Jordan Peterson vs Susan Blackmore • Do we need God to make sense of life?
Video Statistics and Information
Channel: Unbelievable?
Views: 1,519,089
Rating: 4.8361173 out of 5
Keywords: unbelievable, justin brierley, premier christian radio, christianity, atheism, philosophy, faith, theology, Jordan Peterson, the big conversation, susan blackmore, debate, sam harris, richard dawkins, Atheist, Atheism, Humanism, Secular, Christian, Christianity, Faith, Debate, Apologetics, Theology, Science, Philosophy, God, Existence of God, Evidence
Id: syP-OtdCIho
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 47min 0sec (2820 seconds)
Published: Fri Jun 08 2018
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.
I'd like to take a moment to remind everyone of our first commenting rule:
This sub is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed.
I am a bot. Please do not reply to this message, as it will go unread. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
[removed]
Seems like JBP's idea of God more like, whatever you put at the top of a hierarchy of value takes the function of a God.
Someone should start off by asking him what his God is and how he worships that God to get definitions straight. Cause it seems like every discussion of his with an Atheist on the issue gets no where because you're probably not talking about the same thing.
This interview felt more like an ad for the book btw.
Summary from Susan Blackmore's facebook page:
This is the first reddit thread related to JBP that hasn’t gone completely off the rails within the first 10 minutes. Keep it up guys!
It was really frustrating how every time she began to give an insightful answer, or explain an interesting topic, she’d be cut off by the mediator. He showed a heavy bias towards Jordan regarding the lengthy pandering and bringing up the book. You can actually see the look on her face when he cuts her off and switches the focus to 12 Rules for Life.
As with Jordan’s argument, I think I can see what he’s saying. Essentially, humans tend to place something at the top of their hierarchy whether they like it or not. It doesn’t have to be a god. However, he seems to imply that this was placed by a deity and not just a result of evolution. Or that since it happens, there must be some legitimacy behind it. His focus on the Judeo-Christian values sort of reminds me of a Christian apologetic, also.
Just to add, for a guy who resents post-modernism, he seems to give some post-modern-like answers when it comes to altering definitions to make/fit the point he’s trying to make.
JP is arguing that atheists belive in God because they live by morals derived from God. I would argue that man made God and any morals from God are originaly from man. Atheist live by morals derived from man.
“I feel gratitude to the universe” one minute later. “I believe we live in a pointless universe”
Gratitude towards pointlessness, now that is something right there.
For Peterson, Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky are an ultimate and unquestionable authority to the point of complete irrationality, which is something that she should have pointed out more to expose his false arguments. He thinks that fiction like Crime and Punishment can be legitimately used to back his arguments because "Dostoyevsky makes the strongest characters, he never makes a straw man against which to test his arguments", which is plainly silly. You cannot use fictional work which is contrived to make point of authors world view as an argument. The only thing that the novel does is saying that you cannot kill someone and get away with it emotionally, which most of us already know that you cannot do unless you are not a psychopath, but in no way it does nor it can prove that Raskolnikov's trials somehow relate to spirituality and it's just an emotional roller-coaster and a good insight into human nature.