)

[@NN-wc7dl]

I have been VERY unsure about Peterson's way of thinking for a long time. The discussions here (Dublin, London) are for real though and that also includes Peterson. I have changed my mind to a certain extent regarding this guy. Maybe I haven't understood or listened close enough before, 'cos I do think he has important things to say. I am still a Harris type, but I wouldn't disregard what Peterson says in its whole as is often made by his opponents (like myself). Peterson is a very intelligent person and he is pointing to issues which can not just be waved away like that. I don't think his conclusions and recommendations are without serious problems, but I do think he has his place in the ongoing intellectual enterprise.

[@the_hanged_clown]

totally there with you, I myself found Peterson before Harris and for a while had no idea that P even had any beliefs. when he actually talks within his studied field he really is very knowledgeable and great at conveying that. this talk though, more often than not I think he's just making ridiculous and completely unjustified assertions about how everyone thinks.

[@alessiomarin1218]

I understand Sam Harris's arguments perfectly but have no idea what Jordan Peterson is even talking about... perhaps I'm just too stupid.

[@dragonfurp]

Jordan is just trying to show you, through speech, the importance of stories, ritual, how you can change your own behaviour to live a better life etc. There is nothing more to it than that! In trying to carry out this enterprise of his, he speaks in very complex terms and confuses a lot of people. It is only when a person, like yourself, starts seeing the meaning behind what he is trying to convey they go: "oh shit there is actually a point here". And his point is an important one, but just completely, stupidly intellectualized. He could be way more persuasive and lucid if he just came out openly and told you what he is trying to do and why. But maybe he does not do so because he believes that, in his words, "i dont believe the world is made out of matter; i believe it is made out of what matters" this, ofcourse, is nonsensical but does show how much he values progress and creating more happiness and order. So, he has a point but one should not take him too seriously, cus he only holds his nonsensical belief "i believe the world is made out of what matters" bc he has spent most of his life in complete emotional turmoil and hell and he is so hell-bent on wanting more peace and order and less chaos that he is willing to suspend critical thinking and an objective view of the world for something completely illogical and nonsensical.

[@nodakrome]

The "what matters" that the (our?) world is made out of... is the culmination of choices and selection of conscious human beings in conjunction with *things that made a difference* at the time. To simplify: "It matters" that we see a fallen log to step over, when we choose to go down a path. "It matters" that we notice the snake on the other side of that log, so we may choose to find another path. "It doesn't matter" that there's a moth on a branch above our head when we make that choice, so we didn't develop a means to include that moth in "our world". The world at that point in time is made up of the path we're on, the log blocking it, and the snake that we infer is dangerous. That's our world. It's made up of "things that matter." The moth is still around, but it's not part of our conscious world. Roughly speaking.

[@dragonfurp]

nodakrome so when he puts the "its not made out of matter but out of what matters" he is just, in a sense, playing on words? Maybe he is just being deliberately provocative? Either way, it does not devalue the core of my belief about why he is so obsessed with what matters.

[@gabrielekennedy6123]

Sad this company didn't survive. Interesting intelligent conversation... the world needs more of this.

[@bensonbrett30]

Pangburn is absolutely still around. They post near material every week!

[@cathodion]

This is great stuff... I hope I can be at one of these discussions live in the Netherlands sometime in the future.

[@SimulationSeries]

Huge thank you Sam & Jordan for being at the forefront of the public intellectual movement. We are grateful to have you leading these nuance-driven conversations.

[@garetclaborn]

indeed i have my opinions but kudos to both for at least attempting a good faith conversation, despite that i think it was kept shallow by stubbornness of a particular side. even so it still came out very impressive and useful

[@shiskeyoffles]

@@garetclaborn which side I wonder?

[@garetclaborn]

@@shiskeyoffles welp, if it weren't obvious, i left it vague intentionally as i'm acknowledging the effort

[@smalltownjet906]

Hear hear

[@KalanTheDrummer]

The whole segment was astonishing. I just wish that this trend flourish. That what we need. Thank you, anyone, who watched this video with me.

[@overonthecreekside4606]

Hopefully JP will feel up to another one of these soon.

[@RyanSmith-jx9ed]

I love all of you for taking the time to watch these dialogues. Thank you for existing.

[@typicalKAMBlover21]

Massive respect to these three. The courage and sharp thinking they have demonstrated in these conversations are, as a Christian would say, divinely inspired.

