Subtitles section Play video
-
Well, good evening, London
-
Two weeks ago Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson
-
Met in person for the first time on stage in Vancouver
-
Two nights ago the three of us got together for the first time in Dublin and it's a huge thrill for all of us
-
To now be here with you in the o2
-
As I said to Travis when these events were planned I'm not moderate enough to be a moderator
-
But I'm going to do a little bit of
-
fielding to begin with
-
so
-
Let me start by saying a little of some of the ground. We are going to be trying to cover here tonight
-
We're going to be dealing with the conflict between science and reason
-
We're going to be addressing the legitimacy did I say science and reason
-
We're not addressing that
-
We're going to be looking at the legitimacy of holding on to religion in any form and
-
We are also going to be addressing the fact that we need to hide in a sports stadium
-
to address serious issues
-
But I think to begin with I'm going to hand over to Sam and he's going to kick us off properly
-
Thank you. And first thank you all for coming out. I you really can't imagine how humbling this is
-
Be here with you
-
You really just should just take a moment to appreciate this from our side because
-
Justin Bieber is not coming out to sing and in the middle of this as amusing as that would be
-
and you know though we
-
Put a date like this on the calendar with apparent confidence
-
There's really no guarantee that you guys are going to show up and we will never take this for granted
-
So it's really an immense privilege to be here with you. So
-
I thought I could start by
-
first acknowledging how fun this has been to have this these series of dialogues
-
With Jordan now, this is the fourth event. We've done and the second with Douglas and
-
We clearly share a common project we are trying to figure out how to live the best lives possible
-
both individually and collectively and we're trying to figure out how to
-
build societies
-
that safeguard that opportunity for as many people as possible and I think we each have a sense that
-
Ideas are really the prime movers here
-
That is it's not that the world is filled with bad people doing bad things because that's what bad people do
-
Oh, there's some of that it it is mostly that
-
So much of humanity is living under the sway of bad ideas
-
And it's bad ideas that can cause good people or at least totally normal people like ourselves
-
to do bad things all the while trying to to
-
Live the best possible lives and that really is the tragedy of our circumstance that we can be that confused
-
So this is where the difference between Jordan and and me in particular opens up
-
Which is how do you view religion in this in this contest of between good ideas and bad ideas and for me religion?
-
emphatically
-
gets placed on the side of bad and old and and
-
worth retiring ideas or ideas worth retiring and
-
I
-
Guess I but by analogy I would I would
-
Ask you to consider astrology right now Hannah. Maybe I can just get a sense of what I'm talking to
-
What percentage of you I want to know believe in astrology which is to say but who among you and you can signal this by?
-
by applause or howls of
-
Enthusiasm what what percentage of you let me just spell it out. So I know you know what you're committing to
-
And you know how crazy your neighbor is in fact
-
What percentage do you believe that human personalities and human events and the difference between good and bad luck and a human life is the
-
result of
-
What the planets are doing against the background of stars?
-
Let's hear it somebody out there
-
Okay, so then you should know that something like 25% of your your neighbors believe that
-
There you go, so the
-
I'm here. Wait, wait wait, I'm hearing I'm hearing a heckler among the astrologers is that
-
Is the FIR the first?
