Key Moments
Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson in Vancouver 2018 (with Bret Weinstein moderating) — Second Night
Sam HarrisKey Moments
Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson debate the grounding of values in facts vs. tradition.
Key Insights
The current era requires upgrading our ability to discuss complex topics, as traditional institutions are failing.
Stories and religious narratives are valuable for encoding ancestral wisdom and guiding individuals through life's deepest questions.
A value system grounded in empirical facts and scientific understanding is crucial for navigating moral and social complexities.
Metaphorical truth, or useful fictions, can guide behavior even when not literally true, but can become dangerous when mistaken for literal truth.
Human sacrifice, while abhorrent, may have emerged from evolutionary pressures related to delayed gratification and survival, serving as a pathological extreme of these concepts.
The distinction between a 'bad life' and a 'good life' is universally apprehendable and serves as a factual basis for moral endeavor.
THE SYMPOSIUM'S PREMISE: UPGRADING DISCOURSE
The discussion between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson, moderated by Bret Weinstein, highlights a critical juncture in history where traditional sense-making apparatuses like political parties, universities, and journalism are faltering. This necessitates an upgrade in public discourse, emphasizing the ability to explore complex ideas with greater depth and nuance. The participants acknowledge the surreal privilege of gathering a large audience for such intellectual exploration, underscoring the significance of public engagement with ideas in the modern, interconnected era.
THE VALUE OF STORIES AND RELIGIOUS NARRATIVES
Jordan Peterson emphasizes the profound value of stories, particularly religious ones, in encoding ancestral wisdom and guiding individuals through fundamental life questions about what constitutes a good life. He argues against dismissing these traditions lightly, suggesting they offer insights borne from evolutionary experience. Sam Harris, while critical of religious fundamentalism, acknowledges the potential wisdom in religious phenomenology and narrative technology for orienting human life, albeit with caveats regarding dogma.
GROUNDING VALUES IN EMPIRICAL FACTS
Sam Harris posits that a robust value system, essential for avoiding the twin dangers of dogmatism and nihilism, must be grounded in empirical facts derived from science and technology. He suggests that concepts like flourishing and well-being can be measured and are factual claims. This scientific approach offers a foundation for moral assertions and navigation through life's complexities, contrasting with the arbitrary axioms of fundamentalism or the hopelessness of relativism.
METAPHORICAL TRUTH AND USEFUL FICTIONS
The concept of 'metaphorical truth' or 'useful fictions' emerges as a potential bridge between literal facts and the wisdom embedded in tradition. The analogy of treating every gun as if it were loaded illustrates how acting as if a proposition were true, regardless of its literal veracity, can lead to advantageous outcomes and prevent harm. This applies to religious narratives, where adherence to their prescriptions can yield benefits even if the literal claims are unsubstantiated.
THE EVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS AND CONSEQUENCES OF SACRIFICE
Jordan Peterson explores the concept of sacrifice, theorizing that practices like human sacrifice, though horrific, may have emerged from an evolutionary understanding of delaying gratification for future benefits. This motif, he suggests, pushed to extremes, illustrates the difficult lessons learned throughout human history regarding survival and societal organization. While acknowledging the danger and 'pathological extremes' of such practices, he seeks to understand their underlying behavioral and evolutionary logic.
THE MORAL LANDSCAPE AND THE NAVIGATION OF EXPERIENCE
Sam Harris frames morality as a navigation problem within a 'moral landscape' of possible conscious experiences, ranging from the 'bad life' (hellish circumstances) to the 'good life' (flourishing). He argues that this spectrum is universally apprehendable and that ethical endeavor involves moving towards the good. This involves grounding values in facts, even while acknowledging the complexity and potential for differing 'peaks' of well-being, suggesting that progress is possible through rational engagement and societal improvement.
THE CHALLENGE OF DOGMATISM AND TRADITION
A central point of contention is the role of dogmatism, particularly within religious traditions. Harris argues that the dogma embedded in religious texts and practices acts as an obstacle to open-ended conversation and necessary societal updates. Peterson, while agreeing that dogmatism can be problematic, suggests that some a priori structures, including those within religious thought, are necessary for perceiving and navigating the world, and that these structures may have evolved over long periods.
SCALING VALUES AND EMOTIONAL RESPONSES
The discussion grapples with whether our evolved heuristics for empathy and moral judgment scale effectively to modern, global challenges. Harris highlights that our tendency to respond intensely to individual narratives (like a single suffering child) can overshadow our response to abstract, large-scale suffering (like genocides), suggesting that rational frameworks are needed to correct these biases. Peterson counters that these evolved emotional responses, while limited, are not necessarily irrational but indicative of our biological and social limitations.
THE DEFINITION AND APPLICATION OF 'MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE'
The debate touches on whether religiously derived values that are morally reprehensible should be discarded, even if they have historically been effective or endured over time. Harris argues that beliefs should be abandoned if unsupported by evidence, regardless of their motivational power. Peterson suggests that while some aspects of tradition may seem pathological, they may contain enduring, useful elements; the challenge lies in discerning which parts to retain and how to adapt them without losing essential meaning.
THE 'BLACK BOX' OF ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS
Both participants acknowledge a 'black box' problem: Harris's reliance on rational engagement to establish values and Peterson's reliance on a priori structures for interpreting facts both contain elements not fully transparent or self-justifying. While Harris champions a transcendental rationalism, he admits even logic requires foundational, non-self-justifying moves. Peterson asserts that human lives are fundamentally guided by such a priori structures, which are necessary for valuing and orienting oneself, regardless of their origin.
