Peterson, Harris, etc....

Adebesi said:
Ive gone down a deep Harris shaped rabbit hole in the last few weeks, read one of his books (the one about free choice), listened to a dozen of his podcasts and watched all four of those debates with Peterson in full.

He makes that point repeatedly, about how these days if you know one opinion about a person you can more often than not predict their opinion about many other completely unrelated topics.
Click to expand...
I've started listening to Harris recently too. He is very different to the rest of the "crew".

I've also watched half of the 4 part Harris Peterson debate. I found Harris much more grounded and scientific in his point of view. Peterson would get upset or shaken when pressed too hard. I thought Harris came across very well.

I would have loved if Christopher Hitchens joined them on stage.
 
Adebesi said:
He makes that point repeatedly, about how these days if you know one opinion about a person you can more often than not predict their opinion about many other completely unrelated topics.
Click to expand...

I don't know who this Harris dude is (I dislike Peterson so I pay little attention to this topic), but damn, that seems so true. After the Ronaldo news broke I knew, at the next morning at work, who would have which opinions and in what basis they would justify them...

And, to be fair, a few of them probably knew the same about me.
 
I find Peterson's arguments to be a bit weak when confronted with Harris' usual schtick on religion and similar topics.

 
harris is still infatuated with religious ideologies and no one outside anti-muslim reactionaries have been interested in that stuff for a good half decade now, so it's no wonder he'll often find himself talking with dumbasses
 
dawkins is still touring and giving the same speeches as he was when new atheism was cool, but he hasn't tailored his criticisms to appeal to religious people who happen to hate one in particular so his profile has shrunk because the audience for "religion sucks" is minuscule compared to the "islam is the root of our problems" audience.
 
Silva said:
dawkins is still touring and giving the same speeches as he was when new atheism was cool, but he hasn't tailored his criticisms to appeal to religious people who happen to hate one in particular so his profile has shrunk because the audience for "religion sucks" is minuscule compared to the "islam is the root of our problems" audience.
Click to expand...

I thought he slowed down his speaking and touring after his stroke.
 
They were all bores.

The idea that we should long for the intellectual prowess of the bloke who stood on stage said 'flying spaghetti monster' and waited for applause is nonsense.
 
Fridge chutney said:
Who is longing for that?
Click to expand...
Some people?

I was somewhat accusing our Raoul of trying to big up his legacy, given his comments. Mainly I'm just inclined to make it abundantly clear whenever Dawkins is brought up that he was a biologist who tried his hand at theology despite knowing nothing about it and was unsurprisingly awful at it, as a result.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Some people?

I was somewhat accusing our Raoul of trying to big up his legacy, given his comments. Mainly I'm just inclined to make it abundantly clear whenever Dawkins is brought up that he was a biologist who tried his hand at theology despite knowing nothing about it and was unsurprisingly awful at it, as a result.
Click to expand...

I thought Dawkins was fairly well received for his attempt at theology, at least in a contemporary sense.
 
A bit like how Sam Harris, Jordan Petersen and all these other celebrity intellectuals talk utter shite because the fact they know things about neurology or psychology doesn't make them capable sociologists.
 
Raoul said:
I thought Dawkins was fairly well received for his attempt at theology, at least in a contemporary sense.
Click to expand...
Really? Are you sure you don't just mean he was well received by those in America who were crying out for someone to challenge your insane evangelicals?

If he was praised by many theologians, I missed that.
 
Raoul said:
Watching the video, Harris seems bewildered how the hell he went from Dennet, Hitchens, and Dawkins....to these clowns. :lol:
Click to expand...

One of those namea doesnt fit. Hitchens should be in with the clowns not mentioned alongside Dennet and Dawkins as he was a pioneer of low intelligence wind up instead of calm discourse.

Hitchens was really a foreshadowing of Trump - uncivil, full of hubris and obsessed with name calling people instead of formulating compelling arguments. Truly a bottom feeding disgusting human imo
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
One of those namea doesnt fit. Hitchens should be in with the clowns not mentioned alongside Dennet and Dawkins.

Hitchens was really a foreshadowing of Trump - uncivil, full of hubris and obsessed with name calling people instead of formulating compelling arguments. Truly a bottom feeding disgusting human imo
Click to expand...

So you don't like Hitchens then ?
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Some people?

I was somewhat accusing our Raoul of trying to big up his legacy, given his comments. Mainly I'm just inclined to make it abundantly clear whenever Dawkins is brought up that he was a biologist who tried his hand at theology despite knowing nothing about it and was unsurprisingly awful at it, as a result.
Click to expand...
Oh I see. I've never listened to Dawkins, I am not even sure what he looks like.

I think many people consume "celebrity intellectuals" for entertainment value rather than an attempt to seek enlightenment. I prefer some of the discussions to watching tedious and dull shows like the bog bang theory, for example.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Name rings a bell and a google shows a very familiar looking face but I can't place him. Were you going somewhere with this?
Click to expand...

He's sort of known as a counter argument to the likes of Harris and Dawkins. He and Harris has a long running feud about their competing interpretations of religion for a while.
 
Raoul said:
He's sort of known as a counter argument to the likes of Harris and Dawkins. He and Harris has a long running feud about their competing interpretations of religion for a while.
Click to expand...
Ahh, right. That'd be why I recognise the name then.
 
Raoul said:
I thought Dawkins was fairly well received for his attempt at theology, at least in a contemporary sense.
Click to expand...

In what circles? I don't know of a single academic in the field of Islamic theology who would take anything Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris or Aslan for that matter has to say on the topic seriously.
 
2cents said:
In what circles? I don't know of a single academic in the field of Islamic theology who would take anything Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris or Aslan for that matter has to say on the topic seriously.
Click to expand...

Definitely not in academic circles; mainly amongst us common folk who like to argue about religion.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
It really isn't. It's a study of something the has impacted the lives of a good few people.
Click to expand...

Well if you don’t believe in god then theology is just a load of nonsense and a giant waste of time that has never produced anything of actual, tangible value for humanity in all its existence. So I suspect Dawkins is just fine with not being embraced by the theological community :lol:
 
Borden said:
Well if you don’t believe in god then theology is just a load of nonsense and a giant waste of time that has never produced anything of actual, tangible value for humanity in all its existence. So I suspect Dawkins is just fine with not being embraced by the theological community :lol:
Click to expand...
You what? You think the validity of theology as a subject is dependent upon whether or not gods are real?
 
Arruda said:
I don't know who this Harris dude is (I dislike Peterson so I pay little attention to this topic), but damn, that seems so true. After the Ronaldo news broke I knew, at the next morning at work, who would have which opinions and in what basis they would justify them...

And, to be fair, a few of them probably knew the same about me.
Click to expand...
It's less surprising about something like football tbf. It's more problematic when people treat social policy - things like gun ownership, abortion, gay marriage, incarceration - in the same way you treat football. Ie utterly partisan.

Edit: I say that as someone whose views on all these things are completely aligned with the leftist perspective. Tho there aren't many people in the UK who aren't.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.