Jordan Peterson vs Susan Blackmore • Do we need God to make sense of life?
For more debate videos, updates and exclusive content sign up at www.thebigconversation.show
Jordan B Peterson debates the psychology of religious belief with atheist academic Susan Blackmore in the first episode of The Big Conversation.
The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human.
Listen to more sparkling conversations every week via the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierunbelievable.com/s...
The Big Conversation series:
Jordan Peterson & Susan Blackmore • Jordan Peterson vs Sus...
Steven Pinker & Nick Spencer • Steven Pinker vs Nick ...
Derren Brown & Rev Richard Coles • Derren Brown & Rev Ric...
John Lennox & Michael Ruse • Michael Ruse vs John L...
Daniel Dennett & Keith Ward • Daniel Dennett vs Keit...
Peter Singer & Andy Bannister - • Andy Bannister vs Pete...
The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust
Videos, updates, exclusive content www.thebigconversation.show/
For weekly debates between Christians and sceptics subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...
If you enjoyed this episode, you might like our new online learning course where Justin Brierley guides you through Jordan Peterson's arguments! www.thebigconversation.show/jordan-peterson-god-course/
I enjoy everything else but the premise of life having to have a sense, is the biggest lie and an unfulfillable truth that no religion or philosophy can deliver. Anyone preaching they have the path to the answer other than “there is no meaning to an inevitable accident of life”, is selling a story to those who were conditioned for generations to be dependent on that lie for other questions it created to manipulate them away from facts. A journey of personal truth is not at all anything like factual truth. Search for meaning in meaningless is the rabbit, pulled out of a hat without a magician where the act itself is build on a lie.
She should not be teaching. She is toxic.
Love it
If free will does not exist then God cannot exist. God would have no preferences, no ability to choose and could intentionally do nothing. All that would be left is nature which has no preferences, no consciousness and no ability to choose. Nature is only what it is. Most religious people deny free will conceptually, but don’t appreciate that this negates the existence of God. If God existed then prove that free will exists. They won’t because they don’t believe inGod, just in their own bullshit ingenuous arguments.
Jordan B. Peterson: "My message to the Hungarians. Do not rebel against your dear prime minister! What your leader is trying to restore the metaphysical foundation of the Hungarian culture" Another well payed guest of Fűrer Orban in the Nazi eagle nest, the Fűrer-Castle of Buda, Father Jim Blount from the USA: "I would like to tell you a secret about Jesus and a secret about your prime minister. Another name for Jesus is Viktor."
This is how conversations should look and sound. Two informed and honest people opposing each other on fundamental concepts with respect and patience. This should be shown in schools.
The only unfortunate thing is the fact that the moderator, whenever the discussion gets really interesting, cuts them short due to time constraints. :-( These two could have gone into so much more detail. I hope Jordan invites her on his channel for an in-depth discussion someday.
Exactly. Debates can be civil and respectful without resorting to mean slurs or superiority complex or unnecessary sarcasm
Ace of Goats : I could not agree more with your comment. My conclusion on why most people cannot have conversation at such interesting level even ideology/concept are different/indifferent, without yelling and become destructive, because we still possess the conquering mentality. Able to respect, appreciate and understand opposing perspective and willing to explore beyond their realm of knowledge. Eventually learn something from each others are rare and far in between.
yes i like how the conversation is going im in the middle of the video is very profund
true dat!
bro. i was an atheist thirty minutes ago and now i'm clueless.
Don't worry, there is not much difference between the two.
@@mikementzer9292 Dang. Are you looking for a fight, huh? If so, you should keep looking because I don't have energy to waste on petty internet arguments. Good luck.
I had the same experience when I first listened to Peterson talk about God. Then I started analyzing whatever it was in my head that made me doubt atheism. Took me down a very interesting road...hope it does the same for you.
Then you weren't a very good atheist :)
@@edgepixel8467 Perhaps. Or maybe I am just open-minded and eager to learn.
It's so refreshing to see a civilised debate, between two intellectuals. Great job to the both of you 👏
refreshing? Seems like the argument was biased in Jordan Peterson's favor. I love Jordan but the host was clearly all about Jordan.
@@thecrashingtoaster And yet she was still respectful and civilized.
God created us
@@thecrashingtoaster Didn't know someone with a P.H.D degree from oxford could be a pseudo-intellectual. Really low of you.
How do you know that????????@@reginakernighan6990
This is how “debates” should be. More of a discussion. A discussion between two people who genuinely want to know the truth.
“If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.” ― Augustine
I don't agree with Saint Augustine in this. It sounds like he's trying to say that you must believe in the totality of the Gospel or you don't believe in it at all. The statement is an endorsement of blind faith. Firstly, any 'Gospel' from any religion is complex, with stories and meanings that repeat itself in other stories. Believing parts of it is a natural thing, and perhaps with time and experience you may end up rejecting or accepting the other parts of it. And secondly, man is a rational being with the ability to question. Blind faith is in my opinion, a refusal to opening yourself up to a deeper understanding of existence. You simply surrender yourself to an ideal. If we exist with the ability to question, then why shouldn't we question things? Now, I'm not saying having blind faith is wrong. It gives a lot of people comfort, especially those who cannot articulate certain truths and values they wish to embody, or those who are too busy with the exigencies of living to wrestle with the 'why's.' For many people these value systems work and aren't broken and don't need fixing or questioning. However I, and a lot of other people, don't want to live that way. That's part of the reason why we look for stuff like this video on youtube.
Wow, a great quote. Totally agree. 👍🏻
@@geburah8319 If you read St. Augustine's quote care fully .........it doesn't actually mean the way you interpret it to be. There is an element of Faith in it. That's why he uses the word "Believe" . If you "Believe" that the Bible is the Word of God .....and Jesus is the Word .....and you still reject certain aspects of the Gospel (i.e. the Word itself), then you reject Christ himself. Which means you did not believe that Jesus Christ is God in the first place. This might be the sense in which he used the word "believe" in the quote. The word "believe" is not limited to the historical or scientific or philosophical aspects of the Gospel. Having Blind Faith is not wrong if your Faith is right thing. Assuming that people blindly believe in the Gospel is because they are weak or because they can't articulate certain truths is a misconception. Faith is a gift form God(1 Corinthians12:9) The purpose of the Written Word is actually for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.(2 Timothy 3:16-17) and is not for Comfort alone.
But that would be being sheep
@@sedacemohammed2146 The Gospel is this: Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe the gospel. What is fulfilled? Gods promise to redeem man from our sins. Why did Jesus say this? Because HE is the fulfilment of God's kingdom and the Gospel is the fulfilment of that promise God made to save sinners THROUGH HIM. Jesus DIED for OUR sins, He was buried, and RAISED on the 3rd day, defeating sin and death, and providing a way for us sinners to go to Heaven. The Gospel message is a COMMAND from God for us to respond in repentance and faith in the savior Jesus. it is NOT some exercise of philosophy, or some archetype of biology. It is God providing us a RESCUE and if you look at it from a worldly point of view you will only get a worldly description of the Gospel. The Gospel is God's promise fulfilled in Jesus to RESCUE US FROM OUR SINS. Without it. we ARE ALL GOING TO HELL.
I wish more atheists were like her and I wish more believers were like him.
Most atheists are like her and most believers are like him, they just don't have the gift of expression they do...the balance of mind to say how they feel, rather than reacting to those around them at any given time. Don't confuse how they think, to the actions and reactions of conflict. Remember that what we see is more the polarized cusp of defense and offense brought to our senses in conflict.
@@lewisjbh Expression only?
"meaningless, empty, pointless...." how terrible - the end then in Susan's world is just a meaningless black hole? How sad....
Jordan isn't a believer
@@alldadsunited Jordan Peterson isn't a Christian, but he speaks about Christianity and the Bible a lot, and he has even described himself as being "deeply religious", so I understand how many people have been led to believe he is religious.
"Then why feel gratitude towards it?" "I don't know" Gotcha! Lol
If this feels like a gotcha for you then I feel sad for you that you came in with your walls up and a closed mind. Hopefully you're more secure with your beliefs and you can come back to this discussion with the view of learning something and not doubling down.