[@cHRIstChURchWOlf]

This is a truly great series of conversations with the power to shift your place on the spectrum. Please take the time to listen to them all... just listen...

[@mathieuguillet4036]

Great thanks to Pangburn for hosting these four debates. This is some of the highest public intellectual discussion of our age.

[@paulrogers4234]

I don’t think so much that it’s believing in an invisible friend, but that you believe you are a part of an incomprehensibly large system, while at the same time having so much power as an individual, and that all your actions and even your thoughts have effects that ripple throughout the universe, and your “soul” will take account of all of it.

[@warrbarrt]

A fine cigar... Jordan displays an extraordinary level of unwavering determination and articulate conviction in upholding and expounding his belief..limb flailing and gesticulates abound...while Sam is cool..calm and secure. He returns Jordan's serves with ease and aplomb.

[@raidenafc6576]

He returns the serve with a solution that is dire. Akin to shouting at the umpire with every swing calling foul…

[@ScottLiang]

"You can’t go far wrong if you are motivated by love and guided by reason." -Sam

[@ArthurDubinsky]

I'm pretty sure Vladimir Lenin Thought he had the reason of Marx and the love of the working man on his side when he took over Russia.

[@Khanalas]

You certainly won't think that you've gone "far wrong", but others might.

[@olaflaten]

I noticed the pitfalls of that statement as well. You can go far wrong in any direction. Balance is key in everything. And the free discussion and evolution of ideas is absolutely paramount.

[@garetclaborn]

oh so he's a christian then

[@shapesqualitycontrol1828]

Does no one realize that Sam Harris just justified the slaughter of millions under Marxism?

[@zoeshannon9509]

Jordan’s monologue on ‘the spirit of the father’ blew my mind! I was a bit disappointed that Sam didn’t at least pause for one second before counter arguing that.

[@Integralsouls]

woman of culture right there

[@doubtfultunic8510]

I've noticed that Sam does that in these conversations. I'm not saying he isn't a towering intellect, but he doesn't address Petersons ideas directly once he can actually make a full point. I think there were signs from time to time in these 4 conversations that Sam really had no way to argue against Petersons ironclad points, thus pointing out to me that Petersons ideas were strong enough to win most of the time against a well-thought-out, morally secular titan.

[@starfish9558]

@@doubtfultunic8510 If you want a strong conviction, the last thing you want to do is depart from God's knowledge and wisdom: Proverbs I:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

[@jeffreyheil9542]

Doubtful Tunic that’s because Sam Harris isn’t a thinker, he simply parrots the atheists that came before him and is good at elaborating those narratives as a public speaker. But when challenged to open his mind to truly think about the points JP is making, he hardens his heart and reverts back to his narrative and clever one liners. To me it’s childish and pathetic.

[@starfish9558]

@@jeffreyheil9542 Those who haven't really study the Bible are the ones making notorious presuppositions...

[@goldenrule3261]

Profound responses towards the end regarding "hate." Much respect towards these men.

[@VenusLover17]

This is so good!!

[@andrei.antoniu]

At the end, when they answer the question about hate, you can sense the presence of both speakers. A moment where they become conscious to pay attention to the contents of their minds. That is really captivating.

[@ezbayt2616]

Yeah and Sam spoke with reference to a philosopher praised by Bin Laden.

[@mega4171]

@@ezbayt2616 seems like a pretty good thing to talk about when the topic is "Hate" lol

[@georgioskarkanzos5215]

"No more roundabout discussions of what makes a good man. Be one!" - Marcus Aurelius

[@ericsonofjohn9384]

It sounds like a good quote, but what happens when two different people with two different ideas of what it means to be good meet?

[@anthonycarlisle6184]

Perhaps if 'good is good then the benefit may trickle to social relativisms?

[@guitarmusic524]

@@ericsonofjohn9384 Then the ideas of "what a good person is/does" or systems that support the well-being of the greatest numbers will get bought into, and bad ideas gradually get pushed aside by better ideas.

[@ericsonofjohn9384]

@@guitarmusic524 why will they? You haven’t accounted for human nature at all there. If the minority or majority can benefit themselves by subjugating those around them. They will. Christianity is responsible for the belief that all people are of equal worth.

[@guitarmusic524]

@@ericsonofjohn9384 To survive and thrive is what the vast majority of humans naturally want (or any species). It's natural for immature humans to get selfish, and it's true that subjugation often takes place for periods (sometimes extended periods). I'm looking long-term. Eventually the bad ideas usually get pushed aside. When it takes too long, and if conditions get unbearable, upheaval can occur. It's a matter of human nature (aka, the will to survive and thrive).