-
Astrological heckler I've heard haha
-
You must be an aries, sir
-
So it won't surprise you I have a related question which is
-
What
-
what percentage of you I want to know our
-
religious which is say well who among you believe in God a
-
Personal God a God that can hear prayers a God that can take an interest in the lives of human beings and occasionally
-
Enforce good outcomes versus bad outcomes
-
What who among you and now again, I want to hear applause or silence believe in it that sort of God
-
Okay, so this is my concern is my concern with with what Jordan has been saying and right in
-
lo these many months
-
I
-
Feel that you're in danger of misleading these the second group of people that the way you talk about God
-
has convinced and will continue to convince some percentage of humanity that
-
It's it's fine to hold on to this old sword of God this God that can hear prayers and they can intervene or not in
-
the lives of human beings
-
And you know as we've begun to explore that I think there are a lot of problems with that kind of belief
-
If nothing else there are many such gods on offer and there and and devotion to them it becomes irreconcilable among the true believers and
-
My concern is it you could do
-
Exactly what you do with religion with astrology, right? It would be it would be no more legitimate to to
-
Obfuscate the boundary between clear thinking and and
-
superstition there because
-
the
-
This traditional God and the and the doctrines that support him or are no firmer ground
-
Than astrology is now today an astrology
-
Almost everything you say about religion
-
It's the fact that his organized human thinking for thousands of years that it's a cultural Universal
-
that every every group of people has has given rise to some form of it that it has archetypal significance that it
-
has powerful stories all of that can be said about astrology and it and in fact some additional things can be said about
-
astrology that are would argue in its favor for instance astrology is
-
Profoundly egalitarian, you know, there's there's no bad zodiac sign every whoever you are. Everyone's got a great zodiac sign and
-
You know, it's just a inconvenient fact of the discipline that if I read you Charles Manson's horoscope
-
you know 95% of the audience would find it relevant and
-
and that's just that's how easily falsifiable stralla g is but
-
My concern is that we could live in a world
-
Where societies are shattered over things like, you know different zodiac
-
Interpretations and we don't live in that world for good reason because we have beaten
-
Astrology into submission and I would say that religion in terms of revealed religion and belief in a personal God
-
is over the centuries getting the same treatment by science and rationality and should be and it is a a
-
Preferred circumstance that we live in a world that is that is shattered by religion
-
So, I think what I'll do first is adopt the
-
Exceptionally difficult and likely counterproductive position of saying something
-
Not so much in defense of religion, but in defense of astrology
-
knowing
-
knowing full well that that's fundamentally a fool's errand but there's something I want to point out is that
-
First of all
-
Astrology
-
was astronomy in its nascent form and
-
astrology was also science in its nascent form just like alchemy was chemistry in its nascent form and
-
so sometimes
-
You have to dream a crazy dream
-
with all of the error that that crazy dream entails
-
Because you have an intuition that there's something there
-
To motivate you to develop the intuition to the point where it actually becomes of genuine practical utility
-
now when we look back on the astrologers and
-
we view their contributions to the history of the world with
-
contempt we should also remember that the people who built Stonehenge for example, and the first people who decided
-
determined that our fates were in part written in the stars were people whose
-
Astrological beliefs were indistinguishable from their astronomical beliefs and you might think well in what sense is your fate?
-
written in the Stars and I would say
-
It's certainly the case insofar as there are such things as cosmic regularities
-
so it was the dream of
-
astrology that there was some relationship between the movement of the planetary bodies and the fixed stars and
-
Human destiny and that's what drove us to build the first
-
astronomical
-
observatories and to also determine that there was a proper time for planting and a proper time for
-
Harvesting and a way of orienting yourself in the world for example by using the north
-
It's also the poetic
-
ground that enabled us to identify the notion that you could look up and orient yourself towards the heavens and that there was a
-
Metaphorical relationship between that and positioning yourself properly in life and at a deeper level
-
The the the cosmos was the place that the human imaginative drama was
-
Externalized and draped itself out into the world as something that was essentially observable so that we could derive great
-
orienting fictions from the observation of our imagination and so
-
Part of the problem that that Sam is pointing to is the difficulty of distinguishing
-
Valid poetic impulse from invalid poetic impulse and that really is a tremendous problem
-
You you see that arise also in people who have religious delusions attendant upon manic depressive disorder or schizophrenia
-
but so much of what eventually
-
Manifests itself is hard core pragmatic scientific belief has its origin in wild flights of poetic
-
Fantasy and it's also the case by the way that that's actually how your brain is organized
-
As far as I can tell that when you and and it isn't just me. I actually it's it's there's a very large
-
What would you call it research literature?
-
Outlining the relative functions of the right and left hemisphere and it certainly appears to be the case that when we encounter something. Absolutely
-
unknowable or unknown
-
What we do is drape that unknown thing in fantasy as a first pass
-
approximation to the truth and then refine that fantasy as a consequence of
-
Iterative critical analysis and so Sam believes that what should happen
-
Is that the the poetic and fictional domain should be some planted by the rational domain?
-
Well, let me just close the loop there
-
it's not quite I think we we need poetry and fiction and then there's there's more to engage in with reality than being a
-
Scientist in a white lab coat, but we need to be able to clearly distinguish
-
fact from fantasy or fact from mere merely fertile flights of the imagination and
-
we want to be rigorous there and rational there and it's not that it's not that there's no place or
-
Mere creativity. That's not well, I guess well
-
then the rails of rationality look fair enough then but I mean then then partly what we are disputing is the the relevant the
-
What the relative import and the of those two domains?
