Jordan Peterson vs. Sam Harris on God

[Rational Agnostic]

I watched this debate today, and it confirmed my suspicions that Jordan Peterson is a fraud. He's trying to invent a new concept of "god" that has no real meaning yet somehow try to sit on the fence about the claims of Christianity. His intellectual dishonesty is astounding, and is revealed fully about midway through when Sam asks him if he believes Jesus was physically resurrected. Peterson responds to this question stating that it would take him 40 hours to answer that question. What a laughable response to such a simple question. He knows he can't give a straight answer because he's trying to play both sides, and knows he'll alienate half his audience if he takes a side, and thus lose half his money. He uses a lot of words, but ultimately says nothing meaningful and Sam Harris reveals this clearly when pressing him on these issues.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I've never been much a fan of Peterson. Absurd Christian mental gymnastics to justify a belief he knows otherwise can't, doomsday prophesy over an adjustment in Canadian law, and he consistently failed to impress me or challenge my views (Harris basically wrecked my former views on free will). Though, Harris at times I do find to preachy to the choir.

 

[SomeRandom]

Omg The Lobster King!!
Is he out of his drug induced coma yet? Not trying to be mocking when I ask that, like I don’t wish ill upon him. But after being touted as this big name philosopher for so long, it’s surreal watching his drug induced downward spiral.

 

[Skwim]

.

Couldn't get past the three minute mark

Question: Why should anyone care what this guy thinks? (I've never heard of him before)

.

.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It's too easy to target Peterson when one should just target his propositions, many of which I disagree with, but I do know he is no slouch in thinking and any who think they are better should explain how they are rather than do the usual of targeting him personally. He might be wrong on many issues but he is a lot better than some when it comes to honesty.

 

[Altfish]

It's too easy to target Peterson when one should just target his propositions, many of which I disagree with, but I do know he is no slouch in thinking and any who think they are better should explain how they are rather than do the usual of targeting him personally. He might be wrong on many issues but he is a lot better than some when it comes to honesty.

He is a good debater and can certainly think on his feet, he uses complex words and phrases that most mere mortals have to think about to understand. By the time I've got my head around what he is saying, I've missed the next two sentences. I find the same with William Lane Craig

 

[Regiomontanus]

I watched this debate today, and it confirmed my suspicions that Jordan Peterson is a fraud. He's trying to invent a new concept of "god" that has no real meaning yet somehow try to sit on the fence about the claims of Christianity. His intellectual dishonesty is astounding, and is revealed fully about midway through when Sam asks him if he believes Jesus was physically resurrected. Peterson responds to this question stating that it would take him 40 hours to answer that question. What a laughable response to such a simple question. He knows he can't give a straight answer because he's trying to play both sides, and knows he'll alienate half his audience if he takes a side, and thus lose half his money. He uses a lot of words, but ultimately says nothing meaningful and Sam Harris reveals this clearly when pressing him on these issues.

I don't know anything about Peterson. But after watching several video debates involving Harris and reading a couple of his books I have to say he is a boob. Really just embarrassing, sophomoric babble for the most part.

 

[Mock Turtle]

He is a good debater and can certainly think on his feet, he uses complex words and phrases that most mere mortals have to think about to understand. By the time I've got my head around what he is saying, I've missed the next two sentences. I find the same with William Lane Craig

Same here, but I have an excuse, since I'm an old fogey and the last time I got involved in the thinking and study required to do justice to what is said in such debates was several decades ago. But I am not so judgmental as many it seems when I can at least recognise reasonable arguments even if I tend to disagree with much said. Perhaps Peterson is being evasive on many issues so as not to offend - no problem for Harris (or me actually).

I think it is in our nature as humans (being so vulnerable and having a finite life) and our relationship to all else that religious concepts form, so not necessarily reflecting any reality, and might or might not be useful for us. I tend to the not side, given that they are often as much baggage as aids. Also, I don't think that objective or ultimate values exist (or such morality), just that there might be some better ones to suit humans if we could only find them. And it is the freedom to do so, rather than being chained to the past (by various beliefs) that our hope lies in my view.

 

[firedragon]

I watched this debate today, and it confirmed my suspicions that Jordan Peterson is a fraud. He's trying to invent a new concept of "god" that has no real meaning yet somehow try to sit on the fence about the claims of Christianity. His intellectual dishonesty is astounding, and is revealed fully about midway through when Sam asks him if he believes Jesus was physically resurrected. Peterson responds to this question stating that it would take him 40 hours to answer that question. What a laughable response to such a simple question. He knows he can't give a straight answer because he's trying to play both sides, and knows he'll alienate half his audience if he takes a side, and thus lose half his money. He uses a lot of words, but ultimately says nothing meaningful and Sam Harris reveals this clearly when pressing him on these issues.

So based on that question you decided he was a complete fraud? Or did you decide that he is a fraud only when it comes to Jesus's resurrection?

 

[columbus]

So based on that question you decided he was a complete fraud? Or did you decide that he is a fraud only when it comes to Jesus's resurrection?

Here's the first sentence of his post:

I watched this debate today, and it confirmed my suspicions that Jordan Peterson is a fraud. H

I think Peterson is smart, articulate, and very opinionated. I don't really think he's a fraud, but I have often found myself vehemently disagreeing with him.