@@SplitGooseI think what gotcha means is that your worldview is lacking answers, so you need to rethink if your worldview should change. If your worldview continues to be unstable, there may be reason to look elsewhere for the Truth. Like in Scripture. And in Jesus.
@@scottm4042 Thankfully my worldview is pristine perfect without the Christmas dogma :) You should look up the definition of gotcha btw. The Internet is a great resource for definitions.
Well that WAS indeed a gotcha because people are predetermined, robotic animals and yet you believe in this delusion that you somehow have free will and power over your mind. She feels gratitude because her body imposes that feeling onto her. @@SplitGoose
So her body dictates her gratitude ? Her actions bring joy or discomfort, so her destiny depends on her biological responsibilities, void of any desire for a positive or negative experience. She is equating her life to a plant that flourishes with the sunlight and has gratitude for water. I believe Jorden can see through her facade,yet both of them are constantly interrupted by the host. This topic requires concentration and personality. I would like to hear both of them have a one on one discussion. She seems to be a very likeable person, and they would do well on their own.
It looked like Susan was in a therapy session under Jordan. To have a professor for young minds, telling them nothing matters, that everything is meaningless... I think it all boils down to defense mechanism, believing everything is meaningless shields you from pain, disappointment, despair. Like they are coping with something wrong in their life. To young minds, I hope you bravely face the world, accept the struggle and be strong in the most difficult times. And through those sacrifices, I pray happiness comes your way rewarded from a life of meaning and responsibility.
Indeed. As we hear her, sometimes it felt like she was struggling a lot herself to deal with her own ideas. Furthermore, it seems that as soon as she understands or accepts what is going on inside her body, her own ideas about memes will evolve. Bottom line, it was really good to hear them both, because many people today are going through the same conflicts I think she is facing now.
Wow that’s actually makes lotta sense amen bro
I couldn't agree more👍
Beautifully said!
That seems like such backwards logic! Surely the ultimate defense mechanism is faith in an unseen creator, and claiming to 'know' why we're here when there's no unanimous evidence
Jordan Petersons marriage, 30 years ago “Jordan Peterson, do you want to marry this woman?“ - Well, depends on what you mean by 'marry'
ChoskarChulian Ya how horrible to clarify definitions
that's a meme right there
Well, depends on what you mean by 'woman'
Hahahaha
You want simple answers to exceptionally complex questions?
I love when Peterson is talking to people who aren’t out to get him... the convos get very productive.
Yes, you can finally start seeing why he is wrong.
@@numbo655 that's the problem, in this type of conversation it's not about right or wrong, thats a good thing.
@@numbo655, no I can't..
I agree. The globe is full of people out there to get him.
@@numbo655 lmao, really unintelligent you are. Even Carl Jung supports Jordan's religiosity.
Jordan is brilliant as always! Makes me more a believer of God JESUS. More power!!
How wonderful and amazing witnessing an intellectual and civilized conversation like this. If only people could be like this... This world could have been in a better state.
If only people would converse together you would get reasoning such as this rather than REAL SPEAK....Garbage in - garbage out...Using our own minds instead of parroting the government
Amen!
I watched 10 minutes and quickly realised the meme they're talking about has nothing to do with funny pictures spread on the Internet. Maybe I'm out of my depth.
They're talking scientifically. This conversation is not your average one.
"out of my depth." 😂 that's hilarious 😂 I don't know if you're trying to be but it was 😁
Well actually they are. Just on a different level of analysis. The concept is still the same. Richard dawkins came up with the term to describe those exact funny pictures and the psychology behind them more or less
@@colts8146 you couldn't be more wrong
@@colts8146 he came up with the term way before the internet even existed
It is a pleasure to see Jordan Peterson being challenged with respect, for a change...
She is a delightful debater!
So what you're saying is you want them to talk about lobsters.
@@benpeters5851 I don't know is anybody is in favor of mobsters.
its the only way to challenge him lol i dont think she had other choice...
@@benpeters5851 Indeed :)
This is a great discussion. Both have a high level of responsibility for putting their thoughts without destroying each other.
😊😊😊😊
Susan is on a happiness quest. Peterson is on a truth quest.
Peterson is an atheist who pretends religions he doesn't believe in are true. Sounds like the opposite of a truth quest.
Best comment.
which one has more meaning
@@KevlarShrek For some, happiness. Experiencing "happiness" even temporarily is better than understanding it. Ignorance is bliss. No accountability needed. For others, they can't be happy knowing of their own ignorance and knowingly choosing it. Only truth leads to lasting happiness.
Seems that is Susan’s personality to truth. Peterson is just a knowledge geek who is devoid of joy
I love how this lady doesn’t attack Jordan when he disagrees with her
Yes, her attitude prevents her from falling into the pseudoscience trap. Jordan dares to tell her that she is actually a believer because she unconsciously acts as a believer because she meets Jordan's definition of Logos (and therefore she believes in Jesus, who is the embodiment of the Logos). This is a typically non-falsifiable claim in Popper's sense. She simply responds with a fact: She is consciously atheist. And she avoids responding in the same terms as Jordan. She could define the Logos as the cosmos, or natural laws, and that therefore Jordan is actually an atheist. But that would be falling into the same fallacy.
@@germanricaurteavella Jesus is what?
@@gazagxrlx2974 Ha, ha. Yes, it is a weird term invoked by Peterson in the video. The Gospel of John identifies the Christian Logos, through which all things are made, as divine (theos), and further identifies Jesus Christ as the incarnate Logos. See in Wikipedia.
That's the essense of dabating, attacking the arguments, not the person behind it
@@joe78man yes and that seems so difficult to find nowadays. What’s labeled a debate nowadays just seems like an argument or a fight lol
Thank you for showing 2 people can disagree at the extreme, yet still converse with each other and walk away showing a mutual respect.
Agreed
Agreed
Absolutely!!! I think that's nearly my favourite part of this. I love how neither of them seems remotely interested in point-scoring. Excellent stuff 👏👌👍
There's plenty of civilised debates online, y'all just aren't watching em.
@@Dyljim ok. Good to know 🤷♀️ 🙂
This debate was the catalyst which made me revert back to Christianity after 14 years as an de facto atheist.
Wow amazing
What convinced you that a god exists, and the god of Christianity specifically
@@_.LZ._ Exactly
What was the most convincing evidence for you that the god of Christianity exists?
"Alyosha wins the drama even though he loses all the arguments." Thanks to all three of these gems for the helpful and inspiring conversation.
Did u even watched the conversation?
"we seek a meaning that's deep enough to sustain us through tragedy" 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
True. So was the basis the moderator opened with, God as a mechanism to explain the parts of the world we don't understand yet. We are just identifying aspects of God according to our own experiences. So these things are true, a source of understanding, a haven in our life's storms, and beyond all those "mechanisms" of God is . . . well . . . God. I loved this conversation and Mrs. Blackwell's points, she is so close to understanding that I feel excited for her. I think next in her meditations she'll see her association of her childhood experience with religion, I think there will be a separation of those things soon. Then a separation of the idea that God is only the mechanism we need when we need it, to the idea that God just is. Fascinating to see how this opens up.
Tesla referenced human energy 🌬👻jesus christ referenced living 💎👨🎓science described water memory 🌊👨💼existence reflecting psychologically, psalms16:24 k,j 👻💎👨🎓🤍🗽💖🗡🛡🧮⚖🌬🧮☄🌪
@@richardlearn3686 Or she could do none of that. There are many people leaving religion today, finding no need to subscribe to an overarching religious ideology. Religion offers clear benefits - in-group identity, security in a chaotic world, clear answers to (thus far) unanswerable metaphysical questions of the how, why and where of existence, supposedly unequivocal meaning and purpose given by a perfect deity - but none of this demonstrates an actual god, let alone a personal religious god. A sense of community is natural to humans, and religion provides a common base of beliefs linking people together. However, this says nothing about the truth of those beliefs.
Totally agree🤗
@@blossom5831 Tesla referenced human energy 🌬👻jesus christ referenced living waters 💎👨🎓science described water memory 🌊🤵existence reflecting psychologically, psalms16:24 k,j 👻💎👨🎓🤍🗽💖🛡🗡🧮⚖🌬🌪🧮☄
A true intellectual isn’t afraid to say “I don’t know.”