[@philwalkercounselling]

Loved this. Amazing discussion.

[@MasterJTLS]

If you are an Atheist please check out Peterson's work, if you are religious please check out Harris' work. Because no matter where you stand on the creator debate both these men are amazing and cover a hell of a lot more than just this topic. Either side you are on, you can learn a ton from both of them on the way of being. Don't let their stand points put you off checking out their work because you will be doing yourself a ton of deserve. I watch both in these series of debates I tend to sway more towards Harris but I in fact actually consume more of Peterson's work especially his Maps of Meaning lectures. But both have helped me tremendously. Harris' waking up app has always been an amazing tool for me. Don't let your side on this debate stop you from seeking truth and challenge yourself. You will benefit greatly from it. Hats off to this two remarkable gentleman. I'm entirely grateful for their work.

[@robinbeers6689]

"Motivated by love and guided by reason." Thank you, Sam.

[@markgado8782]

So what do you do if love and reason conflict?

[@robinbeers6689]

@@markgado8782 I can't think of an instance where they would. Can you? It's not just the words "love" and "reason" that matter here. The words "motivated" and "guided" are also important. If you are motivated by love then your "heart is in the right place". That's a great place to start. From there you can still "put on your thinking cap" and let reason guide you on your way through multiple choices.

[@markgado8782]

@@robinbeers6689 are you serious? Get an imagination. You just proved yourself not worth the time.

[@robinbeers6689]

@@markgado8782 Wow, such negativity in what started out as a post about love.

[@markgado8782]

@@robinbeers6689 wow, such ignorance in a post that started about REASON. 2 can play silly games.. It's not my job do do your research or thinking for you. Grow up. Think for yourself.

[@angelocole7740]

What Douglas Murray said toward the end is so true. "We may be in the midst of the discovery that the only thing worse than religion is its absense. A new religion is being created as we speak by a new generation of people who think they are nonidealogical, very rational, past myth, past story, and who think they are better than they ancestors yet never even bothered to study their ancestors." This is really the whole purpose of the discussion. It's important to understand that simply taking god out of the equation isn't a good solution because people will fill the void with something on their own. It's the same problem as anarchy. There has never been a perfect government, and you could argue that government itself is a tyrannical system, but as soon as you create a void, something will eventually fill it. Religion is an ethical structure in society, and although it would be helpful to rid the world of superstition, the void needs to be filled with something good, or else people will fill it with something else and that is where the danger is.

[@jmcsquared18]

acole 2018 This is just the slippery slope fallacy at its finest. Calling atheism a religion is the biggest misrepresentation you could possibly make. It's a ploy to uphold useless traditions over reason under the fear of the unknown. I don't care if other people need the idea of god, I don't, and I don't act as if he exists either. Quit making this a collectivist argument. Some people need religion, others don't, and some (quite rightly) think religion can be harmful. Religion is many things to many people, but one thing it most certainly does is it provides for believers a model of the real world, one that is typically fallacious and outdated. We can think of good reasons for government, even an imperfect one. I can't think of a good reason to believe in imaginary people who judge you for what you think, regardless of how many people need to believe that in order to go to sleep at night.

[@angelocole7740]

@@jmcsquared18 I'm not talking about atheism. I'm talking about the value structure that is emerging due to the absence of one. That's what Douglas Murray is referring to as well. There is a new religion being created. Atheism just like anarchy doesn't last on a societal level. You can be an atheist as an individual, but society can't be secular for too long without it turning into something else. This isn't about the need for imaginary beings or what not. It's about drawing the line between what is moral and what isn't.

[@jmcsquared18]

​@@angelocole7740 Well, morality is an individual concept, so what works for "society" doesn't necessarily work for any given individual. I do think we need an objective morality, but I don't think we need religion to do that. However, I'm intrigued: you claim that "society can't be secular for too long." What evidence do you have to support that idea? Does this go back to the idea that the Nazis and the communists demonstrated that we need religion to be moral? Because I couldn't disagree more, if that's what you're getting at.