EVIDENCE, FAITH, AND THE UTILITY OF BELIEF
The conversation delves into whether belief should be contingent on evidence or if useful fictions can be intentionally embraced. Harris criticizes the idea of believing something solely because it's beneficial, citing Pascal's Wager as an example of flawed reasoning. Peterson suggests that people often 'suspend disbelief' with stories and beliefs, and that this mechanism, while not equivalent to literal belief, has utility in navigating complex social and moral landscapes. Harris, however, maintains that excessive attachment to such beliefs, especially religious ones, can lead to harmful consequences.
THE ENDURING VALUE OF CONVERSATION
The discussion concludes with both Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson acknowledging the value of their open, albeit sometimes tense, conversation. They agree on the importance of seeking truth and making sense of consequential issues. Harris emphasizes the need to overcome the obstacles to open-ended discourse presented by religious dogma, while Peterson stresses the necessity of a priori structures for interpretation. Bret Weinstein commends the participants for their intellectual generosity and the audience for their engagement, highlighting the success of the event in promoting meaningful dialogue.
Mentioned in This Episode
●Software & Apps
●Books
●Concepts
●People Referenced
Common Questions
The core disagreement between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson lies in whether values can be solely grounded in observable facts (Harris) or if they require an a priori structure, often derived from ancient stories and evolved cultural practices (Peterson), which he considers necessary to navigate the world meaningfully.
Topics
Mentioned in this video
Moderator of the discussion, setting the stage and guiding the conversation between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson. He emphasizes the current breakdown of sense-making institutions and the importance of open dialogue.
A mass murderer mentioned by Sam Harris as a prototypical case where a brain tumor (glioblastoma pressing on his amygdala) provided a biological explanation for his 'evil' behavior, deflating the ethical category.
One of the two main speakers in the discussion, a neuroscientist, philosopher, and author. He advocates for grounding values in empirical facts and critiques religious dogmatism as an obstacle to human flourishing.
Author cited by Sam Harris, who used human sacrifice as an argument for the essential insanity of humanity due to scientific ignorance.
Used in a hypothetical example to illustrate intersubjective value; an ordinary glass deriving immense value from being used by Elton John at his last concert.
A psychologist known for moral studies, cited by Sam Harris for research showing that empathy diminishes with an increasing number of victims (e.g., one needy child vs. one child and her brother).
German mystic and theologian, used by Sam Harris as an example of a contemplative experience—a self-transcending union with consciousness—that can be achieved without religious dogma.
One of the two main speakers in the discussion, a clinical psychologist and professor. He argues for the deep, evolutionary, and metaphorical significance of ancient stories and religious narratives in human sense-making and behavior.
Evolutionary biologist and atheist author, cited by Sam Harris as someone whose writings can lead people to lose their faith after 'a collision against rationality'.
Used in a similar hypothetical example to Elton John, where the value of his guitar is not in the material but in the socially constructed hierarchy of values.
Used as an example of a 'worst evil person' that, under a complete neurological understanding, might be seen as 'unlucky' rather than purely evil, due to biological factors.
Discussed as a religion that, according to Sam Harris, does not repudiate human sacrifice but rather claims one necessary sacrifice (Jesus). Jordan Peterson counters that this is an upgrade freeing adherents from child sacrifice.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging, mentioned when discussing the hypothetical ability to scan brains to understand value. Jordan Peterson dismisses the current state of MRI data as 'junk' for such purposes.
Referenced alongside Buddhism as an Eastern context with a different rubric for understanding good and evil, where figures like Ravana are seen as obscured by ignorance, not truly evil.
A central concept in the discussion, particularly in the context of religious belief. Jordan Peterson describes living 'as if God exists' rather than a literal belief in an invisible person, connecting it to metaphorical truth and necessary behavioral patterns.
Cosmological theory used by Sam Harris in an analogy, arguing that fundamentalists sometimes pretend to care about scientific concepts like the Big Bang as a means to defend religious beliefs, even if it doesn't genuinely influence their daily lives.
A philosophical argument for believing in God, criticized by Sam Harris as making no sense. He argues one cannot simply choose to believe something for which there is no evidence simply because of perceived good effects.
Referenced by Sam Harris when discussing 'fundamentalist terror of Islam', indicating how tribal considerations can drive conflict. He argues that rejecting such provincialism does not require identifying with a smaller tribe.
The holy book of Islam. Sam Harris uses it to illustrate how certain religious texts are immune to criticism, contrasting how Muslims treat the Quran with how Christians treat the Bible. He later suggests burning a Quran would lead to severe consequences, highlighting the 'totemic attachment' to such objects.
Sam Harris's book, referenced by Jordan Peterson as where Sam lays out his concept of grounding values in facts, distinguishing between a 'bad life' and a 'good life' as a factual distinction.
More from Sam Harris
View all 278 summaries
13 minThe Permission to Hate Jews Has Never Been This Open
24 minThe DEEP VZN Scandal: How Good Intentions Nearly Ended the World
10 minThe War Was Necessary. The Way Trump Did It Wasn’t.
1 minBen Shapiro Knows Better
Found this useful? Build your knowledge library
Get AI-powered summaries of any YouTube video, podcast, or article in seconds. Save them to your personal pods and access them anytime.
Try Summify free