Tyler Buckner "i know nothing" - socrates.
Tyler Buckner exactly.
Perhaps because he/she realizes that such lack of knowledge is something certain at that time...
If they say they don't know, then they are not true intellectuals.
Socrates at least knew 1 thing, that he knew nothing. So he really did know something.
Beautiful answer by JP on that last question. It hit me to my core.
I went to the comment section literally looking for some explanation about that exact answer. Please help as English is not my first language nor that I am good at it.
It took me awhile to understand JP. Initially, it was difficult for me to follow him because of the many words he uses. But as I watch him in other videos my opinion has shifted to much adoration. His thoughts are so precise and extremely thoughtful. JP was great in this video.
Dr. Jordan Peterson said one profound idea that "We are not happiness seeking creatures because it is a low goal. What we seek is a deep meaning that can sustain us through tragedy". Dr. Peterson is so intelligent and eloquent that it is just blows my mind.
Many of his principles and teachings are based on Buddhism i.e. he says in another interview that "life is suffering" - this is the First Noble Truth of Buddhism
Except people do want to be happy.
@@PatrickWanisPHD That's present in the judeo-Chridtian Tradition too.
Eim Unbannable that’s not the point thoygh
@@drtomato Giving your life meaning ultimately makes you happy.
Susan is the first woman that doesn't try to cut off Jordan's head in the first 3 seconds
Walt But you shouldn't think less of her for that neglect. 🙄
@@The-Myned 😆
Walt Shouldn't blame her for such short term, momentary failures.
@Doug Merriman And no one produced any god-thing in reality, much less a manic Peterson. Words words words, that's all it ever was. Cut the crap and just show your god-thing.
@Doug Merriman The science in the Bible is incorrect, starting Genesis chapter 1verse 1. The existence of a creator god can't be proved or disproved, however the Christian Bible is patently false.
I have always considered myself to be quite an intelligent person. The beginning of this conversation marked the end of that delusion 😅
I loved this. Intelligent interaction with gentle debate, that doesn't degrade into hatred and yelling. This is growth and understanding. Both sides learn, and are able to make adjustments to one's hehaviour with others.
I noticed they are both doing something that shows they are very skilled communicators. They both often verbally acknowledge each others points and let the other know when they agree with something the other said. I cannot tell you how important and powerful this skill is when you are debating someone. It keeps the other person from going on the defense and they will be much more receptive
Yes.
I noticed it too. The amount of respect was big. And the man in the middle kept pulling them back to the question asked. Very challenging to watch, very interesting, too.
This has to be the most valuable comment ever. I hope many get to read it and help them Improve in their debates
It just shows two very good and very polite people they respect each other they don't put each other's ideas down I wish it could be like that more often I disagree with a lot of people I do not dislike them for disagreeing with me I wouldn't call him names for disagreement with me but they'll call me names for disagreeing with them I think we should take a great example from these two people and I do believe they are friends
Absolutely 💯
SB: I feel gratitude. JP: Towards what? SB: Just gratitude. JP: Well, even your diffuse nothingness is “something” - and that’s God SB: I feel gratitude towards the universe JP: The universe doesn’t care about you, you just said life was meaningless. Why do you feel grateful towards it? SB: I don’t know.
[inception quote about SB needing to go deeper]
And what do you think about this segment?
Hm. The universe feels for me, sure it does. It observes itself through my eyes, as well as those of others. I cannot count the human race outside of the Universe. Does not make sense to me. Even my thoughts, the silliest ones, belong to the Universe.
Martti Suomivuori So, that seems to just be applying the characteristics of certain things with all things. You wouldn't say a rock feels for you, would you? Yet, you cannot count a rock outside of the universe, and the universe "feels" for you, because the human race is part of the universe. It seems you are just saying that the *universe* sees, and the *universe* feels, because humans are *part* of the universe. Would you say the universe grows from a seed, into a tree, and makes apples? Is the universe an apple tree, or does the universe contain apple trees? To go with that, and to go back to feelings, the universe has sociopathic and psychopathic humans in it as well, who don't feel. Does that mean the universe also does *not* feel for you? Because those people are also the universe, and they don't feel. So, the universe simultaneously feels for you, and does not feel for you, because you want to refer to the "universe" as the specific things *within* the universe. What about percentages? Does that come into play? What percentage of the universe is the group of humans that cares about you? If the tiniest of fractions of a whole does something, that makes it reasonable to say that the whole does something? By example, if all but one person in a group of people have never tried key lime pie, but that one person in the group loves key lime pie, does that mean the group loves key lime pie?
She might be referring to universe as a more abstract thing than you are describing. Not the physical manifistation of the universe, but maybe think of it more as life it self or all the random events that lead to the thing you show gratitude towards.
This is make us all wiser men and women Thank you very much Mr Jorden Peterson
Amazing debate, even though I felt Susan didn’t have much time to unravel her thoughts without interruptions, I ultimately felt the conclusion about hierarchy explained by Jordan make so much sense to me. It doesn’t matter who is at the top, God, the Universe, ourselves, because in the end we’ll still create the structure to which we choose to function based on, and hopefully it’ll be a constructive one both personally and for others.
Yes, the issue here is dogma which peterson always seems eager to pretend not to exist in discussions like these. As the New Atheists may not contend very much with metaphysics, they certainly take the political consequences of religious dogmatic structures far more seriously than Peterson does, and perhaps ever will; I don't believe Peterson is honest enough to do himself that service.
@@stephenwithaph1566 : Fully agree! Peterson's ultimate definition of God (that was it at the top of your value pyramid) may be true or at least a valuable way to think about matters and values, but it renders the term God also meaningless, or at least completely separate from how a majority or at least significant amount of the population defines God. As an external, supernatural creator who sets up rules that connot be questioned, who demands devotion, who is always watching our every move and has the ultimate ace up his sleeve, the one-way ticket to hell. Gay people are still being killed today in some parets of the world because, to some, their love life is an attack on/insult to this external God. It is an issue that Peterson refuses to address with his definition of God. Sam Harris has called him out on this in their debates.
@@opiate11 how is it an issue that his definition of God may differ from the majority’s definition of the word? I think that his definition accrues all people’s understanding of the word God and reduces it to its fundamental principle. I think everyone defines God as the entity atop a hierarchy of values (which is also why God’s dictates are not just arbitrary commands of a tyrannical overlord but moral and rational guides, because God is the apex of values itself which means his will are expressions of that highest value). It is just that for some people or cultures, they add specific characteristics/different values for that apex value.
It's difficult to agree that Susan wasn't given time to speak whe she was given a minute at the end to speak on whether we need God and she just said 'no' and that was it. To spend your life giving lectures telling impressionable young minds that life is meaningless seems a sad waste of a life .
@@bryans6151 Agreed completely. It's too bad that the first thing that came to mind wasn't secular humanism, the predominant secular philosophy which says nothing about the nihilistic and silent nature of the universe, and instead opines on the merits of life as we see it. Dawkins and Dillahunty continue to speak, and have spoken at great length, about the approachability of secular philosophy, and much like secularism in general - it's hardly mainstream. Religion doesn't touch the wonders of the universe, and transcendental experiences, in fact, quite the opposite -- what is available in our "uncaring and viscous" universe with these deeply biological experiences is so spectacular and mold-breaking that people have to come up with wildly different "godlike" entities; for "what can possibly create these deeply personal and significant experiences other than an impossible unknowable thing?" -- and why should we blame people for indulging in trying to find consistency within such deeply personal experiences? We know now these are traceable and measurable -- though not in its entirety-- but nonetheless biological. Does it take away from anything to know that it's measurable? Quite the opposite. We may not be able to appreciate the world through the eyes of a mantis shrimp, but that doesn't stop the clear night sky from crushing you in overwhelming wonder at its grandness. We may not be able to sense the magnetic field of the earth, but we can nonetheless find great fulfillment in a great friend you can trust completely. We are not unique to be able to get great emotion from music, and that all of these experiences such are sharable between us and animals is exactly the kind of secular and rooted understanding of connectedness we can always relish. To know that life is fleeting and delicate is enough to drive us to seek and appreciate these experiences all the more, and gives people the forward-thinking to want to solve problems of comfort and general well-being instead of obsessing over misery and eschatology like so many religious invest themselves in externalizing into the world.
