In a recent podcast episode, Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris delve into their contrasting views, attempting to find common ground amidst their differing perspectives on various issues.

I aim to reflect on key points from this conversation that spans topics such as science, morality, and religious beliefs. Although both Jordan and Sam have authored multiple works and participated in various discussions and debates, my focus here will be strictly on this particular podcast episode.

Evil

The discussion initiates with a straightforward observation: there are moments when we can unequivocally recognize something as evil. Peterson cites the example of a guard at Auschwitz who relishes his role. This resonates universally; there are instances where we instinctively discern good from evil without needing philosophical or religious frameworks. While Peterson's example is extreme, it underscores a consensus: we can all agree that such acts are evil.

From this shared acknowledgment, Harris contends that understanding absolute good or evil is unnecessary. Instead, he argues that what truly matters is the pursuit of improvement. He posits that science can guide us towards what is better, proposing several heuristics that address advancements in mental, economic, social, and even spiritual realms.

Dogma of Religion

Building on the theme of evil, Peterson suggests that Harris may possess a form of religious belief but is hesitant to acknowledge it. In response, Harris critiques the dogma associated with religion, pointing to how extremist groups like the Taliban exploit religious texts for violent acts, while other interpretations do not lead to similar outcomes. He contends that many religions' foundational doctrines are treated as infallible, leaving no room for reevaluation. He questions the validity of adhering to absolute truths when new evidence could challenge these beliefs.

Absolute Vs Direction

Harris's assertion that understanding absolute good or evil isn't essential, and that merely seeking a better direction suffices, is thought-provoking, particularly in our scientific era. I would like to highlight a few points regarding this:

1. For believers in religion who hold views of absolute good and evil, utilizing science to aid in navigating these concepts is not only valid but also crucial. The existence of gray areas in life's complexities means that scientific insights can provide valuable guidance, thus presenting no inherent contradiction between macro and micro concepts.
2. Understanding science as a method is vital. Science operates similarly to a recipe; it is an approach for testing hypotheses. However, scientific findings are not static and can evolve. Truths in science require extensive time to solidify and can be invalidated or overturned. The variability and inconsistency of scientific results, especially in psychology, necessitate a cautious and critical approach when applying scientific conclusions.
3. The research community often lacks complete objectivity, influenced by researchers' subjective biases. This raises questions about the integrity of findings, particularly regarding absolute good and evil. History shows that different cultures, including Muslim societies during their golden age, have engaged with science without conflict with religious beliefs.
4. While Harris asserts he is non-religious, he frequently acknowledges the legitimacy of spiritual experiences. Many individuals today pursue spiritual development through practices like meditation and yoga without adherence to traditional religions. This raises questions about the nature of spirituality and its distinction from psychological processes.

Harris's stance on not being religious, grounded in critiques of dogma, suggests that it should be possible to engage with religious beliefs critically while remaining open to new evidence. This leads us to the question of why such openness is often difficult to achieve.

Infallibility of Belief

Religions often hold assumptions regarded as infallible. For instance, in Abrahamic faiths, the belief in a singular God is fundamental. Here are a few thoughts:

1. Different epistemologies exist within religious contexts. Adherents often believe in aspects of reality beyond scientific scrutiny, such as the existence of the soul. Harris's critique of religion's infallibility must be viewed in light of the limitations of a solely materialistic scientific approach.
2. Regarding Islam, I haven't explored Harris's book on the subject, but from the podcast, it appears he adopts a media-influenced understanding of the religion. His claims about the Quran's role in inciting terrorism overlook the broader context of violence across various ideologies.
3. There is a significant disparity between how Islam is practiced in different cultures and what the religion itself teaches. The assumptions made about Islam based on extremist actions do not reflect the beliefs of the majority of Muslims worldwide.

In conclusion, the podcast offers a compelling exploration of complex issues, and I recommend giving it a listen. My intention is to address some gaps in the discussion and encourage dialogue on these intricate topics, recognizing the challenges faced by those raised in secular environments when grappling with concepts of religion and science.