The 1 Thing Dawkins AND Peterson Get Wrong
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 січ 2025
- Dr. Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins discussed their different views on Abrahamic texts, the Bible, truth claims in science and fiction, and the extension of memes through Jungian archetypes.
The conversation was well-done, all parties came to the discussion with good faith, and passionate perspectives were made. But both Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins got one big thing wrong…
Neither found much middle ground during the conversation. It seemed like the two were missing each others’ points.
This video is a simple critique and invitation for viewers who found something lacking - a middle way.
Thank you for your insight! It is nice to see another side that may have been overlooked during the original interview. I do agree with you that Dawkins is a literalist however, I believe that Dawkins was pointing out (through most of the interview) that most of what Peterson considers his own logic/morals/values are all derived from his personal religious beliefs. Dawkins was making Peterson squirm through most of the interview with that fact. Peterson would deflect some main/basic questions (that were directly tied to the purpose Dawkins was trying to make) when asked directly. Just my opinion.
I appreciate your opinion! When you say Peterson considers his own logic/morals/values derived from religious beliefs, can you say more on this? From what I heard, Peterson did a pretty good job interweaving as many hard disciplines (cognitive neuroscience etc) into the symbolism that he finds. He wasn't perfect, but I thought he was trying to bridge the gap adequately.
@@mansal-denton Thank you! Regarding this recent interview, Dawkins was asking Peterson directly about the reality of certain religious figures being actual people. Instead of answering the question directly, he proceeds to go down an indirect rabbit hole (possible deflection/ Peterson: "I can imagine...") and he does not answer the question directly (yes/no/idk). It was right after Dawkins told Peterson that he was, "...drunk on symbols!" (~10 minutes into the interview).
I can see where (as Peterson) answering this question directly "could" place an unconscious bias on his teachings/practice/business. Not everyone who seeks guidance is seeking the wisdom of a religious power.
As for other interviews, Peterson has done a great job! I couldn't agree more with you. I find him very engaging and even a little emotional at times when he is getting really passionate about his thoughts. I am not against either of the doctors. I appreciate their views and input they bring to their respective listeners. 🙏
@@Just.Mike. Ah yes, I see the deflection part. I believe I loosely am on the same page as Peterson and I still would have said "I do not know" (which is the most truthful thing for anyone to say in my opinion).
Peterson later identifies that he's challenged to say something is "untrue" especially if it is going to be used to cast doubt on the entire enterprise of Christianity, which I understand (because O'Connor and Dawkins seem to, at times, have that intention).
All a guess. Thanks for your thoughts!
I think an interesting thought that might point to what you're trying to point at is this: When searching for the truth one basically asks themselves 'What is right?'. And the interesting thing about the question 'what is right?' is that one could respond with facts AND moral statements AND symbolism and perhaps even more dimensions. At some point Dawkins mentioned the following 'I think Jordan prioritizes symbols and I prioritize facts' (paraphrased). In some sense that means they are not competing with one another but rather completing one another. But that does require an attitude where you acknowledge legitimacy in the other dimensions of the question 'what is right?'. And those dimensions are facts, moral statements, symbolism and perhaps more. Ultimately we are human and we have more tools in our brain than just a 'hammer' to 'hit the nail on its head' regarding that question 'what is right?'.
Yes, and what is "right" can certainly be multiple things. I don't disagree with Dawkins in his definition of "right". I pose another question: what is right vs what is useful?
Dawkins' perspective might be right from a strictly evidenced-based perspective, but I don't see it as all that useful. Similarly, Peterson's perspective CAN be useful, but if we have some discernment (versus idealizing all teachings as symbolic).
Thanks for your thoughts!
The truth resides somewhere between sense and nonsense. We as humans need ways to condense a lot of information that's where the myth and symbols come in. Its what Carl Jung was trying to point out (one of Peterson's influences)
I agree with you, Luke. My fear, and our constant work, is to identify which myths and symbols serve the greatest good vs serve the propagation of institution of the faith (or theology etc).
Indeed, there is plenty of sense and nonsense in both materialist and strict Biblical interpretations.
I think the best middle ground is salience. Maybe we call out character archetypes because they stand out from the background. We see that humans are different from the other animals and there could be a turning point. Adam and Eve stand out from the background of the hominid evolutionary tree because they were called out by and answered to God. Eve was fashioned from Adam's rib because they participated a covenant of pairing and not simply a hormone driven copulation frenzy.......
Another way we do this is by codification through archetype. The behaviour is prevalent enough that fashioning characters to model it becomes useful as a didactic tool, like we do with political cartoons and sex ed videos. That would account for Cain and Abel personifying resentment and harm it causes. Especially in a resource poor environment where that could be devastating........
Is a story "deep" just because it's memorable? No.
Yes and no. If a story is deep because it causes millions of people to change their entire life and belief, it is necessarily deep in terms of what it touches in the human psyche.
Since the Roman era, you can imagine that every businessperson would have liked a story to have been as successful or lasted as long selling wine, olive oil, or the like.
The reason it transcends thousands of years and maintains strength is because of the depth inherent in the story.
But not ONLY because of the depth in the story; there are other elements (not always so positive) at work as well.
Hey look who it is 👍🏼
It me! Let me know if you're interested in this type of content. Thanks for the support!