[@angelocole7740]

@@jmcsquared18 I believe it is important to have an objective moral structure on a societal level. Perhaps on an individual basis a subjective morality could work. I'm sure many people could make a good case that they don't need any sort of religion or government in order to live morally. However, I have a lot less faith in society as a whole. I think there needs to be some sort of objective standard that is agreed upon in order to avoid catastrophic ideologies such as Communism or Nazism. Now I wouldn't say that religion is an absolute necessity, but it does offer a solution to this issue. I think the western value structure (Christianity maybe?) is something that can be improved upon but provides a solid foundation. Now I do not call myself a Christian, but I think that it is dangerous to throw everything out and try to start from scratch. I would rather there be some sort of bridge that takes people from Christian ethics over to a secular morality if that was possible.

[@jmcsquared18]

@@angelocole7740 Well, the bridge for me was listening to Harris and Dawkins point out the sheer nonsense in the religion of my youth (Christianity) that I either didn't know because I refused to investigate them, or knew very well but ignored to some degree. I still think objective ethics exist without Christianity. The concern is nontrivial how society should be filtered away from religious dogmatism, however I'm not convinced that our society as a whole subscribes to that system. If you want an objective standard agreed upon by everyone, religion won't get you there, because (and I don't know why Peterson seems to ignore this) religions suffer from the the same problem of multiplicative interpretations that postmodernism does. Two different Christians that profess their faith with equal conviction can have such drastic moral differences that they'd consider each other demonic (take for instance a liberal Christian who focuses on social justice issues, and a fundamentalist creationist, and see how well their values overlap when they talk to each other).

[@janicevo5756]

The audience will always choose to continue listening over Q&A because there's always less people that will have questions

[@nbd5532]

Q&As are usually boring and provocative at such events so its good that the four instances went without them. Thanks for making the videos public so that the world could witness a discussion of a very important matter led by very profound and bright thinkers of our time

[@DatHombre]

I 100% agree. Very, very rarely will I enjoy a Q&A, and even when I do it's 99% momentary/only for specific questions.

[@alaron5698]

Absolutely agree. I watch these events to see the people on stage elaborate their ideas, not to hear the poorly developed ideas of the audience. Granted, sometimes the questions are good ones. But often they are not. Q&A are perhaps more acceptable when you have one speaker, such as JP, monologuing for a while. But when you have three thinkers on stage such as here, you want to be a fly on the wall, not have the discussion be interrupted by random questions.

[@yoitsjust]

I’m a big fan of Jordan Peterson but Sam is just so freaking articulate and rational

[@samanthacanales3183]

I agree Harris is outstandingly rational and articulate to the core, a very smart individual,.... but JP is a god.

[@HbRgamers]

Rational at times but filled with straw man arguments and often misses JP’s points.

[@honeynmilk00]

@@HbRgamers Jp bases his theory mainly on Carl Jung, whose theory wasn't ever validated by evidence anyway. Sam Harris bases his theory on research and science about the brain specifically, which is on top of that a material thing we can observe

[@YuddhaVeera]

@gbmpyzochwfdisurjklvanetxqmore like a charlatan than an obscuritan

[@xxgmehhhejkdkkjjfctsxxsjjj5194]

@@YuddhaVeera ofc people like you exist

[@redhotchilibitch]

My gf: do you believe in God? Me: LETS GO ALL COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCES ON THIS SHhHhhAll We!

[@napoleonk.5146]

Lol 🤣

[@imeleventeen]

I for sure thought he was going to say Shit

[@eddieukkasyah]

Bhaha how did this Visually impaired through my brains..

[@ericschow7921]

Two questions. Are there any more conversations planned And What is the best forum for continued conversation? I have questions and contributions

[@VenusLover17]

Thanks!!

[@orionshock9755]

"jesus smuggling" -- someone needs to put that on Urban Dictionary

[@jamesm5192]

It's no wonder a Jew - Sam Harris - likes "Jesus smuggling" as a term of condemnation.

[@keylanoslokj1806]

funny how antitheists accept that to lift a certain weight, they lack the physical training required. but when it comes to seeing God and requiring the purity of heart to do it, their ego rises its defences. the only one that stops you from seeing God is YOU. because your heart is filled with pride and clouded by its passions. Humility is not an addition but a reduction of baggage. there is a transparent glass between you and God. the only one that casts smoke on it is you. (and the way your family brought you up). and if God were to intervene forcefully He would only harm you cause you are not ready to face Him with an unsaved heart.

[@Serastrasz]

Keylanos Lokj That's a strange thing to say, when most problems caused by religion stem from a LACK of humility, most notably in their claim of superiority over others.