JP goes to work at McDonald's Customer: Can I get a happy meal JP: well... That depends on how you define "happy"
Lol
Cheap try. ...Does sex exist? Well if you trust science than yes but if you are emotional snowflake trying make a world a magic place without getting up off your sofa than probably no... Just like you've never had a discussion with any SJW =p
😂😂
@Alexander Leblanc I love JP. This was a joke and idk why y'all can't take it as a joke
Lmao I can't stop laughing
"We don't seek happiness; we seek meaning that's deep enough to sustain us through tragedy" .. actually, yes 👍👏
I've always sought happiness but never meaning - love, happiness and truth have always been important to me. However, I have now many people who feel the need to seek meaning
I agree
There isn't anything that can give you this support and sustain you in the hour of tragedy. Tragedy just breaks you. The rest is silent.
Marek, that’s just not true. I’m sorry if you have been hurt, but that is why we live in a world with others, that we may be reminded of perseverence and goodness.
Happiness and meaning are two different things.
It is baffling to me that out of 3.5 million views, there are only 60k likes, this is such a refreshing and interesting engagement of intellectual debate. Personally, I crave these types of conversations so much, but unfortunately opportunities for meaningful discourse are often thwarted by personal attacks and other divisive tactics these days. So nice to see platform promote this type of content.
Agh, I wish this could've lasted longer. I feel like I really wanted to hear more from Sue. Nevertheless, this was amazing! I especially agree with Jordan's closing point: we all believe in gods in our lives, even if we are unaware of it or think we don't. I used to be an atheist, and when I became religious I realized that I had a god all along, it just took a different form: money, science, individualism. Our deeply held values that drive our behaviour, like money or love, serve as gods in our lives. If your definition of religion is like Jordan's (beliefs that drive repetitive action), then no one is really atheist/disbelieving. Super interesting thoughts!!
The way you explained it was actually better than JP. Thank you.
Some people are true atheists/nichilistic. They often end up with crippling depression
@@saverio_6990 you have heard Buddhism? No God and happiness
@@kkhsu2529 buddhists are faaaar from not having a God. Its just a totally different God than monotheistic religions'. They see what we could call God in everything. They are the opposite of nichilism. Meaning everywhere, everything is one. Nichilists see nothing but bland meaningless matter everywhere.
monk teach us in first class "no God no Supernatural no magic" you cant to beg anythink form buddhists most streamlined buddhists for Thought 1.nothing is eternal , whether it is physical physical rule or human rule . everything changing 2.dont persistent (1) sorry i need google translate all abult not fluent and no polite bad grammar
So annoying how the interviewer repeatedly insisted on talking about the book instead of memes, which Jordan and Susan were very interested in talking about. Jordan has a hundred videos in his interview tour talking about his book. The conversation they were having was more interesting and important.
the whole concept of a moderator seems more and more ridiculous these days. Is this TV? Is this like a chemical reaction that needs a controlling agent? No, That‘s not how natural conversations work. A moderator should introduce and step in when discussion gets stuck or escalates, but other than that he should be invisible and silent that you quickly forget he‘s even there. That would be a perfect moderator.
you clearly don't understand how business media work
Ikr. They were really getting somewhere I think 15min in. SHEESH!
T J , even for business media it must be of much more value to their audience (and therefor their business) to let their guests carry the discussion. I mean that‘s why we are here, lol. We care about the guests, not in what way this business wants to curtail or direct the very people we came here for. So again, how archaic and obsolete a format that is, LMAO. And they really think we are going to subscribe to get „extra content“ after a show like that. Really, fuck those middlemen that interject themselves and then even assume that we owe them something for that, hahaha.
@@georgemargaris hahaha? oh boy here we go. Do I have to even explain whats wrong here?
Would be nice to see Jordan and Susan having a 3 hour conversation uninterrupted.
I pray not! Listening to Jordan sidestep every question and drag people down unnecessary rabbit holes for 3 hours would be hell
@@SamuelAko okay
Agreed! Both really seemed to have enjoyed the dialogue too!
She would become a religious fanatic by the end of that conversation. Speaking in tounges and what not.
Believers and unbelievers could talk for years without resolving anything. What are you hoping for? To convert somebody with an argumentative discussion?
Jordan is a true Saint and I am grateful to be Alive at the same time and to br able to experience his works.
I've just come across this, but wow this might be Jordan's best dismantling of atheism I have ever seen. He clearly has thought through this far, far deeper than Susan has.
@@holzhausholz8215atheism dismantles itself. Based on religious principles without the depth. Asking any questions under the surface enrages atheists and only produces an unraveling of atheism and circular arguments.
This discussion was great. It would have been better if it was about 10 hours longer.
I like discussions where it's not about winning but rather it being a joint effort at getting closer to the truth.
Store-I think JBP did fine and didn't budge from his thesis. She challenged him very well, but in the end, she is the one "acting" as if God exists according to JBP, to find meaning.
Store Patter! i think the Cathy Newman interview wasnt as deep as this. these are very deep concepts and i also think that peterson knows that he doesnt have time to really explain every single detail like he does in his lectures or books. i do agree that some of his ideas can be summarised a bit better. and i think over the past 20 years he has been working on it. i think the problem is that people just want the pork chop without seeing how it gets made. but then the problem is that if people get the pork chop, they wont just believe its a pork chop without knowing the details. this is the problem i know peterson sees now very well. people need simplicity but they also need TRUE understanding, and thats not an easy balance to get right. which is why im not criticising him at all because i know that with my ability to simplify this stuff comes at a great price of people really understanding them.
Store Patter! That woman was clearly unsophisticated. Jordan Peterson was very clear
+streglof there is the difference between discussions and debates. In debates one party wins the other looses, in discussions both parties win, or both just loose time.
This has genuinely been one of the most interesting conversations/interviews with Dr. Peterson I ever watched. Respectful, intelligent, and non-aggressive. No matter how much Susan disagreed with him, she never attacked him or tried to put words in his mouth. I really respect that and appreciate it in comparison with other interviews. Really great!
Well compared to his other Interviewpartners she is an actual expert.
check out JBP's discussion with Camile Paglia (sp?) so good
Respectful exchange . Never competing. OPEN mindedness - both sides truly listening. One never waiting for the other to finish speaking simply so they can TRUMP the discussion. V refreshing.
@@johntuohy1867 Yes,none of this "X" versus "Y" nonsense!
Well true to a degree but still used sneaky words like 'slithered' etc...
What a lovely conversation! Sue is such a doll! She smiled the whole way through. It's so good to see such a good natured person, even if I disagree with her. I think both parties final answer to the final question really demonstrates who is the deeper thinker here.
Each one has so much respect for each other. Fully letting each other speak with out being interrupted. Very good communication skills. A keystone has been laid in my personal life because of this.
I totally agree, but I was hoping one of them would have turned up pi$$ed out of their brains, puked up over their opponent and started fighting with both the presenter and their opponent. Obviously I'm just kidding now. (I definitely wouldn't want anyone scrapping with the presenter. Though maybe a quick kick in the nuts would've been entertaining). ok, for those that don't get absurdity in comedy or don't see the point of nonsense poetry, take note of the first 15 characters, alone, ignoring the first 3 sentences)
I appreciate her ability to have a good conversation without ad hominem attacks. Good conversation.
Felt like the interview was from a parallel universe.
Ageing hippie, born 1951.
Yea so many resort to just slamming Peterson and throwing logic out the window
it was just too short :(
And yet, I have a feeling you don't even know what an ad hominem is.
whenever very intelligent people are asked a question, their first reaction is the need to clarify the wording of the question, in order to better give you a complete answer. very interesting conversation.
no it's not in order to give you a complete answer, but instead to ensure that their understanding of the question is reflected in their answer.
@@donaldmokgale3123 Both and, I would say. The purpose is both to fully understand the question before answering, in order to provide a more complete answer.
