Share it with your friends Like

Thanks! Share it with your friends!


Pangburn Philosophy let me use this clip. He’re is a link to the full debate: Sorry, it’s behind a $10 paywall but they agreed to let me do commentary on some clips if I pointed people to the pay link. Let me know what you think of of this clip and the argument Haidt puts forward in the comments below.

#JordanPeterson #SamHarris #ThinkClub

Dr. Jordan B Peterson was raised as a Christian conservative, and began questioning religion in his early teens. He criticizes the New Atheists (specifically Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris) for oversimplifying the philosophy of Christianity when making their critiques. Peterson often points to the symbolic underlying meaning of the archetypal ideas in religious mythology when explaining his understanding of religion.

He grew up in Fairview, Alberta, Canada, a small town of 3,000 people 580 km (360 mi) northwest of Edmonton, Alberta. He resided in Montreal from 1985 to 1993, where he studied under the supervision of Robert O. Pihl and Maurice Dongier. From 1993 to 1998 he lived in Arlington, Massachusetts, while teaching and conducting research at Harvard. He has resided in Toronto since 1998.

At the age of 13, Peterson had joined the New Democratic Party (NDP). He remained continually active with party until the age of 18. He has two bachelor degrees from the University of Alberta. His first was in political science. After visiting Europe, Peterson became extremely interested in the psychological unpinning that created the circumstances of the Cold War and its origins within the Second World War. After this experience, he returned to the university to complete another bachelor in psychology.

He received his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from McGill University. He taught at Harvard University as an assistant and an associate professor. There he studied aggression arising from drug and alcohol abuse. During his time at Harvard, the university psychology department would frequently send any student with a strange or unusual thesis to him, as he would be willing to entertain and supervise uncommon thesis proposals. After Harvard, he returned to Canada and took a position at the University of Toronto.

In March of 2017, Peterson was nominated for the position of Rector of the University of Glasgow. Peterson who received 442 votes came fifth in the election, losing to the Scottish lawyer Aamer Anwar who received just under 4500 votes.

Video Notes
This video was color corrected and the audio was enhanced for the best possible viewing and listening pleasure.

Video Sources
Pangburn Philosophy
Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson – Vancouver – 1

Jordan Peterson Links
Self Authoring Program:

Books I’ve Read
Part 1:
Part 2:

My Livestream Channel


Outro Song
JBPWAVE5 : A Jordan Peterson Lofi Hip Hop Mix



Think Club says:

I love reading your comments. There are still a bizarrely steady amount of comments from people who think I am religious and I am arguing for a belief in God. I am arguing for an end to this assault on western christianity as if these people are all crazed science deniers on the verge of stoning non-believers. Politicizing a war between science and religion is only going to turn religious people against science and non believers against religious people. This current incarnation of antitheists are wrong on both the science and the politics.

Jason White says:

Sam is notorious about omission of critical information.

The bible may advocate a death penalty for homosexuality in Leviticus but there is a a big BIG problem… it was never enforced.

1st Kings 14:24, 15: 12 and 2nd Kings 23:7 features male prostitutes, which don't exactly cater to the female demographic.

Obvious question: how did they get there? If homosexuality is a capital offense, how did they get there, were not only there but a thriving business, because they had their own buildings. How does that happen?

Potent Potables says:

Think "through a religious perspective" club.

Paul VanderKlay says:

That's helpful. Thanks.

Kurt Dimon says:

It is crazy to see how Harris Dumbs himself down to maintain his position. Classic defense mechanism of the people he's criticizing.


The answer to every single problem and issue that comes before God is……….KILL!                The answer is murder kill stone burn.Even a positive. Salvation of man. God said to himself, " I want to forgive man and give him a way out, how shall I do this?"              I know. Ill send my son to earth and fucking kill him. That will do the trick.

Cryovolcanic Cowpuncher says:

Think club hah…more like brainless asshole club

CrossBorderFire says:

See, when Harris gives his interpretation (which is a literal interpretation) it gets progressively clear he ignores the layers and layers of meaning that justifies the existence of his own example (sacrifice a goat). By his own example you can dissect his shallowness, goat is not only a goat. Goat is a living creature, to sacrifice a goat means to sacrifice a living animal. For what purpose? For the sake of providing food for us, provide fur and more, sacrifice the free living of that animal for the constant procreating of the creature for a lifetime of supply for us.
Take it literally and you'll see a religious deity telling you to commit animal mutilation. Take it psychologically, socially, culturally, and you'll find so much more to the intrinsic meaning that may exist in a superficial and brute reading of said religious texts.

Mr Brass says:

0:300:44 In case you are wondering is talking about Deuteronomy 22:20-21 and Sam Harris like a lot of Atheists and Christians don't get that Ancient Near East law codes were didactic and not penal. Sam is engaging in what historians would call presentism and is engaging in the historian's fallacy aka when someone assumes the people whom were making these decisions in the past viewed them in the same perspective as the one reading it.

Scrupulous Atheist says:

Hey Think Club, I saw the whole debate and I loved it. The Sam Harris/Jordan Peterson debate is one well worth watching because it shows how people can come to different conclusions depending on how strongly one weighs their values despite both drawing from the same bodies of science. They both agree more than disagree, JP definitely gave up more ground in total because it is simply easier to be skeptical, but Jordan is no dummy.
I'm an agnostic atheist, I could, if pressed, take on the moniker of "Christian atheist" uncomfortably (ala the way Robert M. Price describes it). I share way more values with Christians than I do with Muslims or Buddhists. I admire Buddhism and detest Islam. I can see within myself how my behavior and ideas have been influenced by Christianity thanks to Peterson, but my criticism of Peterson is that he isn't sufficiently skeptical because of his extreme fear of moral nihilism, or at least, he believes that's where one goes if not adopting his minimum set of ideas. Just to be clear, JP in this debate does not believe in/defend Biblical literalism, an Omni god or even that Jesus' resurrection was in fact "real" (which are central tenets of what it is meant as Christian in most cases). He defines his idea through evolutionary psychology that the stories behind the Christian stories are just as "real" as the evolution of bipedalism, for example.
My criticism of Harris is that I sometimes think he is being deliberately obtuse because of his fear of dogmatism. There are points that JP makes that could be conceded and nothing would have been lost regarding his central thesis. For example, I'm not sure if all stories that have moral value can be presented axiomatically the way Harris wants them to be. Godel's work would come to bear on Harris if he chose to go forward in that way.
That said while we can survive without the religion appendix, let us be sure the appendix is worth excising since it seems to be a probiotic reservoir that can help re-introduce healthy flora after antibiotic use.

Max Müller says:

Really? You think Harris makes a case for a literal reading of the bible? The man would prefer it if you didn't read it at all.
He's just pointing out what a literal reading could lead to, and we know that many people take their religious texts literally. Jihadis, christians handling rattlesnakes etc.
He's trying to make the point that you could encode any desirable heuristic in a story that couldn't be confused as condoning stoning anyone.

Comments are disabled for this post.