[@buttersnow8707]

Keylanos Lokj I wouldn't recommend comparing physics with spiritualism, it's about as useful as comparing cats to oranges for the purpose of trying to explain what you believe and the value of that belief.

[@keylanoslokj1806]

+Serastrasz people tend to carry the passions of their secular past into their spiritual life. just because you turned doesnt mean you overcame all narcissism in a night. they just twist faith to mold it as a vehicle for their ego as you say. in this sense they are in need to remove the huge log from their eye as Christ said, before they remove their brothers' little stick.

[@Apollo-ij9bo]

Sam Harris is always raising that one eyebrow like "and... your point is???"

[@didilv2187]

i love that

[@ChicagoMike85]

I hate that

[@jmike2039]

@@ChicagoMike85 why because you'd rather live by platitudes and ambiguity than that of pulling up your pants and acknowledging the difference between wishingful thinking and reality?

[@josiahclarke3535]

@@jmike2039 More likely because it gives off an air of superiority than one of mutual respect in the arena of discussion.

[@rubencrisitano9]

So true

[@Anicius_]

1:40:25 he said Shakespeare couldn't have written cain and Abel cuz perhaps it exceeds the limit of Shakespeare' intellect. Aeschylus said this about 25 centuries ago in i think orestia trilogy. He was a human completely indifferent to Judeo-Christian theology and was able to write the lines ' it is the mark of a true friend to be able to honor without envy a friend that has prospered " Its all human wisdom

[@michaelmorris1817]

No

[@Pangburn]

Do you like having discussions about ideas with people from around the world? Join us on the new Callin app. We have group discussions everyday on the ideas that mean the most to humanity. Politics, Philosophy, Science & Art. One of the main reasons for moving to the Callin app is their 100% FREE SPEECH policy. Call in and enter The War of Ideas. callin.com/link/ytIdqseMzM

[@jaredcalhoun3986]

Llollppoppopopplllpppppp

[@nicholashayden8319]

I wish I was there to explain this to people.

[@dankmidget8182]

You know Peterson is going in when he starts playing with his ring

[@reinforcedpenisstem]

That's filthy

[@jeziscricket4448]

Dank Midget good observation. . hes going for the kill.

[@victort2058]

He was about to explode when talking about the cathedral dome. Man

[@Viriyascybin]

He's considering doing what Bilbo did.

[@jaydeejohnson7]

Going into unnecessary complexity

[@peterpehlivan157]

Ben Stiller, Kermit the Frog & Jimmy Carr - London

[@Human_Evolution-]

Lol!!!!

[@armandqoqi594]

Not sure about Jimmy carr and Douglas . Otherwise 10/10

[@DJFlare84]

When I see Sam Harris I think of Raymond. Y'know... from "Everybody loves"?

[@WillySF]

Ha ha!

[@Lozwave]

thats fucking funny man

[@kekkekson2484]

This video is valuable

[@rudyvargas9518]

As far as what we are living now ...conrad hilton stated it best in one of his published prayers. God help us in this our hour of. Need. You gave us a beautiful garden in which to live and we have turned it into a battle ground.....

[@dandimit5104]

This is my second time thru these and I’m sure there will be a third ma probly a fourth because I’m getting new insights every time. Wonderful and useful conversations. I love this.

[@shyyuhway7706]

Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are the left and right brain hemispheres of humanity.

[@muhammadsiddiqui2244]

If humanity is in the hands of such minds, I have no fear for the future.

[@sarahb441]

I really hope there will be a part 5 someday...

[@lightbear939]

That's because they both agree. The first minutes of the first one proved that and that's why Jordan double speaks while Sam is straight to the point

[@Shapes_Quality_Control]

It won’t happen because Sam has fully embraced the dogma of a new type of corrupt authority. If he believed anything he said here he would take up Weinstein on his challenges.

[@randonologic4684]

I have to say, I have immense respect for both of these men. I think Sam's outlook is very helpful for people trying to escape the irrationalities of being raised in fundamental religious households, whereas I think Jordan has a very useful and important system of analyzing history and mythology and extracting meaning that can be used in day to day life. I also see the drawbacks of both approaches. Sam's outlook is mostly critical of the erroneous systems of our past, but he either doesn't provide a suitable replacement, or his proposed replacement is rather esoteric and unlikely to be understood by the common person, whereas Jordan's unwillingness to admit that he speaks in metaphors causes much confusion for people, myself included. Combined, though, I think both outlooks are very important. I think listening to both of them in tandem (not speaking with each other, but alone on their own platforms) is unbelievably useful in developing a personal pathway and outlook on life. And I think it's rather easy to understand and filter out where both outlooks have their shortcomings.