@@robertpreisser3547 only works though for some people. Most people would complain why they can't get a straight answer. Especially when mking a sales call
Philosophy 101.
pccalcio, which is one reason Jesus taught with parables. It's only human nature to *_misunderstand wisdom_* and then to *_reject their own misunderstanding, never having received the wisdom in the first place._*
I ve watched this video already like : 8 times during this year, and I think is a Peterson's best masterpiece.
Wow that is high praise. I'm about to watch it. Why do you think it's his best?
Peterson won't discuss the immoral God of the Bible, a God who murders his own people, including children, he's been brainwashed by a stupid set of beliefs, poor Jordan, basking in his delusion mind.
@@aisthpaoitht Peterson is particularly clear in his statements in this video, he's constantly touching upon deep core human truths.
Absolutely!!
I agree. Normally I don't find Peterson too interesting on his religious takes but there is a lot to process in this video.
Last conclusive arguments made by Dr Jordon were out worldly! He's the man I have deepest respect for u, sir!
Susan Blackmore: "Have you heard of memes?" Peterson: "forget about memes, have you heard of Archetypes?" 😂
Words Forget about Archetypes, have you heard of Bullshit?
(Edit: Internet) Memes are nothing special. They have been around for ages with the use of caricatures. They are used to try make others look ridiculous. They often are funny but can be pointing at a complete lie or misunderstanding. Memes influence the sheeple strongly.
@@davycrockett8886 She doesn't mean "internet memes", she means Dawkins's original meaning of "cultural memes", that develop and spread through a society like genes, religion is a meme.
@@christopherbloor3901 Thanks for the clarification. The problem with the emphasis on Gene's and memes is the concept that the fittest will always survive and no personal responsibility is really needed. The idea that the fittest idea will win is not guaranteed. If no one puts in the personal effort to acquire the truth - the better ideas could just die from neglect. Also having better genes probably has less influence in our lives than the choices, desires and effort we put into life. There is way too much fatalism locked up in purely materialistic ideas. I know Jordan Peterson doesn't believe in pure genetic determinism though, he believes more in a system of stasis and change.
@@davycrockett8886 Oh... okay...
She says 'there's been terrible things in the name of God and communism and atheism and I don't want to weigh them up' and Jordan says... I WILL, no problem.
I will, as well. There is no debate here. The terrible things done in the name of God, by 'God', and for God far outweigh all terrible things done by atheism and/or in the name of atheism and so on. It's more a case of 'atheism' has killed 100 million people, yet God people/religion have killed 1 billion at least (plus God himself is said to have killed almost every living thing at least once).
As soon as Atheism can be compared to any of the Major Religions, Atheism itself will be categorized as a religion. So the comparisons are faulty from the beginning.
Retro. According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, from 1700+ wars, only 123 were somehow influenced by religion. The data is out there, yet you reject it because of your bias (when I say "your" I mean anti-religion groups). You also made a statement about God killing almost every living thing yet you don't believe in God or what He has to say... sigh...
I assume you're using the Wiki which states: 'Some commentators have concluded that only 123 wars (7%) out of these 1763 wars were fundamentally originated by religious motivations.' Note that it states *some commentators have concluded* and *originated by religious motivations.* Well, I can assure you, many more were via religious motivations more indirectly and secondly, 'some commentators' is nowhere near proof.
I don't have to believe in God in order to state what he is meant to have done. If God exists, which many believe, then, he has killed everybody at least once. Note the world flood, for example. I was not talking for myself, but rather, regarding all the people who actually do believe God exists/killed everybody. So, it is still an argument I can give.
This style of conversation restores my faith in humanity and the internet. Intelligence and meaningful listening at its finest. More of this please. 😊
Thanks for organize this conversation and share it with us ☺
Happiness is a low goal. We seek a meaning that’s deep enough to sustain us through tragedy. Jordan THAT WAS GOD !!! So true
This needs to be preached to the rooftops however it’s not liked by the materialistic folks in power.
Many examples here in this discussion are surrounding the unfaithfulness of various Christians primarily in the United States. This is always a horrible way of judging whether or not it is good to follow God. The whole story of history is man’s disobedience towards their maker and does not hold any weight on whether or not that reveals following God is more beneficial than not.
@@villarrealmarta6103 Religion - history based on man’s disobedience to their maker. Relationship with Jesus Christ - what Jesus did for us/ mankind. Question: How would you feel if when “the end” happens - you realize that God has has been God ? So here’s how I see it - I believe in God & in fact if the entire Bible is just a story, I’m okay with that because building my relationship with Christ has helped me. 2nd point - when you love someone - do you love them based on what they do for you ? If so, what if one day they aren’t capable to do those things anymore, will you stop loving them ? It’s a love relationship when you invite The Holy Spirit into your life and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord & Savior. It’s not I do this for Christ & He does that. It’s I love Him and He so love me - so I want to do things that please Him. Because He knows what’s best for me. Is it easy - No. Is it explainable - No. Will you have doubt - yes. But it’s so worth the journey….
… we seek something we can do that’s substantial enough to distract us through tragedy.
@@Ten8sious Distracting ones self from tragedy is a recipe for disaster when the distractions do not work anymore. When is enough, enough for humans like us? Better to face your demons head on than to hide from it
Even though Jordan speaks far over my head and I am usually lost, I always feel more intelligent when it's over. Thank you Sir.
Ah ah lmao
You don’t understand what he’s saying? Hes one of the most articulate speakers of our generation. Even other psychologists are amazed by his ability to conceptualize ideas so intellectuals know where he’s coming from and the non-intellectuals can understand his main point.
@@papermachevolcano1480 That's literally the funniest thing I've ever read. Assuming it was sarcasm. Otherwise it's just disturbing,
So you're biased? Uhm okay
This is Peterson's rhetorical trick. When Peterson twiddles his fingers and says "metaphorical substrate", those with confirmation bias say "Wow, how eloquent, that proves it." Those who are actually trying to get at what he means say "I really don't understand what you mean by that." and then Peterson falls back on his high school book report of Crime and Punishment.
Very good debate with no shouting and roaring 👍✌️☘️🇮🇪
I’m a Christian and I really enjoyed listening to both of them speak. Never heard of this Blackmore woman, she definitely has a lot of good things to say though.
"We seek a meaning deep enough to sustain us through tragedy". I very much resonate to just this. It was felt deep within my bones when Peterson uttered the words.
Yes, but that doesn't make a religion true. You can believe that the ghost of your dead husband is still in your house if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't make it true.
I don’t know that Jordan Peterson says we have to believe in religion. He doesn’t…
@@lsjt8924 : Christians are quick to read something into what Jordan is saying.
In their defence, he certainly tries to blur the lines of definitions for anything to do with god/faith.
@@collydub1987 If we all have a religious mindset as Jordan so eloquently states, how is that not evidence for a deeper metaphysical reality?
She's exactly what Dr. Peterson is talking about; A compassionate liberally minded person who embraces the spirituality of religion, but rejects the structure, and dogma.
I had a really tough time being convinced by Peterson that she embraces the spirituality of religion :) It came across more to me that he just couldn't imagine someone being non-spiritual and still choosing to live peaceful, productive lives. Was there a stronger reason?
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Jordan's point is that "peaceful and productive life" is an idea which is solely based on Christianity. Therefore we can't deny the underlying structure and just skim off the top what seems to be "good" because then you'd have to find another underlying structure on which to base your existence and lets say "tastes". You can't base the concept of "good" and "peace" without involving religion and no one has succeeded in extracting virtues completely out of thin air - meaning atheistic or rational virtues.