But I have to admit, his response to that question sure looks dodgy to me.
Tom

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I don't know anything about Peterson. But after watching several video debates involving Harris and reading a couple of his books I have to say he is a boob. Really just embarrassing, sophomoric babble for the most part.

I disagree. Harris offers practical solutions to reduce suffering in one's life. Implementing his mindfulness techniques has improved my life and without them, I'd quite possibly be a drug addict like Peterson.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not going to watch the video, but if your basis for dismissing them is that they are "inventing" a new god-concept, that's not really a compelling counterargument. Ideas about gods are already tremendously diverse both historically and in the present. Gods are quite literally anything a person or culture chooses to deify - anything that they deem worthy of worship, or high regard, worthiness, value, and so on. It's like an honorific title. And the attributes of the thing the title is applied to can and do vary tremendously. The best thing for an atheist to do when confronted with god-concepts that would be ridiculous to disbelieve in is simply say "I don't agree with calling that god" and move on. Otherwise, you end up with stupid things like implying disbelief in the sun and the moon.

 

[Quiddity]

He’s not in the good graces of many nontheist and liberal minded outlets; so chances are he’s going to get repugnant responses from people that haven’t invested the time. He is not very good with sound bites at all. His responses take a while to unpack and you will find both theist and nontheist agreeing and disagreeing to varying degrees.

 

[columbus]

I'm not going to watch the video, but if your basis for dismissing them is that they are "inventing" a new god-concept, that's not really a compelling counterargument. Ideas about gods are already tremendously diverse both historically and in the present. Gods are quite literally anything a person or culture chooses to deify - anything that they deem worthy of worship, or high regard, worthiness, value, and so on. It's like an honorific title. And the attributes of the thing the title is applied to can and do vary tremendously. The best thing for an atheist to do when confronted with god-concepts that would be ridiculous to disbelieve in is simply say "I don't agree with calling that god" and move on. Otherwise, you end up with stupid things like implying disbelief in the sun and the moon.

You are so sensible about this sort of thing I have trouble seeing you as a theist.
Tom

 

[firedragon]

Here's the first sentence of his post:

I think Peterson is smart, articulate, and very opinionated. I don't really think he's a fraud, but I have often found myself vehemently disagreeing with him.

But I have to admit, his response to that question sure looks dodgy to me.
Tom

Brother. I am no Christian, and i dont intend to justify Peterson. He is no scholar in religion so he has no clue what he is talking about in terms of theology or the Bible for that matter.

But i would not call him a fraud. I also would not think its dodgy because maybe he has something behind his statement. Why would he say he will take time to answer a question? Maybe there is a reason. I dont know. I am not gonna pretend that i can read his mind.

Also I completely disagree with sam harris with his unfounded theory of nature of morality, and i agree with peterson to a certain degree with his.

Sam has no research whatsoever. Its just rhetoric. Sounds nice.

Peterson doesnt have research either, but his theory is based on occurences inn history which he associates with Christianity. Which i think is better reasoning than Sams.

To dismiss him as a fraud is utterly ludicrous, unless one person explains properly and i will accept i am totally wrong if!

Peace brother. Yet i think you have a sound head on your shoulders.

 

[shmogie]

I watched this debate today, and it confirmed my suspicions that Jordan Peterson is a fraud. He's trying to invent a new concept of "god" that has no real meaning yet somehow try to sit on the fence about the claims of Christianity. His intellectual dishonesty is astounding, and is revealed fully about midway through when Sam asks him if he believes Jesus was physically resurrected. Peterson responds to this question stating that it would take him 40 hours to answer that question. What a laughable response to such a simple question. He knows he can't give a straight answer because he's trying to play both sides, and knows he'll alienate half his audience if he takes a side, and thus lose half his money. He uses a lot of words, but ultimately says nothing meaningful and Sam Harris reveals this clearly when pressing him on these issues.

Who is Peterson? I have never heard of him.

 

[Thief]

I've been watching Peterson for some time now
he shines best (most do) in his own territory
lecturing in front a college students

like everyone he has strong well founded topics
and can undo most nay sayers with a few turns of rhetoric

I found his lecture of IQ and the workplace very interesting

he seems to understand why we think and feel as we do
and can firmly say when it's good....when it's bad

 

[Mock Turtle]

I've been watching Peterson for some time now
he shines best (most do) in his own territory
lecturing in front a college students

like everyone he has strong well founded topics
and can undo most nay sayers with a few turns of rhetoric

I found his lecture of IQ and the workplace very interesting

he seems to understand why we think and feel as we do
and can firmly say when it's good....when it's bad

This one perhaps - I was thinking about starting a thread on it and the implications of the 10% having an IQ of 83 or less (at 9:00 mins):

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Also I completely disagree with sam harris with his unfounded theory of nature of morality, and i agree with peterson to a certain degree with his.

Sam has no research whatsoever. Its just rhetoric. Sounds nice.

I actually don't really care about Sam's political/religious/moral commentary. However, his insights on the nature of mind and how to deal with negative emotions are actually very profound and useful. Of course, they're not really unique to him, but he articulates them well.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

He is a good debater and can certainly think on his feet, he uses complex words and phrases that most mere mortals have to think about to understand. By the time I've got my head around what he is saying, I've missed the next two sentences. I find the same with William Lane Craig

That's not good debating. That's just distracting and confusing people. Brevity and clarity are much better skills to have.