I think that the question implies the wrong takeaway from the debate. He formerly taught at Harvard University and has published numerous articles on drug abuse, alcoholism and aggression. Sam sees harm in believing things that aren’t true, and much of his career is based on fighting those things. I’m not sure if he’s made that comparison, but I think he’d agree with it. But humans don’t need another supernatural belief system—or more tacit support for existing bad ones—as that’s just punting from our existing set of horrible choices. When you do, you find you align with what religion says about it. But only rationally grounded Christian faith can slay the old dragon of new atheism for good. Jordan Peterson’s fundamental drive is providing positive belief. Life would be so much easier without religion. In Jordan he hears someone otherwise logical and intelligent (and kind and useful) say 7 good things out of ten, and then use the last three to go off into what basically equates to numerology. If you find it valuable, please consider subscribing through this website. London , Vancouver, Dublin . The positions could have been rotated, and the topic changed, and I think it would have gone equally as well. This sent Sam into orbit, from which he seemed content to rain laser blasts upon Jordan’s head.
Sam Harris’s fundamental drive is removing people’s harmful beliefs. It becomes so much clearer and easier to understand when you look at the situation logically/scientifically - black and white - without nuance.
Sherdog.com is a property of Mandatory Media, LLC, monitoring_string = "5200e30beed193e5fe31f8bccc2bdcbf". This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. To be fair, Sam has mentioned elsewhere that he gets that pepole are asking for something, and that he recognizes that there’s a void there.

After watching the first Vancouver discussion I find myself compelled to engage. Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson have engaged in a series of debates that included Bret Weinstein and Douglas Murray as moderators, in addition to two podcasts.

And Sam is wrong to downplay Jordan’s extraordinarily noble attempts to provide a semi-rational and culture-based belief system to millions who need it. My concern is simply that he’s not making it clear enough that he has built a secular system that is not tied at all to supernatural belief. Anything that is good and useful in it (which he admits there is some) can be found in other ways that don’t require belief in the supernatural. They’re simply coming at the problem from opposite directions. Victory, or defeat, implies a finality to the question. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.

February 25, 2018 at 1:03 pm It seems to me that Harris is obsessed, not with “truth”, but with facts. And he disagrees with Sam’s tendency and willingness to discard religions outright because of their downsides. He is the author of Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief.

So Jordan sees value in all these traditional stories and narratives, and he wants to use that value to help people. At each of these venues (the first at the 3Arena in Dublin, and the second at the O2 Arena in London) there were something in the region or eight or nine thousand people in attendance. An Information Security Glossary of Terms. Joined: Apr 13, 2012 Messages: 7,155 Likes Received: 60. Jordan B. Peterson is a clinical psychologist and Professor at the University of Toronto. This same dynamic is at play with their new, more fundamental battleground of whether or not we should discard religion outright or whether there’s something useful there to preserve and make use of. Jordan B. Peterson is a clinical psychologist and Professor at the University of Toronto.

What I’m going to attempt to do in this post is succinctly capture what each of them is saying, why they disagree with each other, and then what their audiences—and the world as a whole—actually needs to hear. Topics like pro life/pro choice.