@@andyuchi *"which is solely based on Christianity"* -- I think he doesn't quite go that far - it's only Christianity for people who were raised in predominantly Christian cultures (by current population too, but mostly during formative periods of history). You do go on to say "religion" later, rather than specifically Christianity though, so we may not need to struggle over this point. *"no one has succeeded in extracting virtues completely out of thin air - meaning atheistic or rational virtues."* -- Has anybody had the opportunity to try? Peterson's own points that everyone is deeply influenced by religion makes it clear to me that he can't say much about what it would be like if someone wasn't. There's no evidence, because according to him, there are no examples. Creating a religion which dictates virtues _doesn't actually extract them out of thin air_ either. It's make believe, or more charitably, virtues and value by convention only. That IS something done in completely secular ways. Money, laws, national borders, there are lots of 'imagined realities' outside of religion. Basically, the premise quoted above wouldn't get you to this conclusion: *"You **_can't_** base the concept of "good" and "peace" without involving religion"* People haven't, therefore people can't? It might be a strong inference if people had lots and lots of opportunities. Peterson denies this. And if you don't know what values coming from non-religious thinking would look like, you can't tell how many are swimming around us, having arisen alongside religious thinking. That makes the premise dubious too, not just the inference from it.
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke I really love how you've structured your points!!! You're right about the first paragraph, I just think Christianity is the most complete religion out of the ones I know. Lets say I'm a Christian and move on :) People have tried to form a completely atheistic set of lets call them "rules". That example is the Marxist ideology. Its axiom is that there is no God or a human "spirit"/"soul", meaning man is a material being only and therefore people's happiness depends solely on the outside circumstances. Therefore Marxism claims that as long as people have their material belongings in check - starting with "bread and water for everyone" - they will be happy and won't need that much more. This is a quite rational and scientific way of approaching the problem of a person's place in life and it excludes religion or God as a whole. They seek happiness through unity (religious idea) but fail to keep human nature in mind - humans are also irrational and spiritual beings. The Marxists don't resist the temptation which Satan proposes to Christ - if Christ turns stones into bread, then all people are going to obey Him. But Christ wants people to willingly follow Him, not obey Him because of His power which casts fear in people. Anyway, getting off track... It's not that there are no atheists and atheistic ideas (he said explicitly that atheists do exist, or at least people who act like it), it's that most people and ideas which claim to be atheistic more often than not fail to consider what ground they're stepping on and calling their "base" for living. Money, laws and national borders are ideas which have evolved with time and yet "laws" are largely based on religion. The Declaration of Independance was written under the enormous influence of John Locke, who was a devout Christian and based a lot of his political ideas on the Bible. I'm sure laws are very tightly connected with religion, but I haven't researched deeper, so I might be wrong. Money and national borders stem from laws and laws were first thought up in extremely religious societies. Yet I say again - I may be wrong. Peterson doesn't deny that people can't try basing values on their atheism. Hell, the man's been researching totalitarian regimes for maybe 20 years, he surely has come upon many ideas. I am genuinely curious on what the "values from non-religious thinking" are, so I'd like to hear the rest of your side, too.
Because the “structure” Jordan claims was made through those values was made in spite of them. Look at the constitution or technology/scientific advancement or very individualist ideology. All of which are hallmarks of America values. I can go more into detail if you want, but for now I’ll leave it at that considering I don’t know if you want to read a novel 😅
Very intellectual and respectful - pushing our society’s discussions in the right direction.
I just came across this wonderful show. My goodness it is lovely to hear an actual conversation between two opposing viewpoints and moderated by someone who has clearly taken the time to learn enough to ask questions and properly host. Really enjoyed it and will check out more. Thank you for your work!
People accept the spirituality of Christianity but reject its moral accountability and so they run away from it to find a spirituality that does not demand any moral accounts.. It just so sad.
People acept the spirituality of Christianity but they don’t touch with a finger. Moral isn’t judge other people Morality is acept the Spirituality Christianity and show to the Christian how to live with accountability. People judge but do not live by higher standards of what they judge. It is a false judgement. They live the same or worst than those who judge.
christianity? moral? lmao.
@Disfatt Bidge because morality is based on culture and evolution and we recognize
@Disfatt Bidge so you are agreeing with me. I agree that morality is subjective. Even within the same religion people have widely different moral codes, so either god has failed or more likely he doesn’t exist and morality is just people trying to live their life’s in community.
It’s sad people believe there is a god that gave us morals
This needed to be a 3 hour session!
Agreed. It ended just as it was getting good!
Or one hour per topic. man there was about 500 hours crammed into 57 minutes.
So we can hear him butcher Nietzsche some more? No thank you. Lol
That was great. I think a part 2 is in order
Jordan doing his thing man. Calm, collective and straight to the point.
JP never gets straight to the point come on.
As someone who has gone down the road of “positive” nihilism, its actually a deeply empty depressing void of existence and we are seriously not wired to live in that way of perceiveing the world.
Yes reality is tough. However occasionally we forget about it and enjoy life, but being a thinking animal has a high cost.
same buddy✌🏼🙏🏼
"As someone who has gone down the road of “positive” nihilism, its actually a deeply empty depressing void of existence and we are seriously not wired to live in that way of perceiveing the world." how do you know how we are wired? did you hear someone tell you how we are wired? Does the lion in the jungle know it is a lion? We humans seek out higher power out of fear and love. The need for a God is merely a search for meaning without finding meaning for most people unless they lie themselves. This God never speaks back.
@@martinvanburen4578 Yes exactly, but the question is: do we act on this impulse and live like gods were real, even if we know they are not, or do we accept that "happy" and "meaning" is fictive and the universe has no intent of making us feel good about our selves and because we are intelligent, should not fall for evolutionary mind tricks?
@@martinvanburen4578 They are just assumptions. And what do you mean, "God" never speaks back. How do you know that? And even if he did, you wouldn't believe it. A belief in "God" is no less ridiculous than the antithesis.
I love when smart people sit down together and have conversations.
Sadly it’s a rarity but I think it’s makes it that much better 🧐
Sorry, she seems very nice but Jordan outclassed her intelectualy.
This requires two open minded intellectuals. Willing to listen as well as speak.
she is not smart she is over rated at best.
I am a huge fan of Jordan, however I feel it was unfair how the mediator kept shutting Susan off before she could complete her thoughts. It would've been great to hear all her full thoughts completely and have Jordan respond to them.
It's well worth reading her work, especially The Meme Machine and Conversations on Consciousness. I agree, the presenter was only really interested in Peterson. He is very clever (but wrong IMO) and there are few people who can argue against him on his own level. Susan Blackmore is one who can. She raised clear questions which he failed to answer. He just decided that what she meant by memes was the same as what he meant by archetypes and he is so wrong and she was not given the time to explain the difference.
THIS WAS JUST GREAT! Profound, respectfull, equal, full of knowledge, interesting, insightfull... Thank U
Finally, someone to properly test Jordan Peterson's views, someone who doesn't resort to aggression and abuse. Great conversation. Get them together again for a series of discussions! I felt uplifted by these 47 minutes.
see Dillahunty debate too.
I feel like Jordan Peterson is trying to prove that we're doomed without religion, like we would'nt have moral values or meaning without it wich may be true, but i prefer nihlism to an imaginary friend in the sky who made us the way we are... that just doesnt make sense and i don't understand how a smart man like peterson believe in god.. id like to ear him talk more deeply about it, someone should ask him why do he believe in god
ExpiAigle funny that you can't make sense out of why he belives, saying God is some imaginary friend in the sky, you like so many other may never really make sense out of it if this is the way you think, you can't criticise something you don't really know well knowledge of, that statement is proof of your ignorance blinding you from what the concept really is.
I feel like the pair of you could have an interesting discussion...but let's do that as civilly as Professors Peterson and Blackmore.
Eh seriously ?Blackmoore is so full of it .No im not going to sit and try to explain why but if you cant see it .......
I started watching the this conversation because of Jordan Peterson, but it annoys me that the interviewer cuts of Susan Blackmore all the time. It seems he wants to only let Peterson talk. Susan and JP were having really interesting conversations but couldn't continue because the interviewer changed the topic
Well bc she’s boring, flat and redundant
So she's boring she's flat. No wonder u r thicc
That's what it is like being a woman in the vast majority of conversations. Women get interrupted way more than men do in everyday conversations.
6th time watching this.. it never gets old.
What a brilliant debate. This is how debating should be done. Congratulations to both for not evolving into personal attacks.
I can't even keep up with what Jordan is saying, let alone imagine what it would be like to have the cognitive ability, knowledge, and insight to articulate it in real time. I'm always stunned.