-
Let's say the heretic and the fictional and the rational and status of religion now in that
-
Well, I have a hard time reconciling that to some degree with your with your more
-
What would you say formal statements about the problem?
-
because your mechanism the mechanism that you put forth above all outside of truth is
-
Rationality and it isn't clear to me if you're willing to allow the utility of spiritual experience
-
which you do and and and if you're willing to make
-
What would you say allowances for the necessity of the poetic imagination?
-
exactly how it is that that is also
-
Encapsulated under the rubric of pure rationality see
-
Let's see and here's something you can tell me what you think about this
-
And I've been thinking a lot about what Sam and I have been talking about by the way, you know
-
So I'm making the case in my writing that the democratic institutions not only grew out of the judeo-christian substrate
-
but that their that that they're properly ensconced within that substrate, but I'm also perfectly aware that
-
not every religious or poetic system gives rise to democratic institutions first and also that there are
-
Christian
-
Sub structures may be the most obviously in the case of the Russian Orthodox Church. Where the same
-
metaphysical principles apply but out of which a democracy did not emerge and so it does seem to me that
-
what we have in the West is the consequence of the interplay between the
-
fantasy predicated poetic
-
judeo-christian tradition and the
-
rational critique that was aimed at that by the
-
Enlightenment figures and that seems to me to mirror something like the proper balance between the right hemisphere and its poetic imagination
-
and the left hemisphere and it's critical capacity and
-
Then I would say that part of the way so one of the questions you brought up was. How do we
-
Decide which let's say religious in
-
Intuitions are valid and I think we do that in part through
-
negotiated agreement, you know because people have
-
Look even even among the Catholics say in the medieval time. There was an absolute horror of heresy
-
So if you were some mendicant monk
-
And you had a profound religious vision?
-
the probability that you were going to be tried as a heretic and burnt at the stake was extremely high because even the
-
gatekeepers of the religious tradition realized that
-
religious revelation untrammeled by
-
Something like community dialogue something like that was something extraordinary
-
Danger and so I would agree with you that
-
The poetic imagination and the ground of religious revelation is something that can lead people dangerously astray
-
But I would say at the same time that it constitutes the grounds of our initial exploration and that it's actually in a radically necessary
-
Okay, well briefly address that and I want to ask a question that brings Douglas directly in here
-
I I think this is an instance of what's called the genetic fallacy the idea that because
-
Something emerged the way it did historically
-
As a matter of historical contingency, it is the the the the origin is in fact good and worth maintaining
-
or that it was in fact necessary that we couldn't get these good things like democracy any other way or were unlikely to and I
-
Would say that that there's no Abrahamic religion
-
That is the best conceivable womb of democracy or anything else
-
We like science that were a great place to get Douglass involved so it but but I would just add one other category of
-
Thinking here we have what we think is factual and
-
Methods by which we derive facts and I would put rationality there and an empirical engagement with with reality
-
then we have
-
other good things in life like
-
Fiction and and flights of fancy that are pleasing for one reason or another and could be generative
-
toward the first category, but then we also have
-
I know I would acknowledge we've spoken about this before
-
Useful fictions and cases I would you know, hope rare cases where where fiction is
-
more adaptive or more useful than the truth right that there's a
-
Sometimes the truth can can be not worth knowing and I would argue that they you know, there are those cases
-
Okay
-
But they're not so they're few and far between but we should focus on that but some degree of so
-
I wanted to point to Douglas here and focus on that because I think your fear Douglas is that
-
my style or you know, Richard Dawkins or style or Christopher Hitchens a style of
-
Anti theism, you know, just let's let's just throw the vicar's from the rooftops now because it's time to end this thing
-
Literally get off Twitter now. But yeah
-
That's a hashtag. Yeah. Yes
-
Your concern has been that
-
And I think what Jordan shares this that that so much of what is good in our Western developed societies?
-
is
-
The very least maintained by mayn't maintaining
-
so-called
-
Judeo-christian values or the or the remnants of our past religiosity and that you know
-
there is a baby in the bath water that can be difficult to discern and
-
We can to empty the tub all at once because and this is very much of because there's a zero-sum
-
Contest with the the religious enthusiasm. We see coming from the Muslim world