[@ngohiep5003]

rationality provides a much more transparent platform for revision, and in turn, growth. whereas stories that require a lot of deliberation to come to a somewhat personal interpretation are very very likely to end horribly. on top of that, people who view the text (in this case, the bible) from the same angle as Jordan's are rare, which also means there are LOTS AND LOTS of "bad" preaching happening everywhere.

[@steveverhaeghe7698]

Great talk. I like them all. I think Sam really drove home a lot of good points in this talk.

[@junevandermark952]

From the book, “Ideas and Opinions,” by Albert Einstein, comes the following … Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just and omnibeneficient personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every thought, and every human aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?

[@saumitrad]

I have got to say that although a valiant and salient defence of value of religious substructure by Jordan and Douglas.... If you listen carefully and if you listen to it again & again & again & again.... Sam's points were not defeated .... Not for one second.... Never defeated. And Yet - Bravo Jordan & Bravo Douglas. But Sam, as always - you have got it.

[@mobius8148]

absolute gold tier youtube content. thank you for uploading this! subbed

[@_Highvalue_]

I miss Christopher Hitchens, but I'm glad to see how far Sam Harris has come since being a part of the 4 horsemen.

[@AazamPossum]

[@kend7597]

More like the 4 clowns, Dawkins being king clown

[@joeschmoe3665]

I wish he could have been present to answer when Jordan brought up atheism and nazism and stalinism one percieved correlation I think is almost a cheap shot. To say that atheism will lead to gulags or nazi death camps where religion will not is disingenuous as the catholic church blamed judaism for the killing of christ and almost sponsored nazism. I don't think Jordan wants to live in any country that lives rigorously by the word of any creator like North Korea so secular is the only way. It's a sad fact that 1900s Germany and Russia both contained the revolutions, public malcontent, economic ruin and marxist and fascist ideas that allowed strongmen to birth the two most horrible regimes in human history but to make lofty unfalsifiable claims about the atheist subjectivity of Stalin or Hitler and their regimes is ridiculous, no one can make such claims Jordan should know that plus I just gave the knowable facts that we know lead to Nazi Germany and Stalis Soviet Union. The only thing we do know is that when an order fully collapses something worse can rush in to supplant it like ISIS in Iraq, the Terror Reign after the French Revolution 1789 and Napoleon and of course the fall of 1917 Russian empire and the 1933 German Weimar Republic but it has nothing to do with atheism

[@proudatheist2042]

How do you think Sam Harris has grown since Christopher Hitchens died?

[@ramudon2428]

@@kend7597 What makes you say that?

[@michil75]

This is like finding an oasis of cool fresh water in a desert where we have been cluessly wandering around for ages, thirsty for wisdom.

[@user-ip2bk6cg9w]

I've watched all 4 of these discussions/debates, Peterson always resorts to psychobabble and yes Jesus Smuggling, while Harris stays on topic, is the voice of truth and reason!

[@chriswright7727]

I wouldn't say Jordan was using psychobabble, I do believe he starts to over complicate things but that tends to happen with people who accumulate a vast amount of knowledge.

[@Racshion]

Truth is God is real

[@JustinTimeAnderson]

This is my second time going all the way through them. Just as good this time around.

[@frankietho4136]

same ! & i got more the 2nd time , sam is all over it

[@HowToArtillery]

I kid you not i've gone through these as literally as literally means... 20+ times, all 4, all the way through

[@americanmale2011]

Ali G should mediate the next debate.

[@ardalan4348]

well said

[@hawk8403]

Moderate*

[@Pangburn]

Remember to subscribe :)

[@CodPast]

@@Pangburn get Ali G and I might

[@justinangelson514]

Actually I would be willing to wager that Sacha Barron Cohen would probably do a great job.

[@jgoobix]

What I love about these is that everyone on the panel is correct. Typically a conversation involving two different points of view results in an argument. With a panel like this, that isn't a possibility. So at the very least we get a massive catalog of things to think about going forward. And in a more immediate way, we have an example of what discourse is supposed to look like.

[@Simon-to2qv]

You think Jordan Peterson is correct when he says the story of Cain and Abel couldnt be written by a human?

[@zoomingby]

They can't all be correct if they're advocating for different things with opposing rationales.