Maybe watch how Stephen Fry dismantles the crap that Peterson spews, leaving him looking like an immature emotional amateur.
@@alanbarrett2876 It doesn't matter whether he got dismantled by so and so. The sheer intellectual capability people such as Jordan have is really amazing and how they can talk about such things quickly is just amazing to me.
It really isn't that difficult.
The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do. Thomas Jefferson
@@alanbarrett2876 its easy to make a video about someone. Unless somebody debates him in real time and dismantles him live its all pointless
Susan’s Reaction when being told she’s acting in a Religious Manner was hilarious 😂
Meditation: seeking God in receptive silence. This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
@@idiotsandwhich8073 you would fall under verse 5, so I'll turn away. Keep studying idiotsandwhich
@@idiotsandwhich8073 a couple of the examples given in that passage have "always" been true, sure. To put the whole list together it only applies now, or not even quite yet.
@@idiotsandwhich8073 To a degree, yes, but those who were prophets knew that the world would continue to exist, somewhat as is, for some period of time. Why else all the prophecies about latter days that had not yet been filled in their time, when if you know the history, John and Paul prophesied things that had not yet happened in their life, knowing as Paul wrote, that he was soon to be martyred. Some of these prophesies marking the last days have come to pass, but at least a handful that I'm aware of, are yet to take place, and will not happen in a day, year, or month, but will take years, as Jesus said, that those who know the signs of the times, in the latter days, will know roughly when it will occur. And yes, many early Christians did believe it would happen in their time, and many that followed them, for they were commanded to prepare themselves for that day. It was in their best interest, and of all of Christianity, that they act, if not believed that the second coming was near. In the ultimate sense, it was, and still is, as the time that we will be judged, will occur in the incredibly short span, in the grand scheme of things, of a mere lifetime, roughly 40 years during the first century AD. Jesus told them that He would come like a thief in the night, and that many would not be prepared.
HAThEistic arrogance...claiming a meaningless universe...yet extolling the value of literacy, compassion, "good" vs "bad", even humility...a complete intellectual mess...outwardly denying Christendom, and inwardly too "dum" to acknowledge her huge debt to Christendom...
This an idea that has been lost to time. The idea of respect to one another. I think this is why this debate is so enjoyable to listen to. Perhaps we crave this level of personal respect for one another because it is an idea that is lost to us in our current time. I really wish this video could have been longer because I enjoy the view points from both parties. Great job on conducting yourselves so professionally.
We need more of such intelligent and well composed kind of women to have a talk with Jordan not the usual clueless psychopathic kind that always seem bitter when challenged, This was a well civilized discussion from two intelligent individuals arguing out their contrary views respectfully
I'm no fan of Blackmore's but it annoyed me how often the mediator interrupted her. Clear bias toward Peterson (who I am a big fan of) imo.
Exactly my thought. He interrupted her all the time
Exactly what I was just thinking.
I’d say she talked a lot and listened very little. That’s why he interrupted her. Jordan asked stuff, she started answering for a length of time until she had to be interrupted because Jordan didn’t get the chance to confront her way of thinking,
She didn’t have her argument lined up. Circular, callable and provides no clear evidence or enough research. She also contradicts hers self and raises more than one point every time she speaks. The mediator has to interfere in that instance, so that the opposing can have time to respond.
5 min into the video, and the body language of the interviewer, the way he introduced JBP but not her, and the way she is put in a position to grab attention with JBP going full ape psycho arena domination was IMO really disappointing
"I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned. " ~Richard Feynman
Woah, fuck man, what a great quote!!
Here here
Feynman would dismiss Peterson
@@AB-et6nj With this subject matter, absolutely.
@@Mick0722MX I mean to say that Feynman would probably see through a lot of what Jordan says. I find what Jordan says interesting but a lot of it is subjective and philosophical, not really based on much evidence or proof
What an amazing conversation. I wish most people could have these conversations without it devolving into ad hominem chaos.
"hold on." subtle spontanous utterance, and Peterson immediately halts... What a wonderfully 'safe' environment these three find themselves in, and we're in the '4th seat' opposite the facilitator quietly observing the conversation as it unfolds (until we comment that is, like I am doing now, or making notes in the background, as I have been in the background...) I'm really loving I stumbled upon this channel that's having "The Big Conversation". Brilliantly put together, and brilliantly facilitated.
I mean.. I'm on Jordan Peterson's side but this mediator cuts Susan Blackmore off constantly to give Jordan 5x longer to speak and never interrupts him.. Need a new mediator for these debates..
That may be true.. but you should watch Jordan's lecture on "being nice"
@@JeanAlesiagain3 I don't see how it's "being nice" to have a mediator that's so clearly biased. It doesn't help either side in the debate. It would have been more interesting if they got equal time to actually debate topics.
@@Zlysium I understand your point, and obviously a mediator should be impartial. I think the problem is that Susan did not have much to say that was of any substance. Even I can tell she does not understand much about ethical philosophy. The mediator clearly also understands the subject and quicly became bored with anything she had to say after some point... I don't blame him... at one point Susan even said "Don't you think it's offensive to call me religious if I don't see myself that way?", as if it mattered. If you ask me: was he a good mediator?, I would say "not the best". He could have been "nice" and ensured she also spoke just as much even though what she had to say seemed less interesting.
@@Zlysium jordan is the bright one there.
I noticed that; which wasn't fair. I wish they would've had more time for JP to address why SB wasn't really an atheist. She was visibly annoyed at his comments. She probably understood what he was saying but was frustrated at the thought for not noticing. Everyone who is knowledgeable says they are willing to learn but secretly believe they are in the right and need to sway others. Either way, I'm so impressed with people that take time to study deeply and have deep conversations.
"We are not creatures who will just not do anything" . We are driven by meaning and purpose. My mom committed suicide because she had nothing in life that would give it meaning. She was looking after my sister which has learning disability. After she was taken from her because my mom couldn't care for her anymore, she fell into a state of depression. She had the time and she was physically healthy. She could just enjoy her life by wasting it on things that would've brought her pleasure and joy, at least that how I thought about it. She had all the time in the world and there was enough money for her not to worry about it. But that's not what happened. Everyday her depression became more severe and one morning I found her hanging herself from the stairs. She could do anything in life and wait till she dies naturally but now that I think about it, her life ended the moment my disabled sister was taken away from her because caring for her was what gave her life meaning. That was everything for her. We need meaning in our life and our actions need to be meaningful in the long term or short term otherwise we will lose interest in life and feel like a machine. We will stop feeling anything positive because our life has became mechanical.. The lack of meaning in our life will put us in a perpetual state of emptiness.
Hamid Hosseini So sad to hear your story. Thank you for sharing.
Amen brother. I'm so sorry that happened to you and your Mom. Blessings to you and thank you for the comment
At the end of the day, while suicide or insanity waits, we must conclude that our lives are worth living. Worth implies accomplishing some purpose. Without some real purpose in life, distraction, i.e. keeping busy, is about our only defense.
Sorry about your loss. I once heard a psychologist on the radio who stated three indicators that were conducive to predicting whether one might achieve a happy life. 1. Whether there were abuse in a child's upbringing. 2. Whether there was mental illness. 3. Whether someone had someone or something to live for. The first two can be mitigated with therapy and the second with therapy and medication. The third gives the mechanism to pursue happiness.
Hamid Hosseini Your story is tragic. Mental illness and depression affects many people.. I’ve had this condition for many years. I’m a member of The Humanist Association. We don’t believe in god but we believe in humanity and it’s social morals. I justify my life by painting pictures. I give many to charity shops so they can raise money for their cause. I just have a talent for art. It is a great way of expressing your emotions. I’m always encouraging people to draw and paint At least when I die I have left something in a frame that generations will enjoy. Everyone can draw and paint. As children we all enjoyed splashing colour and drawing stick people. It’s great therapy. I wish you well.
Her bases for why she feels gratitude flew out the window
"being compassionate and empathetic is better" she says. Tell her you're voted for trump or something and I promise you'll find that "compassion" and "empathy" evacuate from the room.
