Jordan Peterson utterly destroys Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

people like sam harris and richard dawkins they assume that the natural person is the civilized creature that you see before you in a discussion like this but i don't believe that i think that people are far crazier and far more destructive and and far greater as well than the typical rationalist approach rationality is a surface facade that's all and the idea that people will eventually be rational it's much more likely that they will be irrational than rationally you could say for example that catholicism let's say for all its irrationality was as rational as people can get if you remove that level of the irrationality that's structural say then everything falls apart and people get so irrational you can't believe it not more rational you know because they like harrison and his crowd think that we were superstitious for thousands of years kind of savage and and and superstitious and then all of a sudden the enlightenment came along in the scientific revolution and poof we got rational and since then things have been good and that's not how it looks to me at all i don't i don't buy that i think that our rationality as i said already our rationality even our science is nested inside this larger metaphysical structure this is also something that carl jung would be an advocate of that there's a irrational pragmatic i would say evolutionarily determined ethic underneath this rationality and when it goes then all that rationality goes to so yes you can be a non-believer but the funny thing about that is too you can't be a non-believer in your action you see because harris's metaphysics is fundamentally christian so he acts out a christian metaphysics but he says well i don't believe it it's like well yeah you do because you're acting it out you just say you don't believe it what do you mean what do you mean he's acting acting it out like what for example well he doesn't rob banks doesn't kill people doesn't rape doesn't murder you know i mean look in good knee in in in crime and punishment for example so you think when you don't do those things basically the underpinning of it even though i think i certainly i i can't speak for sam and you guys have had by the way regardless of where we get with this you guys have had i think two great conversations one where you didn't quite get there but one where you've come together and i suspect you both really re relish in that right i mean at the end of the day this is someone that you respect whether you this oh yeah he's oh no look i mean yeah i just think that's important to preface because everyone is so at each other's throats all the time that when i saw two people that i respect just disagreeing on things but really trying to get there i thought this is good and yeah there's a certain amount of people that rep you know that want you guys to know each other well um because you could say in some sense there's been 300 400 years of brilliant scientists who've been doing nothing but laying the foundation for on objective empirical atheism so it's an unbelievably powerful argument but it's not going to lead to the to the rule of rationality see i don't believe that i don't believe that because do you think anything could get you there do you think somebody could lay out a case that could eventually turn you on this the same way you would want someone like sam to come around to what you're saying do you think that that that's even in the realm of i can't see how because it's it's not like i haven't thought these things through i mean i am a scientist you know i understand the scientific world view see i guess in some sense i'm more romantic in temperament than sam and i think than his followers too and because of that i can see the irrational and malevolent side of human beings i believe much more clearly than they can and i also think i have far more experience with that sort of thing yeah so do you think that so we i don't want to get too lost here but we'll try to wrap it up here because there's so much i want to do with you here um so let's say earth is crumbling we have two ships we're gonna send the people that believe what you're saying here basically that we need this sort of religious underpinning and then the the dawkins sam people they're gonna take their hundred people you're gonna take your hundred people we're gonna go to two different planets and set things up the way they should be you know blank slate for for each i guess the part that i would struggle with here is to understand how that how their ship lands they're rooted in science and in in basic liberalism and and acceptance of others and all that how that society would not flourish from the from the base level if we could just reset now i think you can make a great argument that we can't do it here because there's just so much history here and all that stuff but if we were just resetting on another place why could we not do it that way and have it work well first of all you know there's an assumption that science and the scientific world view in some sense has won you know and and because it's so self-evident let's say because of what it can produce that people just will accept it and move forward with it but i'm not sure about that either i mean i think there's a strong anti-science movement afloat now i don't think there's any reason to assume that a scientific attitude of that sort would be stable um i mean it it's only 300 years old 400 i mean people don't like it when i say that because okay fine you can chase it back to some degree to the ancient greeks you know barely but really it was newton and bacon and and descartes and and that's not very long ago and we take it for granted but there's anti-science movements popping up well look the whole debate over biology to some degree is profoundly an anti-science movement and and not unconsciously so consciously so yeah very kind yes very consciously so yeah so i i don't think that there's any reason to assume something like that would be stable there's no evidence that it's stable let's say where whereas there is evidence for the stability of cultures that were non-scientific for thousands of years millions of years for that matter at least hundreds of thousands of years there was a lot of war and death involved in those cultures too but that's sort of yes but i guess that would be your argument is that this is just the nature of this battle between these these two worlds that we live in

Channel: Pastor Kyle Bailey

Views: 16,192

Rating: 4.7728705 out of 5

Keywords: jordan peterson, sam harris, religion, pangburn philosophy, Jordan Peterson utterly destroys Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, jordan b peterson, jordan peterson destroys, jordan peterson debate, richard dawkins, jordan peterson vs richard dawkins, jordan peterson biblical series, jordan peterson vs athiest, atheism, jordan peterson interview, jordan peterson destroys atheist, jordan peterson debates atheist, jordan b peterson clips, jordan b peterson joe rogan

Id: o80elHTAg3s

Length: 6min 29sec (389 seconds)

Published: Sun Sep 12 2021