As a Christian I respect Susan's demeaner in this interview. She is respectable even in the face of disagreement. Plum of the crop people here. I pray we all find truth.
I agree
This really is a great conversation. Jordan and Susan acted so respectfully and allowed the other to elaborate her/his points, that even if you disagree with whoever is currently speaking, it invites you to take a fresh look at your beliefs and solidify or change them. A nasty argument tends to not offer that opportunity. This is beautiful.
Except when she referenced that he was a snake, twice. Other than that, I agree.
@@gregcantaberry7525ell yes. Though perhaps she merely suggests his methods are snake like. I think though he’s referencing a mode of thought most atheists aren’t engaging in. So when he answers they don’t really understand how the idea moved like it did within the conversation. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesars, and unto God what is Gods.” That’s miraculous. She doesn’t understand why. She thinks the memes, which is merely a description of one mode of shared thought, are descriptive of the realm of thought. However descriptions of cognition, are older than time, and compiled in those scriptures. Others may argue the divinity of other religions, that’s fine. Until they start answering these questions, you live with your God and object of worship chosen, but unable to touch or change consciously. That scripture is miraculous because it illustrates a truth about truth. The truth and fealty which serves a true god, is not the same as the money and fealty payed to your leaders. So a division was forged between matters of state, and matters of religion. In the place of either.
@@gregcantaberry7525 I'm a big JP fan so don't take this the wrong way because I respect JP enough to pay for VIP tickets for my father and I to attend one of his upcoming lectures this month. He did suggest she may indeed be a coward lol. I thought they both did very well in explaining each of their positions. Was a good, mostly civil debate that should have been greater in length. It's not often that we get to hear JP debate near peer individuals.
It baffles me how few people understand the fundamental importance of semantics in a debate like this. People are chucking out cookie cutter terms like 'God' as if it's self evident what parameters that idea is limited to. So when Peterson continually questions this by saying "depends what you mean by 'God'" it's not only a valid statement, but very necessary to clarify a conversation like this one.
Krontok - the majority of people are too dumb to really understand semantics and language. it's a crazy rabbit hole once you look into it.
Semantics are dealing with words meaning if i'm not mistaken. And it is indeed is important to talk first on the meaning of the words used. But when the meaning discussed and definitions set in the beginning are so vague and chaning - the argument is pointless. And the definition of god and religion Peterson gives are very elusive, that's what is annying. At least for me. It's the strongest position because you can't disprove it but as meaningless.
yup!
Derrida in a nutshell
Exactly
I had a friend in Hawaii that was an Atheist, But believed she had a "Spiritual" Connection with Wales!!! This woman reminds me of her!!
"I don´t think we seek happiness, we seek a meaning that is strong enough to sustain us through tragedy"
And when we succeed in doing this, we feel more positive/robust which is less miserable. This is more pleasant but is it the same as happiness? Unclear, shades of grey on how individuals interperate their state of emotion.
Happiness can be a byproduct, but it's certainly not the 'goal'. Happiness is much too shallow and temporary to provide deep meaningful fulfillment.
Ian Buttery What we describe as 'happiness' encompasses two different things: joy, a passionate and temporary state of appreciation for a moment, and peace/contentment, a stance towards life which causes everything to be emotionally conquerable and meaningful to the story of your life. Joy is one part of life, while peace is the truth behind all things, my brother.
Kissing Bandit so meaning ....you just tried to change the word lol
MyMaitetxu You really need to edit your comment, it's a mess.
I hope you all notice the deepness of this man's thoughts when he says "what makes you think that the question I'm answering is the same one you're asking?" Think profoundly about this and you will get to the bottom of it all.
Nop, that just confirms he is a pseudo-intellectual quack and you think you are smarter than what you are
How so?
Thats called whataboutism
That is exactly his schtick. He doesn't address the questions in a conversation he just takes his opportunity to pontificate on what he believes without actually defending it from criticism. I have not watched this one yet but that has been his mo in the ones I have watched. That is not "deep", that is disingenuous.
@@MsReasonableperson you're just jealous...
"You have a heirarchy of values, you have to, otherwise you can't act or you are painfully confused. Whatever is at the top of that heirarchy of values serves the function of God for you"
WOW !!!! , Mr. Peterson has a incredible educated heart, he'll understand. And Ms. Blackmore has being helped. God bless you all. OsoYolo, Antigua Guatemala.
This conversation should be 3 hours longer
6 hours longer
I would say 1h30, but I agree on the principle. It was too short. And great :)
agree. felt like a speed date.
Without a guy interrupting
"What you think about God has very little impact on how God is acting within you." JBP
Mathieu Blake what does that mean? I really want to know.
@@godallowsuturns679 Well whether or not we think about God, whether or not we give God his due, God remains unaffected by our thoughts for, against or without him: God keeps on being God! That's at least a part of the answer.
@@godallowsuturns679 But more generally, 'gods' are those things that overide our will or logic. strong emotions such as anger and love and so on are examples and they are considered gods because they void our (sober-minded) will and we can't simply take back the reins.
@@godallowsuturns679 But more specific to JP's claim, God can be described (for him) as the highest ideal to which we hold ourselves, to which we aspire... And whether or not we acknowledge, revere or otherwise consciously conceive of what that is our actions, decision-making and how we orient ourselves in the world are cordoned, driven and guided by this composite ideal, God.
@@godallowsuturns679 P.s. For the God of Christans, "The God who made the world and all things in it...", Acts 17:22-25 may suggest an interesting angle for viewing the biblical perspective on a statement like this.
Amazing debate, thanks for sharing.
I like that Susan is attentive to what Jordan is saying. Most people have a defensive, immovable stance, especially considering religion, that aren't genuine. The respect for one another is very evident in this discussion and the temptation would lean towards Susan's side and she does well not to fall into that trap.
Peterson is a freaking genius
Part of the issue is that Peterson views religion as something much more fundamental than the belief in a supernatural God who came down and created everything. As he's said religion isn't a materialist explanation in whole, part of it is much deeper. Blackmore is saying "look I don't believe in God" and Peterson is saying "yeah, but your definition of God and religion are way too shallow". Was interesting for sure
Kiran Prasad (possibly) The best comment here. I'm utterly shocked by the amount of comments that missed the meaning of the entire conversation.
EXACTLY!!!!THANK YOU!!!
Peterson believes in a supernatural god, no matter how deep and pragmatic he is he still believes in a god who created the universe without having any evidence to back this belief up. I don't care how deep he goes in how a religion affects people and nations. He is a christian and yes he is probably a christian with way more understanding of religion than your average believer but he is still a believer, faith not evidence. Pretty arrogant of JB to say - Hey, your understanding of religion and god are way to shallow for you to question this, im much smarter than you so im right by default. Thats like saying, the bible is true because the bible says that the bible is true. Either something is true or it isn't and i know that this debate is not zoomed in on gods existance or not but that is what religion and belief in a god boils down to in the end. You can always talk about if belief makes a person better or not but you can't build a strong foundation on quicksand.
Where do you get the assertion that he's a believer from? As far as I'm aware, he was an athiest for several years after he initially disavowed religion. He now doesn't believe in god creating man, but man creating god. His idea of religion is essentially the collected and distilled wisdom that has been passed down generationally. He very well be arrogant, as most professors tend to be, but it isn't for the reason you say.
By looking at other videos where he talks about himself being a christian, talks about Jesus and his teachings and his belief in god. He is sceptical when it comes to the resurrection and things like that. I like JB alot but he is very careful with words once someone asks him about his religion. He doesn't always want to give you a straight answer because as he puts it himself he doesn't want to be boxed in. He has fans from both sides and doesn't want to take a strong position one way or the other but if you look at different videos where he talks about this subject and you fend of his good way with words it is easy to see that he is a believer. He is not your typical religious guy but you can't deny that he is one. I don't care what he is i still like him.
Criminally too short! Few can truly hold their own against Peterson in full flow, but Professor Blackmore more than does it and then some. We need another, extended discussion with these two, please!
The host needs to be referenced in the title. I have to say this host was insanely profession he knew he had a powerful intellectual debate going on and instead of intruding or forcing the conversation he masterfully directed these two intellectuals in to a really engaging debate.